Quality Indicators for Rehabilitation Care Among Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: A Multicenter Study, Cross sectional study.

Abstract

Objective Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are among the most common disorders in the general population. Rehabilitation quality indicators (QIs) are one tool for assessing the quality and efficiency of healthcare resources. The aim of this study was to utilize one of the validated QIs to assess the current quality of rehabilitation services for RMDs in Egypt and Saudia Arabia.

Materials and Methods A cross-sectional survey study, in which rehabilitation unit managers answered 19 structure questions at the start of the test period using a web-based, structured questionnaire. While one to two months after completing a rehabilitation program, the patient answered 14 written questions based on 11 process and 3 outcome quality indicators.

Results 36 Egyptian and 43 Saudi healthcare workers, as well as 350 Egyptian and 331 Saudi patients, completed the questionnaires. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, more than 60% of rehabilitation units and service users agreed on the majority of quality indicator domains, including patient assessment and rehabilitation outcomes. The lowest pass rates for a rehabilitation unit structure QIs were the planning of two meetings between the patient and the team, meeting with next of kin, and access to meetings with some professionals, which also reflected the lowest quality domains observed by the service user in the process as regards patient participation in the rehabilitation process and planning of the period after rehabilitation.

Conclusion The quality of RMDs rehabilitation programs varies widely, both nationally and across countries. Quality improvement in specific aspects of RMD rehabilitation care is required.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Rheumatische und muskuloskelettale Erkrankungen (RMDs) gehören zu den häufigsten Erkrankungen in der Allgemeinbevölkerung. Rehabilitationsqualitätsindikatoren (QIs) sind ein Instrument zur Bewertung der Qualität und Effizienz von Gesundheitsressourcen. Ziel dieser Studie war es, einen der validierten QIs zu nutzen, um die aktuelle Qualität der Rehabilitationsdienste für RMDs in Ägypten und Saudi-Arabien zu bewerten.

Materialien und Methoden Eine Querschnittsbefragungsstudie, bei der Leiter von Rehabilitationseinheiten zu Beginn des Testzeitraums 19 Strukturfragen mithilfe eines webbasierten, strukturierten Fragebogens beantworteten. Ein bis zwei Monate nach Abschluss eines Rehabilitationsprogramms beantwortete der Patient 14 schriftliche Fragen auf der Grundlage von 11 Prozess- und 3 Ergebnisqualitätsindikatoren.

Ergebnisse 36 ägyptische und 43 saudische Gesundheitspersonal sowie 350 ägyptische und 331 saudische Patienten füllten die Fragebögen aus. In Ägypten und Saudi-Arabien waren sich mehr als 60 % der Rehabilitationseinrichtungen und Leistungsnutzer in den meisten Bereichen der Qualitätsindikatoren einig, darunter Patientenbeurteilung und Rehabilitationsergebnisse. Die niedrigsten Erfolgsquoten für die Struktur-QIs einer Rehabilitationseinheit waren die Planung von zwei Treffen zwischen dem Patienten und dem Team, Treffen mit den nächsten Angehörigen und der Zugang zu Treffen mit einigen Fachkräften, was auch die vom Servicenutzer beobachteten Bereiche mit der niedrigsten Qualität widerspiegelte der Prozess hinsichtlich der Beteiligung des Patienten am Rehabilitationsprozess und der Planung der Zeit nach der Rehabilitation.

Fazit Die Qualität der RMD-Rehabilitationsprogramme ist sowohl national als auch von Land zu Land sehr unterschiedlich. In bestimmten Aspekten der RMD-Rehabilitationsversorgung ist eine Qualitätsverbesserung erforderlich.

