Physical therapy · 2026
A Single-Number Value Metric Integrating Quality and Cost in Outpatient Physical Therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bourcier Bryan, Ruediger Thomas, Walck Christine, Kennedy Sean M
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: As health care transitions toward value-based care, outpatient physical therapy lacks a practical metric that objectively integrates quality of care and cost into a single measure of clinical value.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a single-number value metric (VM) integrating clinical effectiveness, patient experience, and cost efficiency in outpatient physical therapy and to determine its concordance with blinded manager assessments of therapist value.
DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational cohort study.
SETTING: The study was conducted at 8 outpatient physical therapy clinics within a single health care system, including freestanding ambulatory clinics and hospital-based outpatient departments.
PARTICIPANTS: The study included twelve licensed physical therapists and 2400 outpatient episodes of care.
INTERVENTION(S) OR EXPOSURE(S): Therapist-level patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) improvement, clinic-level Net Promoter Score (NPS), and financial data were combined to calculate a single-number VM. Blinded clinical managers independently ranked therapists according to perceived value.
MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): VM scores were calculated for each therapist. Concordance between VM rankings and blinded manager rankings was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: VM scores ranged from 1.39 to 4.76 (median = 2.39; interquartile range = 1.99-3.13). Across 2400 episodes of care, 72.8% of PROM changes met or exceeded published minimal clinically important difference thresholds. Among ambulatory therapists, VM rankings demonstrated a strong inverse correlation with manager rankings (Spearman ρ = -0.82). Among hospital-based therapists, VM rankings demonstrated perfect inverse agreement with manager rankings (Spearman ρ = -1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed VM integrates clinical effectiveness, patient experience, and cost efficiency into a feasible, single-number measure of value in outpatient physical therapy. VM scores were strongly aligned with blinded managerial assessments of therapist value.
RELEVANCE: The VM offers a potential framework for evaluating clinical value in outpatient physical therapy and supporting the transition from volume-based to value-based care.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a single-number value metric (VM) integrating clinical effectiveness, patient experience, and cost efficiency in outpatient physical therapy and to determine its concordance with blinded manager assessments of therapist value.
DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational cohort study.
SETTING: The study was conducted at 8 outpatient physical therapy clinics within a single health care system, including freestanding ambulatory clinics and hospital-based outpatient departments.
PARTICIPANTS: The study included twelve licensed physical therapists and 2400 outpatient episodes of care.
INTERVENTION(S) OR EXPOSURE(S): Therapist-level patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) improvement, clinic-level Net Promoter Score (NPS), and financial data were combined to calculate a single-number VM. Blinded clinical managers independently ranked therapists according to perceived value.
MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): VM scores were calculated for each therapist. Concordance between VM rankings and blinded manager rankings was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: VM scores ranged from 1.39 to 4.76 (median = 2.39; interquartile range = 1.99-3.13). Across 2400 episodes of care, 72.8% of PROM changes met or exceeded published minimal clinically important difference thresholds. Among ambulatory therapists, VM rankings demonstrated a strong inverse correlation with manager rankings (Spearman ρ = -0.82). Among hospital-based therapists, VM rankings demonstrated perfect inverse agreement with manager rankings (Spearman ρ = -1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed VM integrates clinical effectiveness, patient experience, and cost efficiency into a feasible, single-number measure of value in outpatient physical therapy. VM scores were strongly aligned with blinded managerial assessments of therapist value.
RELEVANCE: The VM offers a potential framework for evaluating clinical value in outpatient physical therapy and supporting the transition from volume-based to value-based care.