Prediction of Long-Term Physical, Mental, and Cognitive Problems Following Critical Illness: Development and External Validation of the PROSPECT Prediction Model.

OBJECTIVES: ICU survivors often suffer from long-lasting physical, mental, and cognitive health problems after hospital discharge. As several interventions that treat or prevent these problems already start during ICU stay, patients at high risk should be identified early. This study aimed to develop a model for early prediction of post-ICU health problems within 48 hours after ICU admission. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in seven Dutch ICUs. SETTING/PATIENTS: ICU patients older than 16 years and admitted for greater than or equal to 12 hours between July 2016 and March 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes were physical problems (fatigue or ≥ 3 new physical symptoms), mental problems (anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder), and cognitive impairment. Patient record data and questionnaire data were collected at ICU admission, and after 3 and 12 months, of 2,476 patients. Several models predicting physical, mental, or cognitive problems and a composite score at 3 and 12 months were developed using variables collected within 48 hours after ICU admission. Based on performance and clinical feasibility, a model, PROSPECT, predicting post-ICU health problems at 3 months was chosen, including the predictors of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, admission type, expected length of ICU stay greater than or equal to 2 days, and preadmission anxiety and fatigue. Internal validation using bootstrapping on data of the largest hospital ( n = 1,244) yielded a C -statistic of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70-0.76). External validation was performed on data ( n = 864) from the other six hospitals with a C -statistic of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The developed and externally validated PROSPECT model can be used within 48 hours after ICU admission for identifying patients with an increased risk of post-ICU problems 3 months after ICU admission. Timely preventive interventions starting during ICU admission and follow-up care can prevent or mitigate post-ICU problems in these high-risk patients.

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.

Which Factors Influence the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Dutch Physiotherapy Practice? A Cross-Sectional Study.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have the potential to enhance the quality of health care but, as a result of suboptimal implementation, it is unclear whether they fulfil this role in physiotherapy practice. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify the factors influencing PROM use in Dutch private physiotherapy practices. Method: A total of 444 physiotherapists completed a self-assessment questionnaire and uploaded the data from their electronic health record (EHR) systems to the national registry of outcome data. Univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic and linear regression analysis were used to identify the factors associated with self-reported PROM use and PROM use registered in the EHR systems, which were derived from the self-assessment questionnaire and from the data in the national registry, respectively. Five categories with nine independent variables were selected as potential factors for regression analysis. The similarity between self-reported and registered PROM use was verified. Results: On the basis of self-report and EHR report, we found that 21.6% and 29.8% of participants, respectively, used PROMs with more than 80% of their patients, and we identified the factors associated with PROM use. Conclusions: The factors associated with PROM use are EHR systems that support PROM use and more knowledge about PROM use. These findings can guide future strategies to enhance the use of PROMs in physiotherapy practice.

Objectif : les mesures des résultats déclarées par les patients (MRDP) peuvent améliorer la qualité des soins, mais en raison de leur mise en œuvre sous-optimale, on ne sait pas si elles remplissent cette fonction en physiothérapie. La présente étude transversale visait à nommer les facteurs qui influent sur l'utilisation des MRDP dans des cabinets de physiothérapie privés hollandais. Méthodologie : au total, 444 physiothérapeutes ont rempli un questionnaire d'autoévaluation et ont téléchargé les données de leurs systèmes de dossiers de santé électroniques (DSÉ) dans le registre national de données de résultats. Les chercheurs ont procédé à l'analyse de régression logistique et linéaire ordinale univariée et multivariée pour déterminer les facteurs associés à l'utilisation autodéclarée des MRDP et à celle figurant dans leurs systèmes de DSÉ, en fonction des questionnaires d'autodéclaration et des données du registre national, respectivement. Ils ont retenu cinq catégories comportant neuf variables indépendantes comme facteurs potentiels d'analyse de régression. Ils ont vérifié la similarité entre les MRDP autodéclarées et celles qui étaient enregistrées. Résultats : les chercheurs ont découvert que, d'après leur autodéclaration et leur rapport de DSÉ, respectivement, 21,6 % et 29,8 % des participants ont utilisé les MRDP auprès de plus de 80 % de leurs patients, et ont établi les facteurs associés à l'utilisation des MRDP. Conclusion : ces facteurs étaient les systèmes de DSÉ qui favorisent l'utilisation des MRDP et une meilleure compréhension de l'utilisation des MRDP. Ces observations pourront orienter de futures stratégies pour accroître l'utilisation des MRDP dans les cabinets de physiothérapie.

Factors predicting doctors' reporting of performance change in response to multisource feedback.

