ABSTRACT
QUESTION: What is the diagnostic accuracy of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) framework to assess the risk of vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy care for neck pain and/or headache? DESIGN: Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty patients seeking physiotherapy for neck pain and/or headache in primary care. METHODS: Nineteen physiotherapists performed the index test according to the IFOMPT framework. Patients were classified as having a high, intermediate or low risk of vascular complications, following manual therapy and/or exercise, derived from the estimated risk of the presence of vascular pathology. The reference test was a consensus medical decision reached by a vascular neurologist and an interventional neurologist, with input from a neuroradiologist. The neurologists had access to clinical data and magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine, including an angiogram of the cervical arteries. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated for 'no contraindication' (ie, the low-risk category) and 'contraindication' (ie, the high-risk and intermediate-risk categories) for manual therapy and/or exercise. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the curve were calculated. RESULTS: Manual therapy and/or exercise were contraindicated in 54.7% of the patients. The sensitivity of the IFOMPT framework was low (0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61) and its specificity was moderate (0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.75). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were weak at 1.36 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.05), respectively. The area under the curve was poor (0.57, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.65). CONCLUSION: The IFOMPT framework has poor diagnostic accuracy when compared with a reference standard consisting of a consensus medical decision.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To develop valid quality indicators (QIs) for physiotherapy care based on best available evidence, and to use these QIs to explore trends in the quality of physiotherapy care of patients with Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) using guideline-based routinely collected data (RCD) gathered between 1996 and 2011. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study consisted of two phases: 1) development of QIs and 2) analysis of patient records. A set of QIs was developed based on recommendations in the scientific literature and the Dutch Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) "Physiotherapy Management and WAD". QIs were expressed as percentages, allowing target performance levels to be defined (≥80% or ≤30% depending on whether desired performance required a high or low score on a QI). We then analyzed WAD patient data (N = 810) collected over a period of 16 years in two physiotherapy practices, separating patients into two groups defined as before (Group A 1996-2002; n = 353) and after (Group B 2003-2011; n = 457) implementation and transition to the Dutch CPG "Physiotherapy Management and WAD". RESULTS: Using an iterative process and input from both experts and users, 28 QIs were developed and subsequently classified per step of the clinical reasoning process for physiotherapy care. Based on 16 years of RCD, we found that the clinical reasoning process differed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) between the groups, in favor of Group B. Twelve of the 25 indicators (48.0%) in Group A and 19 of 26 indicators (73.1%) in Group B met predetermined performance targets. The number of target indicators also differed significantly between groups, favoring Group B (P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: A preliminary set of novel QIs was developed. Using RCD and these QIs, we conclude that physiotherapy care in our study setting improved over the period 1996-2011. Furthermore, the QIs met the performance targets set for the clinical reasoning process after the transition to the Dutch CPG "Physiotherapy Management and WAD".
