Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research article

A quality indicator set for use in rehabilitation team care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; development and pilot testing

Authors: Inger Johansen, Mari Klokkerud, Audny Anke, Janne-Birgitte Børke, Thomas Glott, Uno Hauglie, Audhild Høyem, Atle Klovning, Karin Anna Lande, Mona Larsen, Jan Egil Nordvik, Sigrid H. Wigers, Irene Øyeflaten, Kaare Birger Hagen, Ingvild Kjeken

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Systems for monitoring effectiveness and quality of rehabilitation services across health care levels are needed. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test a quality indicator set for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Methods

The set was developed according to the Rand/UCLA Appropriateness Method, which integrates evidence review, in-person multidisciplinary expert panel meetings and repeated anonymous ratings for consensus building. The quality indicators were pilot-tested for overall face validity and feasibility in 15 specialist and 14 primary care rehabilitation units. Pass rates (percentages of “yes”) of the indicators were recorded in telephone interviews with 29 unit managers (structure indicators), and 164 patients (process and outcome indicators). Time use and participants’ numeric rating of face validity (0–10, 10 = high validity) were recorded.

Results

Nineteen structure, 12 process and five outcome indicators were developed and piloted. Mean (range) sum pass rates for the structure, process and outcome indicators were 59%(84%), 66%(100%) and 84%(100%), respectively. Mean (range) face validity score for managers/patients was 8.3 (8)/7.9 (9), and mean answering time was 6.0/5.5 min. The final indicator set consists of 19 structure, 11 process and three outcome indicators.

