Delivery of a quality improvement program in team-based rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

To investigate how a quality improvement program (BRIDGE), designed to promote coordination and continuity in rehabilitation services, was delivered and perceived by providers in routine practice for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

METHODS

A convergent mixed methods approach was nested within a stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial. The intervention program was developed to bridge gaps between secondary and primary healthcare, comprising the following elements: motivational interviewing; patient-specific goal setting; written rehabilitation-plans; personalized feedback on progress; and tailored follow-up. Data from health professionals who delivered the program were collected and analyzed separately, using two questionnaires and three focus groups. Results were integrated during the overall interpretation and discussion.

RESULTS

The program delivery depended on the providers' skills and competence, as well as on contextual factors in their teams and institutions. Suggested possibilities for improvements included follow-up with sufficient support from next of kin and external services, and the practicing of action and coping plans, standardized outcome measures, and feedback on progress.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaders and clinicians should discuss efforts to ensure confident and qualified rehabilitation delivery at the levels of individual providers, teams, and institutions, and pay equal attention to each component in the process from admission to follow-up.

Does follow-up really matter? A convergent mixed methods study exploring follow-up across levels of care in rehabilitation of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

PURPOSE

To explore what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) need and receive of follow-up care after specialized rehabilitation, and whether received follow-up is associated with health outcomes after 1 year. Further, to compare these findings with patients' experiences to improve the understanding of how follow-up takes place.

METHODS

In a mixed methods study, patients received a rehabilitation programme designed to improve the continuity in rehabilitation across care levels. A total of 168 patients completed questionnaires, of which 21 were also interviewed.

RESULTS

At discharge, most patients reported needs for follow-up. These needs were largely met within 1 year, mainly resulting from patients' initiatives to re-connect with previous contacts. The degree of received follow-up was not associated with goal attainment, quality of life, or physical function. Factors related to providers (competence, communication skills), context (delays, limited access to care), and patients (motivation, life situation, preferences) seemed to be decisive for the progress of the rehabilitation process over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide evidence that access to follow-up care is crucial to patients with RMDs. However, it also highlights several factors that may influence its impact. These results can be used to optimise design and implementation of future follow-up interventions.

Bridging gaps across levels of care in rehabilitation of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: Results from a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a structured goal-setting and tailored follow-up rehabilitation intervention with existing rehabilitation in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

DESIGN

A pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.

SETTING

Eight rehabilitation centers in secondary healthcare, Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 374 adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases were included in either the experimental (168) or the control group (206).

INTERVENTIONS

A new rehabilitation intervention which comprised structured goal setting, action planning, motivational interviewing, digital self-monitoring of goal progress, and individual follow-up support after discharge according to patients' needs and available resources in primary healthcare (the BRIDGE-intervention), was compared to usual care.

MAIN MEASURES

Patient-reported outcomes were collected electronically on admission and discharge from rehabilitation, and after 2, 7, and 12 months. The primary outcome was patients' goal attainment measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale (0-10, 10 best) at 7 months. Secondary outcome measures included physical function (30-s Sit-To-Stand test), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L-index), and self-assessed health (EQ-VAS). The main statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

No significant treatment effects of the BRIDGE-intervention were found for either primary (Patient Specific Functional Scale mean difference 0.1 [95% CI: -0.5, 0.8], p = 0.70), or secondary outcomes 7 months after rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

The BRIDGE-intervention was not shown to be more effective than existing rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. There is still a need for more knowledge about factors that can improve the quality, continuity, and long-term health effects of rehabilitation for this patient group.

Follow-up care and adherence to self-management activities in rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: results from a multicentre cohort study

PURPOSE

Follow-up care (FU-care) and self-management are recognized as important to ensure prolonged effects of rehabilitation. Objectives of this study were to explore current FU-care and self-management after specialized rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre cohort study included 523 patients who self-reported need and plans for FU-care and plans for self-management activities (SMAs) at rehabilitation discharge. The FU-care received and adherence to SMA were self-reported after 4-, 8-, and 12-months. Predictors for received FU-care and adherence to SMA were explored in multiple logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Plans for FU-care were significantly associated with received FU-care. Younger age, better coping skills, and performing regular social activities and hobbies were significant predictors for received FU-care. Throughout the follow-up year, 221 (51%) participants had adherence to their SMA plans. Older age, regular physical activity, more severe pain, and performing regular social activities and hobbies were significant predictors for adherence to SMA. Participants with SMA adherence more often reported planned FU-care, and more frequently received the FU-care they needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Planning FU-care should be integrated in specialized rehabilitation. Patients with poor coping skills and sedentary lifestyle may need more support over longer time to implement behavioral changes for healthy self-management.Implications for rehabilitationPlanning follow-up should be integrated in specialized rehabilitation as it supports self-management and receiving follow-up at home.Patients with sedentary lifestyle, poor coping skills, and depression may need more support over longer time to implement healthy self-management.Structure and routines in daily life enhance self-management.

