Identifying Instruments to Assess Care Quality for Individuals With Custom Ankle Foot Orthoses: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted 2 complementary scoping reviews to identify instruments that assess the experience and outcomes of custom ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) care in individuals with neurologic and traumatic conditions and to determine to what extent they might be psychometrically sound for AFO users. A stakeholder advisory committee considered to what extent the identified and psychometrically sound instruments might be feasible for use in developing quality measures for custom AFO users. DATA SOURCES: Both scoping reviews were conducted using PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews. The following were used for the first scoping review only: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. STUDY SELECTION: The initial scoping review yielded 79 articles with 82 instruments, 16 of which were used in 4 or more studies. The second scoping review yielded 57 articles reporting psychometric properties. DATA EXTRACTION: Psychometric properties for populations who use AFOs were summarized for 15 of the 16 instruments. The advisory committee eliminated 2 insrtruments, noted overlap between 4 instruments in terms of the constructs measured, and suggested 6 potential contemporary substitutes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most instruments assessed activity (specifically mobility) and pertained to the National Quality Forum domain of "Health-Related Quality of Life." The 10-meter walk test, 6-minute walk test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go, and Rivermead Mobility Index were reported to have adequate reliability and validity, and were considered feasible for administration in a clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary scoping reviews demonstrated that some instruments with reasonable psychometric properties are available that are feasible to use in developing quality measures for custom AFO care. However, experience of care instruments suitable for this population were not identified but are needed for a comprehensive evaluation of care quality for AFO users.

Orthotists' and physical therapists' perspectives on quality of care indicators for persons with custom ankle-foot orthoses.

Purpose: To describe the priorities of orthotists and physical therapists about quality measurement themes, and the feasibility and utility of collecting data from persons using custom AFOs that could inform quality measure development.Materials and Methods: Online survey assessed respondents' perspectives and experiences. An Advisory Committee representing professional, organizational, and accreditor groups distributed survey invitations.Results: 461 orthotists and 153 physical therapists completed part or all of the survey; 60% rated 9 quality themes and 20 quality of care topics as extremely important, and 12 standard instruments as feasible and good to use for quality measurement. Patients were the preferred source of information for ease of scheduling, device weight, ease of donning and doffing, adherence to device use, beneficial effects, activity level and independence, and quality of life. Clinicians were the preferred source for material quality, device modifiability, and joint range of motion. Facility records were the preferred source for timeliness of device delivery and clinician follow-up. Respondents reported that gait speed and walking endurance were best obtained by patient performance.Conclusions: Results provide insight on the topics orthotists and physical therapists regard as priorities for defining healthcare quality for persons using custom ankle-foot orthoses and instruments for data collection.