Conclusion

To our knowledge this is the first quality indicator set developed for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Good overall face validity and a feasible format indicate a set suitable for monitoring quality in rehabilitation. The variation in pass rates between centers indicates a potential for quality improvement in rheumatic and musculoskeletal rehabilitation in Norway.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Murray CJL, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, 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;380:2197–223.CrossRef
2.
Al Maini M, AdeloWo F, Al Saleh J, et al. The global challenges and opportunities in the practice of rheumatology: white paper by the world forum on rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34:819–29.CrossRef
3.
Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64:465–74.CrossRef
4.
Carville SF, Arendt-Nielsen L, Bliddal H, et al. EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of fibromyalgia syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67:536–41.CrossRef
5.
Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJ, Ostelo RW, Guzman J, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2(9):CD000963.
6.
Kjeken I, Bo I, Ronningen A, et al. A three-week multidisciplinary in-patient rehabilitation programme had positive long-term effects in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:260–7.CrossRef
7.
Klokkerud M, Hagen K, Lochting I, Uhlig T, Kjeken I, Grotle M. Does the content really matter? A study comparing structure, process, and outcome of team rehabilitation for patients with inflammatory arthritis in two different clinical settings. Scand J Rheumatol. 2012;4:20–8.CrossRef
8.
Document 3:11 (2011–2012). The Office of the Auditor General's investigation into rehabilitation in the health service; 2012. ISBN 978–82–8229-163-7.
9.
The Health&Care21 Strategy. Research and innovation in health and care (2015–2018). The Research Council of Norway; 2014. ISBN 978–82-99002.
10.
Mainz J. Developing evidence-based clinical indicators: a state of the art methods primer. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(Suppl 1):i5–i11.CrossRef
11.
Lawrence M, Olesen F. Indicators of quality in health care. Eur J Gen Pract. 1997;3(3):103–8.CrossRef
12.
Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:523–30.CrossRef
13.
14.
15.
Strombeck B, et al. Health care quality indicators on the management of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: a literature review. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(2):382–90.CrossRef
16.
Peter WF, Hurkmans EJ, van der Wees PJ, Hendriks EJM, van Bodegom-Vos L, Vliet Vlieland TPM. Healthcare quality indicators for physiotherapy Management in hip and Knee Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a Delphi study. Musculoskelet Care. 2016;14:219–32.CrossRef
17.
Gratacós J, et al. Standards of care and quality indicators for multidisciplinary care models for psoriatic arthritis in Spain. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38:1115–24.CrossRef
18.
Cooper M, Rouhi A, Barber CEH. A systematic review of quality measures for inflammatory arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2018;45(2):274–83.CrossRef
19.
20.
Melão N, Amorim M, Marimon F, Alegre I. EQUASS assurance certification: the view of Pioneer adopters. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on quality engineering and management. Guimarães: ICQEM; 2016. p. 615–32. ISBN 978–989–20-6814-5.
21.
22.
Skempes D, Melvin J, von Groote P, Stucki G, Bickenbach J. Using concept mapping to develop a human rights based indicator framework to assess country efforts to strengthen rehabilitation provision and policy: the rehabilitation system diagnosis and dialogue framework (RESYST). J Global Health. 2018;14(1):96.CrossRef
23.
Fitch K, Bernstein S, Aguilar MS, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, et al. (RAND monograph report). The Rand/UCLA Apporpriateness method User's manual. Santa Monica: RAND; 2001. p. 1–123. ISBN 0–8330–2918-5
24.
25.
Report No. 21 to the Storting. Responsibility and empowerment: towards a holistic rehabilitation policy. Oslo: Ministry of Health; 1999. St.meld. nr. 21 (1998-99) - regjeringen.no.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Farin E, et al. Quality assessment in rehabilitation centres: the indicator system 'Quality profile. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(18):1096–104.CrossRef
30.
Grotle M, et al. What's in the black box of arthritis rehabilitation? A comparison of rehabilitation practice for patients with inflammatory arthritis in northern Europe. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(5):458–66.CrossRef
31.
Klokkerud M, et al. Development of a framework identifying domains and elements of importance for arthritis rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(5):406–13.CrossRef
32.
Van der Weide WE, Verbeek JHAM, van Dijk FJH. Relation between indicators for quality of occupational rehabilitation of employees with low back pain. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56:488–93.CrossRef
33.
34.
35.
36.
Grossman JM, MacLean CH. Quality indicators for the Management of Osteoporosis in vulnerable elders. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:722–30.CrossRef
37.
38.
Grande G, Romppel M. Subjective concepts of patients, physicians and social workers about quality in cardiac and orthopaedic rehabilitation. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2008;58(2):51–7.CrossRef
39.
Meyer T, Gutenbrunner C, Bickenbach J, Cieza A, Melvin J, Stucki G. Towards a conceptual description of rehabilitation as a health strategy. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:765–9.CrossRef
40.
Peoples H, Satink T, Steultjens E. Stroke survivors experiences of rehabilitation: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Scand J Occup Ther. 2011;18(3):163–71.CrossRef
41.
42.
Loupis YM, Faux SG. Family conferences in stroke rehabilitation: a literature review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;22(6):883–93.CrossRef
43.
Wade DI. Evidence relating to assessment in rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 1998;12:183–6.CrossRef
44.
Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, ÜstÜn TB. Application of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(5):281–2.CrossRef
45.
Cott C. Client-centred rehabilitation: client perspectives. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(24):1411–22.CrossRef
46.
Wade DI. Rehabilitation – a new approach. Part two: the underlying theories. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(12):1145–54.CrossRef
47.
Wade DI. Rehabilitation – a new approach. Part four: a new paradigm, and its implications. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(2):109–18.CrossRef
48.
Wade D. Research into the black box of rehabilitation: the risks of a type III error. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:1–4.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A quality indicator set for use in rehabilitation team care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; development and pilot testing
Authors
Inger Johansen
Mari Klokkerud
Audny Anke
Janne-Birgitte Børke
Thomas Glott
Uno Hauglie
Audhild Høyem
Atle Klovning
Karin Anna Lande
Mona Larsen
Jan Egil Nordvik
Sigrid H. Wigers
Irene Øyeflaten
Kaare Birger Hagen
Ingvild Kjeken
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4091-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Health Services Research 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Care providers’ perceptions towards challenges and opportunities for service improvement at diabetes management clinics in public primary health care in Muscat, Oman: a qualitative study

Research article

Establishment of radiation therapy services in North West Tasmania: a community need or election strategy?

Research article

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL intervention for non-specific SUBACUTE low back pain in a working population: a cluster randomized clinical trial

Research article

Magnitude of delayed turnaround time of laboratory results in Amhara Public Health Institute, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Research article

Assessing the impact of law enforcement to reduce over-the-counter (OTC) sales of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries; a systematic literature review

Research article

The safety attitudes questionnaire – ambulatory version: psychometric properties of the Norwegian version for nursing homes