Understanding recovery of people recovering from COVID-19 receiving treatment from primary care allied health professionals: a mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess changes in recovery of people recovering from COVID-19 treated by a primary care allied health professional, and to qualitatively describe how they dealt with persistent complaints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study is part of a Dutch prospective cohort study, from which thirty participants were selected through purposive sampling. Quantitative data on recovery were collected at start of treatment and 6 months. Additionally, by use of semi-structured interviews participants were asked on how persistent complaints influenced their lives, and how they experienced received primary care allied health treatment. RESULTS: Despite reported improvements, most participants still experienced limitations at 6 months. Hospital participants reported a higher severity of complaints, but home participants reported more diverse complaints and a longer recovery. Most participants were satisfied with the primary care allied healthcare. Tender loving care and a listening ear, learning to manage limits, and support and acceptance of building up in small steps were perceived as contributing most to participants' recovery. CONCLUSION: Although improvements were reported on almost all outcomes, most participants suffered from persistent complaints. Despite these persistent complaints, many participants reported being better able to cope with persistent complaints because they had decreased substantially in their intensity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT04735744).

Participants recovering from COVID-19 receiving treatment from primary care allied health professionals reported improvements after 6 months, but still experienced persistent complaints.Home participants reported more persistent complaints and a longer recovery from COVID-19 than hospital participants.Personal attention for patients recovering from COVID-19 is necessary. Next to implementing a treatment plan (e.g. physical exercise), primary care allied health professionals should also pay attention to listening to the patient's story and offering support.Interprofessional collaboration between primary care allied health professionals, with a unified message to patients, is essential.

Evaluation of Primary Allied Health Care in Patients Recovering From COVID-19 at 6-Month Follow-up: Dutch Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients recovering from COVID-19 often experience persistent problems in their daily activities related to limitations in physical, nutritional, cognitive, and mental functioning. To date, it is unknown what treatment is needed to support patients in their recovery from COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the primary allied health care of patients recovering from COVID-19 at 6-month follow-up and to explore which baseline characteristics are associated with changes in the scores of outcomes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. METHODS: This Dutch nationwide prospective cohort study evaluated the recovery of patients receiving primary allied health care (ie, dietitians, exercise therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech and language therapists) after COVID-19. All treatments offered by primary allied health professionals in daily practice were part of usual care. Patient-reported outcome measures on participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and psychological well-being were assessed at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Linear mixed model analyses were used to evaluate recovery over time, and uni- and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to examine the association between baseline characteristics and recovery. RESULTS: A total of 1451 adult patients recovering from COVID-19 and receiving treatment from 1 or more primary allied health professionals were included. For participation (Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation range 0-100), estimated mean differences of at least 2.3 points were observed at all time points. For the health-related quality of life (EuroQol Visual Analog Scale, range 0-100), the mean increase was 12.3 (95% CI 11.1-13.6) points at 6 months. Significant improvements were found for fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale, range 1-7): the mean decrease was -0.7 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.6) points at 6 months. However, severe fatigue was reported by 742/929 (79.9%) patients after 6 months. For physical functioning (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function Short Form 10b, range 13.8-61.3), the mean increase was 5.9 (95% CI 5.9-6.4) points at 6 months. Mean differences of -0.8 (95% CI -1.0 to -0.5) points for anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale range 0-21) and -1.6 (95% CI -1.8 to -1.3) points for depression were found after 6 months. A worse baseline score, hospital admission, and male sex were associated with greater improvement between baseline and 6-month follow-up, whereas age, the BMI, comorbidities, and smoking status were not associated with mean changes in any outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients recovering from COVID-19 who receive primary allied health care make progress in recovery but still experience many limitations in their daily activities after 6 months. Our findings provide reference values to health care providers and health care policy makers regarding what to expect from the recovery of patients who receive health care from 1 or more primary allied health professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04735744; https://tinyurl.com/3vf337pn. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2340/jrm.v54.2506.

A practice test and selection of a core set of outcome-based quality indicators in Dutch primary care physical therapy for patients with COPD: a cohort study.