BACKGROUND: Multi-source feedback (MSF) offers doctors feedback on their performance from peers (medical colleagues), coworkers and patients. Researchers increasingly point to the fact that only a small majority of doctors (60-70 percent) benefit from MSF. Building on medical education and social psychology literature, the authors identified several factors that may influence change in response to MSF. Subsequently, they quantitatively studied the factors that advance the use of MSF for practice change. METHODS: This observational study was set in 26 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 458 specialists participated in the MSF program. Besides the collation of questionnaires, the Dutch MSF program is composed of a reflective portfolio and a facilitative interview aimed at increasing the acceptance and use of MSF. All specialists who finished a MSF procedure between May 2008 and September 2010 were invited to complete an evaluation form. The dependent variable was self-reported change. Three categories of independent variables (personal characteristics, experiences with the assessments and mean MSF ratings) were included in the analysis. Multivariate regression analysis techniques were used to identify the relation between the independent variables and specialists' reported change in actual practice. RESULTS: In total, 238 medical specialists (response rate 52 percent) returned an evaluation form and participated in the study. A small majority (55 percent) of specialists reported to have changed their professional performance in one or more aspects in response to MSF. Regression analyses revealed that two variables had the most effect on reported change. Perceived quality of mentoring positively influenced reported change (regression coefficient beta = 0.527, p < 0.05) as did negative scores offered by colleagues. (regression coefficient beta = -0.157, p < 0.05). The explained variance of these two variables combined was 34 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived quality of mentoring and MSF ratings from colleagues seem to be the main motivators for the self-reported change in response to MSF by specialists. These insights could leverage in increasing the use of MSF for practice change by investing in the quality of mentors.

Evaluation of physicians' professional performance: an iterative development and validation study of multisource feedback instruments.

BACKGROUND: There is a global need to assess physicians' professional performance in actual clinical practice. Valid and reliable instruments are necessary to support these efforts. This study focuses on the reliability and validity, the influences of some sociodemographic biasing factors, associations between self and other evaluations, and the number of evaluations needed for reliable assessment of a physician based on the three instruments used for the multisource assessment of physicians' professional performance in the Netherlands. METHODS: This observational validation study of three instruments underlying multisource feedback (MSF) was set in 26 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 146 hospital-based physicians took part in the study. Each physician's professional performance was assessed by peers (physician colleagues), co-workers (including nurses, secretary assistants and other healthcare professionals) and patients. Physicians also completed a self-evaluation. Ratings of 864 peers, 894 co-workers and 1960 patients on MSF were available. We used principal components analysis and methods of classical test theory to evaluate the factor structure, reliability and validity of instruments. We used Pearson's correlation coefficient and linear mixed models to address other objectives. RESULTS: The peer, co-worker and patient instruments respectively had six factors, three factors and one factor with high internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha 0.95 - 0.96). It appeared that only 2 percent of variance in the mean ratings could be attributed to biasing factors. Self-ratings were not correlated with peer, co-worker or patient ratings. However, ratings of peers, co-workers and patients were correlated. Five peer evaluations, five co-worker evaluations and 11 patient evaluations are required to achieve reliable results (reliability coefficient ≥ 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the three MSF instruments produced reliable and valid data for evaluating physicians' professional performance in the Netherlands. Scores from peers, co-workers and patients were not correlated with self-evaluations. Future research should examine improvement of performance when using MSF.

Safety and risk management interventions in hospitals: a systematic review of the literature.

The aim of this systematic review was (a) to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of detection, mitigation, and actions to reduce risks in hospitals and (b) to identify and describe components of interventions responsible for effectiveness. Thirteen literature databases were explored using a structured search and data extraction strategy. All included studies dealing with incident reporting described positive effects. Evidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of safety analysis is scarce. No studies on mitigation were included. The collected evidence on risk reduction concerns a variety of interventions to reduce medication errors, fall incidents, diagnostic errors, and adverse events in general. Most studies reported positive effects; however, interventions were often multifaceted, and it was difficult to disentangle their impact. This made it difficult to draw generic lessons from this body of research. More rigorous evaluations are needed, in particular, of continuous learning and safety analysis techniques.

Review article: Effectiveness of patient care teams and the role of clinical expertise and coordination: a literature review.

Health care is increasingly provided by teams of health professionals rather than by individual doctors. For decision makers, it is imperative to identify the critical elements for effective teams to transform health care workplaces into effective team-based environments. The authors reviewed the research literature published between 1990 and February 2008. The available research indicated that teams with enhanced clinical expertise improved professional performance and had mixed effects on patient outcomes. Teams with improved coordination had some positive effects on patient outcomes and limited effects on costs and resource utilization. The combination of enhanced expertise and coordination only showed some limited effect on patient outcomes. The authors conclude that enhancement of the clinical expertise is a potentially effective component of improving the impact of patient care teams. The added value of coordination functions remained unclear. Overall, current studies provide little insight into the underlying mechanisms of teamwork.