Purpose To develop a clinical standard set of outcome measures that are accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders and useful for (a) interaction between patient and the professional, e.g. shared decision-making in goal-setting, monitoring and feedback based on outcomes, (b) internal quality improvement, and (c) external transparency in patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in primary care physical therapy. Methods We used a consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA Delphi method in seven steps with panellists (patients, representatives of patient and physiotherapy associations, researchers, policy makers, health insurers): (1) literature search, (2) first online survey, (3) patient interviews, (4) an experts meeting, (5) a consensus meeting, (6) second online survey, and (7) final approval of an advisory board. Steps 1-4 resulted in potential outcome measures. In the consensus meeting after discussion panellists voted for inclusion per measure. In the second online survey the final standard set was rated on relevance and feasibility on a 9-point Likert scale; when the median score was ≥ 7, the standard set was accepted and finally approved. Results Thirteen draft outcome measures were rated and discussed, and finally, six outcome measures were accepted. The standard set includes the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Global Perceived Effect (GPE-DV), and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT). Conclusion This study presents a standard set of outcome measures for patients with NSLBP in primary care physiotherapy accepted for relevance and feasibility by stakeholders. The standard set is currently used in daily practice and tested on validity and reliability in a pilot study.

BackgroundStandardization of measures in a common set opens the opportunity to learn from differences in treatment outcomes which can be used for improving the quality of care. Furthermore, a standard set can provide the basis for development of quality indicators and is therefore useful for quality improvement and public reporting purposes. The aim of this study was to develop a standard set of outcome domains and proposed measures for patients with COPD in Dutch primary care physical therapy practice, including a proposal to stratify patients in subgroups.Material and methodsA consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness method was conducted with relevant stakeholders (patients, physical therapists, researchers, policy makers and health insurers) in Dutch primary physical therapy care in eight steps: (1) literature search, (2) first online survey, (3) patient interviews, (4) expert meeting, resulting in a concept standard set and methods to identify subgroups' (5) consensus meeting, (6) expert meeting (7) second online survey and (8) final approval of an advisory board resulting of the approved standard set.ResultsFive outcome domains were selected for COPD: physical capacity, muscle strength, physical activity, dyspnea and quality of life. A total of 21 measures were rated and discussed. Finally, eight measures were included, of which four mandatory measures: Characteristics of practices and physical therapists, Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) for quality of life, Global Perceived Effect (GPE) for experience, 6-mins Walk Test (6-MWT) for physical capacity; two conditional measures: Hand-Held Dynamometer (HHD) (with Microfet™) for Quadriceps strength, Medical Research Council Dyspnea (MRC) for monitoring dyspnea; and two exploratory measures: Accelerometry for physical activity, and the Assessment of Burden of COPD tool (ABC). To identify subgroups, a method described in the Dutch standard of care from the Lung Alliance was included.ConclusionThis study described the development of a standard set of outcome domains and proposed measures for patients with COPD in primary care physical therapy. Each measure was accepted for relevance and feasibility by the involved stakeholders. The set is currently used in daily practice and tested on validity and reliability in a pilot for the development of quality indicators.

Background A national clinical registry was established in the Netherlands containing data directly sampled from electronic health record systems of physical therapists (PTs). This registry aims to evaluate the potential of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to develop quality indicators (QIs) in physical therapy care. Purpose To test to what extent the collected PROM data are reliable, valid and discriminatory between practices in measuring outcomes of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods In this retrospective cohort study 865 PT practices with 6,560 PTs voluntarily collected PROM data of patients with NSLBP, using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Patient Specific Functioning Scale (PSFS). Reliability was determined by analysing the completeness of the dataset, the comparability by using national reference data, and through checking selection bias in the included patients. Validity was tested using the known-groups contrast between patients with (sub)acute vs. chronic NSLBP. To determine discriminative ability of outcomes between PT practices, case-mix corrected hierarchical multilevel analyses were performed. Results Reliability was sufficient by confirming fifteen of the sixteen hypotheses: 59% of all patients opted in for data analysis, 42% of these included patients showed repeated measurement, comparing with reference data and potential selection bias showed < 5% between group differences, while differences between (sub)acute and chronic NSLB-groups were significantly larger than 5% (less treatment sessions, lager differences in outcomes in (sub)acute NSLB patients). In addition, all nine adjusted hierarchical multilevel models confirm that the collected dataset on outcomes in PT care is able to discriminate between practices using PROM results of patients with NSLBP (ICC-scores range 0.11–0.21). Limitations Although we have shown the reliability, validity and discriminative ability of the dataset in the quest to develop QIs, we are aware that reducing missing values in patient records and the selective participation of PTs that belong to the innovators needs attention in the next stages of implementation to avoid bias in the results. Conclusion PROMs of patients with NSLBP collected in the national clinical registry of KNGF are reliable, valid and able to discriminate between primary care PT practices.

Objective: To report the study protocol and baseline characteristics of a prospective cohort study to evaluate longitudinal recovery trajectories of patients recovering from COVID-19 who have visited a primary care allied health professional.Design: Prospective cohort study with a mixed-methods approach.Patients: Patients recovering from COVID-19 treated by primary care dietitians, exercise therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists and/or speech and language therapists in the Netherlands.Methods: The prospective study will measure primary outcome domains: participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and costs, at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Interviews, on the patients’ experiences with allied healthcare, will be held with a subsample of patients and allied health professionals.Results: The cohort comprises 1,451 patients (57% female, mean age 49 (standard deviation 13) years). Preliminary results for the study cohort show that 974 (67%) of the participants reported mild/moderate severity symptoms during the infection period and patients reported severe complaints in activities of daily living compared with previous research in other patient populations. Both quantitative and qualitative, will provide insight into the recovery of patients who are treated by allied health professionals.Conclusion: This preliminary report describes how the prospective study aims to longitudinally evaluate the recovery trajectories and related costs of patients recovering from COVID-19 who are treated by 1 or more allied health professionals in the Netherlands. In addition, baseline data of patients in the cohort are presented.

Objective The purpose of this study was to define and select a core set of outcome-based quality indicators, accepted by stakeholders on usability and perceived added value as a quality improvement tool, and to formulate recommendations for the next implementation step. Methods In phase 1, we defined 15 potential quality indicators for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and associated domains, namely the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain intensity, the Patient Specific Functioning Scale (PSFS) for physical activity, the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) for physical functioning, and the Global Perceived Effect - Dutch Version (GPE-DV) for perceived effect. We described their comparability and discriminatory characteristics using cohort data. In phase 2, a core set of quality indicators was selected based on consensus among stakeholders in focus group meetings. Results In total, 65,815 completed treatment episodes for patients with nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) were provided by 1009 physical therapists from 219 physical therapist practices. The discriminability between physical therapists of all potential 15 quality indicators was adequate with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.08 and 0.30. Stakeholders selected a final core set of 6 quality indicators: 2 process indicators (the routine measurement of NPRS and the PSFS) and 4 outcome indicators (pretreatment and posttreatment change scores for the NPRS, PSFS, QBPDS, and the minimal clinically important difference of the GPE-DV). Conclusion This study described and selected a core set of outcome-based quality indicators for physical therapy in patients with NSLBP. The set was accepted by stakeholders for having added value for daily practice in physical therapy primary care and was found useful for quality improvement initiatives. Further studies need to focus on improvement of using the core set of outcome-based quality indicators as a quality monitoring and evaluation instrument. Impact Patient-reported outcome-based quality indicators developed from routinely collected clinical data are promising for use in quality improvement in daily practice.