Aim: To estimate the comparability and discriminability of outcome-based quality indicators by performing a practice test in Dutch physical therapy primary care, and to select a core set of outcome-based quality indicators that are well accepted by physical therapists based on their perceived added value as a quality improvement tool. Methods: First, a list of potential quality indicators was defined, followed by determination of the comparability (case-mix adjusted multilevel analysis) and discriminability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)). Second, focus group meetings were conducted with stakeholders (physical therapists and senior researchers) to select a core set of quality indicators. Results: Overall, 229 physical therapists from 137 practices provided 2651 treatment episodes. Comparability: in 10 of the 11 case-mix adjusted models, the ICC increased compared with the intercept-only model. Discriminability: the ICC ranged between 0.01 and 0.34, with five of the 11 ICCs being >0.10. The majority of physical therapists in each focus group preferred the inclusion of seven quality indicators in the core set, including three process and four outcome indicators based upon the 6-min walk test (6MWT), the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), and the determination of quadriceps strength using a hand-held dynamometer. Conclusion: This is the first study to describe the comparability and discriminability of the outcome-based quality indicators selected for patients with COPD treated in primary care physical therapy practices. Future research should focus on increasing data collection in daily practice and on the development of tangible methods to use as the core set of a quality improvement tool.

Experiences of physiotherapists regarding a standard set of measurement instruments to improve quality of care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a mixed methods study.

RATIONALE: The quality of physiotherapy care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be improved by comparing outcomes of care in practice. AIM: To evaluate the experiences of physiotherapists implementing a standard set of measurement instruments to measure outcomes and improve the quality of care for patients with COPD. METHODS: This sequential explanatory mixed methods study was performed in two parts. In the quantitative part, a survey of 199 physiotherapists was conducted to evaluate their attitudes and knowledge, as well as the influence of contextual factors (i.e., practice policy and support from colleagues), in the implementation of the standard measurement set. In the qualitative part, 11 physiotherapists participated in individual interviews to elucidate their experiences using a thematical framework. RESULTS: The survey showed that, on average, 68.4% of the physiotherapists reported having a positive attitude about using the standard set, 85.0% felt they had sufficient knowledge of the measurement instruments, and 84.7% felt supported by practice policy and colleagues. In total, 80.3% of physiotherapists thought the standard set had added value in clinical practice, and 90.3% indicated that the measurement instruments can be valuable for evaluating treatment outcomes. The physiotherapists mentioned several barriers, such as lack of time and the unavailability of the entire standard set of measurement instruments in their practice. Moreover, the physiotherapists indicated that the measurement instruments have added value in providing transparency to policymakers through the anonymized publication of outcomes. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapists support the use of the standard set of measurement instruments to improve the quality of physiotherapy treatment for patients with COPD.

Evaluation of Allied Healthcare in Patients Recovering from Covid-19: Study Protocol and Baseline Data of s National Prospective Cohort Study.

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: Report of the protocol and baseline characteristics for a 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 restrictions 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: In conclusion, this will be the first comprehensive study to longitudinally evaluate the recovery trajectories and related costs of patients recovering from COVID-19 who are treated by allied health professionals in the Netherlands. This study will provide evidence for the optimal strategy to treat patients recovering from COVID-19 infection, including which patients benefit, and to what extent, from treatment, and which factors might impact their recovery course over time. The preliminary results of this study demonstrated the severity of restrictions and complaints at the start of therapy are substantial.

Reliability, validity and discriminability of patient reported outcomes for non-specific low back pain in a nationwide physical therapy registry: A retrospective observational cohort study.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Quality Indicators in Dutch Primary Care Physical Therapy for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

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, 15 potential quality indicators were defined for patient-reported outcome measures 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 for physical functioning, and the Global Perceived Effect-Dutch Version for perceived effect. Their comparability and discriminatory characteristics were described 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 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, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, and the minimal clinically important difference of the Global Perceived Effect-Dutch Version). CONCLUSION: This study described and selected a core set of outcome-based quality indicators for physical therapy in patients with nonspecific low back pain. 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.

Development of a Standard Set of Outcome Domains and Proposed Measures for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Primary Care Physical Therapy Practice in the Netherlands: a Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Background: Standardization 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 methods: A 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. Results: Five 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. Conclusion: This 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.