» Articles » PMID: 28188156

Feasibility of Peer Assessment and Clinical Audit to Self-regulate the Quality of Physiotherapy Services: a Mixed Methods Study

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2017 Feb 12
PMID 28188156
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of a quality improvement programme aimed to enhance the client-centeredness, effectiveness and transparency of physiotherapy services by addressing three feasibility domains: (1) acceptability of the programme design, (2) appropriateness of the implementation strategy and (3) impact on quality improvement.

Design: Mixed methods study.

Participants And Setting: 64 physiotherapists working in primary care, organised in a network of communities of practice in the Netherlands.

Methods: The programme contained: (1) two cycles of online self-assessment and peer assessment (PA) of clinical performance using client records and video-recordings of client communication followed by face-to-face group discussions, and (2) clinical audit assessing organisational performance. Assessment was based on predefined performance indicators which could be scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Discussions addressed performance standards and scoring differences. All feasibility domains were evaluated qualitatively with two focus groups and 10 in-depth interviews. In addition, we evaluated the impact on quality improvement quantitatively by comparing self-assessment and PA scores in cycles 1 and 2.

Results: We identified critical success features relevant to programme development and implementation, such as clarifying expectations at baseline, training in PA skills, prolonged engagement with video-assessment and competent group coaches. Self-reported impact on quality improvement included awareness of clinical and organisational performance, improved evidence-based practice and client-centeredness and increased motivation to self-direct quality improvement. Differences between self-scores and peer scores on performance indicators were not significant. Between cycles 1 and 2, scores for record keeping showed significant improvement, however not for client communication.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that bottom-up initiatives to improve healthcare quality can be effective. The results justify ongoing evaluation to inform nationwide implementation when the critical success features are addressed. Further research is necessary to explore the sustainability of the results and the impact on client outcomes in a full-scale study.

Citing Articles

Feasibility of a quality-improvement program based on routinely collected health outcomes in Dutch primary care physical therapist practice: a mixed-methods study.

Smeekens L, Verburg A, Maas M, van Heerde R, van Kerkhof A, van der Wees P BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):509.

PMID: 38658939 PMC: 11040789. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10958-5.


A framework to improve quality of hospital-based physiotherapy: a design-based research study.

Steenbruggen R, Maas M, Hoogeboom T, Brand P, van der Wees P BMC Health Serv Res. 2023; 23(1):34.

PMID: 36641465 PMC: 9840522. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09062-x.


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.

Verburg A, Van Dulmen S, Kiers H, Nijhuis-van Der Sanden M, van der Wees P ERJ Open Res. 2022; 8(3).

PMID: 35983539 PMC: 9379355. DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00008-2022.


Implementing a Dutch Physical Therapy Intervention Into a U.S. Health System: Selecting Strategies Using Implementation Mapping.

Thackeray A, Waring J, Hoogeboom T, Nijhuis-van Der Sanden M, Hess R, Fritz J Front Public Health. 2022; 10:908484.

PMID: 35899163 PMC: 9309571. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.908484.


Using a Learning Health System to Improve Physical Therapy Care for Patients With Intermittent Claudication: Lessons Learned From the ClaudicatioNet Quality System.

Sinnige A, Spruijt S, Saes M, van der Wees P, Hoogeboom T, Teijink J Phys Ther. 2021; 102(1).

PMID: 34723323 PMC: 8802141. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzab249.


References
1.
van der Vleuten C, Schuwirth L, Driessen E, Govaerts M, Heeneman S . Twelve Tips for programmatic assessment. Med Teach. 2014; 37(7):641-646. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.973388. View

2.
Li L, Grimshaw J, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte P, Graham I . Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2009; 4:27. PMC: 2694761. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-27. View

3.
Mann K, van der Vleuten C, Eva K, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T . Tensions in informed self-assessment: how the desire for feedback and reticence to collect and use it can conflict. Acad Med. 2011; 86(9):1120-7. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318226abdd. View

4.
Norcini J . Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ. 2003; 37(6):539-43. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01536.x. View

5.
Eva K . What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2004; 39(1):98-106. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x. View