Quality of physical therapy from a patient's perspective; factor analysis on web-based survey data revealed three dimensions on patient experiences with physical therapy.

BACKGROUND: Assessing quality of care from the patient's perspective has changed from patient satisfaction to the more general term patient experience, as satisfaction measures turned out to be less discriminative due to high scores. Literature describes four to ten dimensions of patient experience, tailored to specific conditions or types of care. Given the administrative burden on patients, less dimensions and items could increase feasibility. Ten dimensions of patient experiences with physical therapy (PT) were proposed in the Netherlands in a consensus-based process with patients, physical therapists, health insurers, and policy makers. The aim of this paper is to detect the number of dimensions from data of a field study using factor analysis at item level. METHODS: A web-based survey yielded data of 2,221 patients from 52 PT practices on 41 items. Principal component factor analysis at item level was used to assess the proposed distinction between the ten dimensions. RESULTS: Factor analysis revealed two dimensions: 'personal interaction' and 'practice organisation'. The dimension 'patient reported outcome' was artificially established. The three dimensions 'personal interaction' (14 items) (median(practice level) = 91.1; IQR = 2.4), 'practice organisation' (9 items) (median(practice level) = 88.9; IQR = 6.0) and 'outcome' (3 items) (median(practice level) = 80.6; IQR = 19.5) reduced the number of dimensions from ten to three and the number of items by more than a third. CONCLUSIONS: Factor analysis revealed three dimensions and achieved an item reduction of more than a third. It is a relevant step in the development process of a quality measurement tool to reduce respondent burden, increase clarity, and promote feasibility.

A systematic approach towards the development of a set of quality indicators for public reporting in community-based maternity care.

OBJECTIVE: to demonstrate the process and outcome of a systematic approach towards the development of a set of quality indicators for public reporting on quality of community-based maternity care. DESIGN AND SETTING: a four-stepped approach was adopted. Firstly, we defined key elements of community-based maternity care, by performing a systematic search on care guidelines/ standards. Secondly, the literature was searched for existing indicators for maternity care, which were subsequently categorised according to the key elements and systematically selected on suitability of public presentation. The emerging set of indicators suitable for public reporting was presented to five health-care professionals using a Delphi technique (step 3). Based on the comments of the professionals, the set was adjusted and subsequently presented to the health-care consumers (a sample of pregnant women) in step four to test its validity, after which the final set was composed. PARTICIPANTS: health-care professionals in the field of maternity care and pregnant women. FINDINGS: key elements of community-based maternity care were extracted from eight guidelines and care standards. We then extracted 10 documents with 223 indicators in total, from which 19 indicators covering the key elements were included in the first set and presented to experts. Based on their comments three indicators were deleted and four indicators were added to the set or slightly rephrased. These were subsequently judged by 13 pregnant women. Seventy-five per cent of the indicators were judged positively by them; no indicator was judged negatively. The set of indicators was thus left unchanged after this final step. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: the systematic approach adopted in this study resulted in an indicator set that was considered valid by both maternity care professionals and pregnant women, and is likely to satisfy the essential requirements on clinimetric properties. The next step will be to pilot test the indicator set on feasibility in daily clinical practice and to refine the set when necessary. In the future, maternity care professionals may use the set to present the quality of care they provide and to define issues of improvement. Pregnant women may use the information to make a founded choice between maternity care professionals, which ultimately should result in improved safety and quality of maternity care as well as patient satisfaction. Although we focused on the Dutch, community-based maternity care system, the approach used may be extrapolated to other care processes and health-care systems. Extrapolation of the results itself (i.e. the indicator set) may need to be limited to systems with an emphasis on community-based maternity care.

[Increased multimorbidity in patients in general practice in the period 2003-2009]. / Toename multimorbiditeit bij patiënten in de huisartsenpraktijk in de periode 2003-2009.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of chronic multimorbidity and its increase in primary care. DESIGN: Descriptive longitudinal study. METHOD: We selected patients suffering from chronic pulmonary disease, chronic cardiovascular disease, or diabetes from a national representative general practice research database (LINH). For each year in the period 2003-2009, we calculated the prevalence of these separate conditions. We subsequently assessed the prevalence of multimorbidity and its increase for 4 different age groups (0-14, 15-44, 45-64, ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: The percentage of all patients suffering from at least 1 of these chronic conditions increased from 12.6% in 2003 to 15.0% in 2009, an increase of almost 20%. The multimorbidity among these patients rose from 15.9% in 2003 to 18.3% in 2009. This increase in multimorbidity was found in all 3 chronic conditions under study and in all adult age groups. To what extent this increase was caused by improvements in morbidity registration could not be identified. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a considerable increase in recent years in the prevalence of chronic diseases; multimorbidity appears also to have increased. If this trend continues, in 2015 the multimorbidity among patients over 65 years of age with diabetes, chronic pulmonary and/or cardiovascular disease will be more than 30%.