Rehabilitation goals described by patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: content and attainment during the first year after rehabilitation

PURPOSE

We explored the content and attainment of rehabilitation goals the first year after rehabilitation among patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

METHODS

Participants (n = 523) recorded goals in the Patient Specific Functional Scale at admission and reported goal attainment at admission, discharge, and 12 months after rehabilitation on an 11-point numeric rating scale. Goal content was linked to the ICF coding system and summarized as high, maintained, or no attainment. Changes in absolute scores were investigated using paired samples t-tests.

RESULTS

Goals had high attainment with a significant positive change (-1.83 [95% CI -2.0, -1.65], p > 0.001) during rehabilitation, whereas goals had no attainment with a significant negative change (0.36 [0.14, 0.57], p > 0.001) between discharge and 12 months after rehabilitation. Goals focusing on everyday routines, physical health, pain management, and social or work participation were highly attained during rehabilitation. Goals that were difficult to enhance or maintain after rehabilitation addressed everyday routines, physical health, and work participation.

CONCLUSION

The positive changes in goal attainment largely occurred during rehabilitation, but they appeared more difficult to maintain at home. Therefore, rehabilitation goals should be reflected in the follow-up care planned at discharge.Implications for rehabilitationThe contents of rehabilitation goals reflect the complexity and wide range of challenges patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases experience.Positive changes in goal attainment largely occur during rehabilitation and appear to be more difficult to enhance or maintain at home.Rehabilitation interventions and follow-up care should be tailored to support patients in maintaining their attained goals for healthy self-management.Rehabilitation goals should be reflected in the follow-up care planned at discharge.

Associations between quality of health care and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a rehabilitation cohort study

Background

The quality of provided health care may be an important source of variation in rehabilitation outcomes, increasing the interest in associations between quality indicators (QIs) and improved patient outcomes. Therefore, we examined the associations between the quality of rehabilitation processes and subsequent clinical outcomes among patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Methods

In this multicentre prospective cohort study, adults with RMDs undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation at eight participating centres reported the quality of rehabilitation after 2 months and outcomes after 2, 7, and 12 months. We measured perceived quality of rehabilitation by 11 process indicators that cover the domains of initial assessments, patient participation and individual goal-setting, and individual follow-up and coordination across levels of health care. The patients responded “yes” or “no” to each indicator. Scores were calculated as pass rates (PRs) from 0 to 100% (best score). Clinical outcomes were goal attainment (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), physical function (30 s sit-to-stand test), and health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5D-5L). Associations between patient-reported quality of care and each outcome measure at 7 months was analysed by linear mixed models.

Results

A total of 293 patients were enrolled in this study (mean age 52 years, 76% female). Primary diagnoses were inflammatory rheumatic disease (64%), fibromyalgia syndrome (18%), unspecific neck, shoulder, or low back pain (8%), connective tissue disease (6%), and osteoarthritis (4%). The overall median PR for the process indicators was 73% (range 11–100%). The PR was lowest (median 40%) for individual follow-up and coordination across levels of care. The mixed model analyses showed that higher PRs for the process indicators were not associated with improved goal attainment or improved physical function or improved health-related quality of life.

Conclusions

The quality of rehabilitation processes was not associated with important clinical outcomes. An implication of this is that measuring only the outcome dimension of quality may result in incomplete evaluation and monitoring of the quality of care, and we suggest using information from both the structure, process, and outcome dimensions to draw inferences about the quality, and plan future quality initiatives in the field of complex rehabilitation.

Trial registration

The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03102814).

A quality indicator set for rehabilitation services for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases demonstrates adequate responsiveness in a pre-post evaluation

BACKGROUND

Quality of care is gaining increasing attention in research, clinical practice, and health care planning. Methods for quality assessment and monitoring, such as quality indicators (QIs), are needed to ensure health services in line with norms and recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of a newly developed QI set for rehabiliation for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

We used two yes/no questionnaires to measure quality from both the provider and patient perspectives, scored in a range of 0-100% (best score, 100%). We collected QI data from a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial (the BRIDGE trial) that compared traditional rehabilitation with a new BRIDGE program designed to improve quality and continuity in rehabilitation. Assessment of the responsiveness was performed as a pre-post evaluation: Providers at rehabilitation centers in Norway completed the center-reported QIs (n = 19 structure indicators) before (T1) and 6-8 weeks after (T2) adding the BRIDGE intervention. The patient-reported QIs comprised 14 process and outcomes indicators, measuring quality in health services from the patient perspective. Pre-intervention patient-reported data were collected from patients participating in the traditional program (T1), and post-intervention data were collected from patients participating in the BRIDGE program (T2). The patient groups were comparable. We used a construct approach, with a priori hypotheses regarding the expected direction and magnitude of PR changes between T1 and T2. For acceptable responsivess, at least 75% of the hypotheses needed to be confirmed.

RESULTS

All eight participating centers and 82% of the patients (293/357) completed the QI questionnaires. Responsiveness was acceptable, with 44 of 53 hypotheses (83%) confirmed for single indicators and 3 of 4 hypotheses (75%) confirmed for the sum scores.

CONCLUSION

We found this QI set for rehabilitation to be responsive when applied in rehabilitation services for adults with various RMD conditions. We recommend this QI set as a timely method for establishing quality-of-rehabilitation benchmarks, promoting important progress toward high-quality rehabilitation, and tracking trends over time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03102814).