Key words

Outcome assessment - rehabilitation - questionnaire - quality-of-life

Schlüsselwörter

Outcomemessung - Rehabilitation - Qualitätsmanagement - Qualitätssicherung

Publication History

Received: 15 August 2023

Accepted: 02 November 2023

Article published online:
19 December 2023

• References

• 1 Cadilhac DA, Pearce DC, Levi CR. et al. Greater Metropolitan Clinical Taskforce and New South Wales Stroke Services Coordinating Committee. Improvements in the quality of care and health outcomes with new stroke care units following implementation of a clinician-led, health system redesign programme in New South Wales, Australia. Qual Saf Health Care 2008; 17: 329-333 DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2007.024604.. PMID: 18842970
• 2 Rutten GM, Degen S, Hendriks EJ. et al Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for low back pain in physical therapy: do patients benefit?. Phys Ther. 2010; 90: 1111-1122 DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20090173.. Epub 2010 May 20 PMID: 20488978.
• 3 Westby MD, Marshall DA, Jones CA. Development of quality indicators for hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018; 26: 370-382 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.10.020.. Epub 2017 Dec 30 PMID: 29292095.
• 4 Murray CJL, Vos T, Lozano R. et al Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380: 2197-2223 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4. Erratum in: Lancet. 2013 Feb 23;381(9867):628.
• 5 Johansen I, Klokkerud M, Anke A. et al A quality indicator set for use in rehabilitation team care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; development and pilot testing. BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 29 19: 265 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4091-4.. PMID: 31036000; PMCID: PMC6489243.
• 6 Westby MD, Klemm A, Li LC. et al Emerging role of quality indicators in physical therapist practice and health service delivery. Phys Ther 2016; 96: 90e100 DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20150106.. Epub 2015 Jun 18 PMID: 26089040; PMCID: PMC4706598.
• 7 Edwards JJ, Jordan KP, Peat G. et al Quality of care for OA: the effect of a point-of-care consultation recording template. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2015; 54: 844-853 DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keu411.. Epub 2014 Oct 20 PMID: 25336538; PMCID: PMC4416084.
• 8 Ryan AM, Doran T. The effect of improving processes of care on patient outcomes: evidence from the United Kingdom’s quality and outcomes framework. Med Care 2012; 50: 191-199 DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318244e6b5.. PMID: 22329994.
• 9 Baroni MP, Jacob MFA, Rios WR. et al The state of the art in telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal conditions. Arch Physiother 13: 1 2023; DOI: 10.1186/s40945-022-00155-0.
• 10 Rehabilitation 2030 – a call for action. Background paper: Rehabilitation: Key for health in the 21st century. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017
• 11 Peoples H, Satink T, Steultjens E. Stroke survivors’ experiences of rehabilitation: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Scand J Occup Ther 2011; 18: 163-171 DOI: 10.3109/11038128.2010.509887.. Epub 2010 Aug 11 PMID: 20701431.
• 12 Loupis YM, Faux SG. Family conferences in stroke rehabilitation: a literature review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013; 22: 883-893 DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.12.003.. Epub 2013 Jan 22 PMID: 23352687.
• 13 Wade DT. Evidence relating to assessment in rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 1998; 12: 183-186 DOI: 10.1191/026921598677470232.. PMID: 9688033.
• 14 Bhalla A, Suri V, Kaur P. et al. Involvement of the family members in caring of patients an acute care setting. J Postgrad Med 2014; 60: 382-385 DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.143962.. PMID: 25370546.
• 15 Holloway TM, Chesssex C, Grace SL. et al A call for adult congenital heart disease patient participation in cardiac rehabilitation. Int J Cardiol. 2011; 150: 345-346 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.05.031.. Epub 2011 Jun 8 PMID: 21641052.
• 16 Schoeb V, Bürge E. Perceptions of patients and physiotherapists on patient participation: a narrative synthesis of qualitative studies. Physiother Res Int. 2012; 17: 80-91 DOI: 10.1002/pri.516.. Epub 2011 Jul 13 PMID: 21755579.
• 17 Dankner R, Geulayov G, Ziv A. et al. The effect of an educational intervention on coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients’ participation rate in cardiac rehabilitation programs: a controlled health care trial. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2011; 11: 60 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-11-60.. PMID: 21982052; PMCID: PMC3214809.
• 18 Holliday RC, Antoun M, Playford ED. A survey of goal-setting methods used in rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2005; 19: 227-231 DOI: 10.1177/1545968305279206.. PMID: 16093413.
• 19 Melin J. Patient participation in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a concept analysis. Int Phys Med Rehab J 2018; 3: 36-42 DOI: 10.15406/ipmrj.2018.03.00071.
• 20 Lindberg J, Kreuter M, Person LO. et al Patient Participation in Rehabilitation Questionnaire (PPRQ)-development and psychometric evaluation. Spinal Cord. 2013; 51: 838-842 DOI: 10.1038/sc.2013.98.. Epub 2013 Sep 17 PMID: 24042990.
• 21 Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L. et al The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 80 (01) : 94-9 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034.. Epub 2009 Oct 30 PMID: 19879711.
• 22 Moradi-Lakeh M, Forouzanfar MH, Vollset SE. et al. Burden of musculoskeletal disorders in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 1990–2013: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2017; 76: 1365-1373
• 23 World Health Organization, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank. Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage 2018. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272465/9789241513906-eng.pdf?ua=1, accessed 25 November 2019).
• 24 Kerbl R, Sperl W, Strassburg HM. et al. Overview of Habilitation and Rehabilitation for Children and Adolescents in Europe. J Pediatr 2016; 172: 233-235.e2 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.12.078.. PMID: 27112093.
• 25 Stucki G, Bickenbach J. Functioning: the third health indicator in the health system and the key indicator for rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017; 53: 134-138 DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04565-8.. Epub 2017 Jan 24 PMID: 28118696.