提供者反馈对康复服务质量改善的影响:中断时间序列分析。

IF 1.3 Q3 REHABILITATION
Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences Pub Date : 2025-03-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fresc.2025.1564346
Anne-Lene Sand-Svartrud, Hanne Dagfinrud, Johanne Fossen, Heidi Framstad, Eirik Lind Irgens, Hild Kristin Morvik, Joseph Sexton, Rikke Helene Moe, Ingvild Kjeken
{"title":"提供者反馈对康复服务质量改善的影响:中断时间序列分析。","authors":"Anne-Lene Sand-Svartrud, Hanne Dagfinrud, Johanne Fossen, Heidi Framstad, Eirik Lind Irgens, Hild Kristin Morvik, Joseph Sexton, Rikke Helene Moe, Ingvild Kjeken","doi":"10.3389/fresc.2025.1564346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Quality improvement in rehabilitation is needed due to unwarranted variations and suboptimal service coordination. Audit and feedback strategies are commonly used to improve healthcare quality, but evidence of their effectiveness in rehabilitation settings is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of an audit and feedback strategy on rehabilitation quality, as measured by a set of quality indicators (QIs) specifically designed for rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Interrupted time series analysis was conducted across 16 Norwegian institutions delivering specialized rehabilitation for long-term diseases. Patient-reported rehabilitation quality data was collected continuously before and after a provider feedback intervention, while provider-reported quality was measured once before and after the intervention. We compared 11 pre- and 9 post-intervention observations, each spanning 3 weeks, over a 15-months study period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analyses included 2,415 patients, with 1,444 (59.8%) pre-intervention and 971 (40.2%) post-intervention. Mixed model analyses revealed that the mean differences in patient-reported QIs between the pre- and post-intervention phase were small and statistically non-significant. The expected impact model, including a gradually higher quality after the feedback to institution managers and clinical team members, was not confirmed. We observed variations in service quality among institutions, also post-intervention. The lowest pass rates were observed for indicators addressing the follow-up, involvement of external services and next of kin.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this multicentre study, the audit and feedback intervention did not lead to improvements in the quality of rehabilitation services, as measured by changes in QI pass rates covering health service structures, processes and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03764982].</p>","PeriodicalId":73102,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","volume":"6 ","pages":"1564346"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11925202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of provider feedback on quality improvement in rehabilitation services: an interrupted time series analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Anne-Lene Sand-Svartrud, Hanne Dagfinrud, Johanne Fossen, Heidi Framstad, Eirik Lind Irgens, Hild Kristin Morvik, Joseph Sexton, Rikke Helene Moe, Ingvild Kjeken\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fresc.2025.1564346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Quality improvement in rehabilitation is needed due to unwarranted variations and suboptimal service coordination. Audit and feedback strategies are commonly used to improve healthcare quality, but evidence of their effectiveness in rehabilitation settings is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of an audit and feedback strategy on rehabilitation quality, as measured by a set of quality indicators (QIs) specifically designed for rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Interrupted time series analysis was conducted across 16 Norwegian institutions delivering specialized rehabilitation for long-term diseases. Patient-reported rehabilitation quality data was collected continuously before and after a provider feedback intervention, while provider-reported quality was measured once before and after the intervention. We compared 11 pre- and 9 post-intervention observations, each spanning 3 weeks, over a 15-months study period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analyses included 2,415 patients, with 1,444 (59.8%) pre-intervention and 971 (40.2%) post-intervention. Mixed model analyses revealed that the mean differences in patient-reported QIs between the pre- and post-intervention phase were small and statistically non-significant. The expected impact model, including a gradually higher quality after the feedback to institution managers and clinical team members, was not confirmed. We observed variations in service quality among institutions, also post-intervention. The lowest pass rates were observed for indicators addressing the follow-up, involvement of external services and next of kin.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this multicentre study, the audit and feedback intervention did not lead to improvements in the quality of rehabilitation services, as measured by changes in QI pass rates covering health service structures, processes and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03764982].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"1564346\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11925202/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2025.1564346\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2025.1564346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:由于不合理的变化和次优的服务协调,康复的质量需要提高。审计和反馈策略通常用于提高医疗保健质量,但其在康复环境中的有效性证据有限。目的:评价审计和反馈策略对康复质量的影响,通过一套专门为康复设计的质量指标(QIs)来衡量。方法:中断时间序列分析在挪威16家提供长期疾病专门康复的机构中进行。在提供者反馈干预前后连续收集患者报告的康复质量数据,而在干预前后分别测量一次提供者报告的质量。在15个月的研究期间,我们比较了11个干预前和9个干预后的观察结果,每个观察结果持续3周。结果:纳入2415例患者,干预前1444例(59.8%),干预后971例(40.2%)。混合模型分析显示,干预前和干预后患者报告的QIs的平均差异很小,统计学上不显著。预期的影响模型,包括在反馈给机构管理者和临床团队成员后,质量逐渐提高,没有得到证实。我们观察到各机构之间的服务质量差异,干预后也是如此。通过率最低的指标涉及后续行动、外部服务的参与和近亲。结论:在这项多中心研究中,审计和反馈干预并没有导致康复服务质量的改善,这是通过覆盖卫生服务结构、流程和患者结果的QI合格率的变化来衡量的。临床试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03764982]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of provider feedback on quality improvement in rehabilitation services: an interrupted time series analysis.

Introduction: Quality improvement in rehabilitation is needed due to unwarranted variations and suboptimal service coordination. Audit and feedback strategies are commonly used to improve healthcare quality, but evidence of their effectiveness in rehabilitation settings is limited.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of an audit and feedback strategy on rehabilitation quality, as measured by a set of quality indicators (QIs) specifically designed for rehabilitation.

Methods: Interrupted time series analysis was conducted across 16 Norwegian institutions delivering specialized rehabilitation for long-term diseases. Patient-reported rehabilitation quality data was collected continuously before and after a provider feedback intervention, while provider-reported quality was measured once before and after the intervention. We compared 11 pre- and 9 post-intervention observations, each spanning 3 weeks, over a 15-months study period.

Results: The analyses included 2,415 patients, with 1,444 (59.8%) pre-intervention and 971 (40.2%) post-intervention. Mixed model analyses revealed that the mean differences in patient-reported QIs between the pre- and post-intervention phase were small and statistically non-significant. The expected impact model, including a gradually higher quality after the feedback to institution managers and clinical team members, was not confirmed. We observed variations in service quality among institutions, also post-intervention. The lowest pass rates were observed for indicators addressing the follow-up, involvement of external services and next of kin.

Conclusions: In this multicentre study, the audit and feedback intervention did not lead to improvements in the quality of rehabilitation services, as measured by changes in QI pass rates covering health service structures, processes and patient outcomes.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03764982].

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信