Skip to main content

Table 1 Selection process of the indicators

From: Quality measurement of out-patient neuropsychological therapy after stroke in Germany: definition of indicators and retrospective pilot study

Indicators (percent of patients having received appropriate diagnostics and treatment) Rating Include in pilot study (yes/no) % quality aims met (n) Range among centers
1. Documentation of peripheral or central deficits (n = 104) 7 Yes 80 (n = 83) 22–98
2. Standardized depression assessment (n = 104)a 9 Yes 69 (n = 72) 0–100
3. Indication for memory deficits (n = 85) and appropriate diagnosticsb 8 Yes 96 (n = 82) 91–100
4. Suspected defects in attention and appropriate diagnosticb(n = 98) 8 Yes 98 (n = 96) 91–100
5. Suspected defects in executive function (n = 73) and appropriate diagnosticsb 8 Yes 99 (n = 72) 91–100
6. Deficits in executive function (n = 73) and appropriate trainingc 7 Yes 71 (n = 52) 47–100
7. Attention deficits and appropriate training (n = 95)d 8 Yes 44 (n = 42) 0–88
8. Attention deficits and help to organize daily routines (n = 95) 7 Yes 87 (n = 83) 82–100
9. Severe memory problems and/or executive function deficits and inclusion of relatives in therapy (n = 64) 8 Yes 67 (n = 43) 47–100
10.offer to involve relatives (n = 104) 9 Yes 84 (n = 87) 44–100
11. Assessment of aims for participation in private and professional life (n = 104) 9 Yes 100 (n = 104)  
12.Open social-economic problems and mediation into provision of care (n = 62) 7 Yes 65 (n = 40) 5–100
13. Treatment plan for handling the emotional consequences (n = 104) 8 Yes 92 (n = 96) 80–100
14. Documentation that professional reintegration was successful (n = 72)e 10 Yes 63 (n = 45) 50–100
15. Counselling on fitness to drive (n = 104) 7 Yes 88 (n = 92) 60–96
16. Time between first contact in out-patient clinic and beginning of therapy < 1 month 10 Yes 63 (n = 66) 22–90
  1. To decide on a set of indicators appropriate for further testing and external review, indicators were rated by the consensus group on a 10 point scale based on the strength of available evidence, expected effect size, estimated relevance for the patients and in a socio-economical context as well as in respect to reliability and validity of the indicators. Indicators were dropped if < 6 points were given. If two indicators covered the same area of neuropsychological aftercare the indicator with the higher score was selected. More details on the rating can be found in the supplementary methods section
  2. ausing standardized scores, baccording to guidelines, cmultiple training sessions including problem solving, managing aims, working under time pressure, self-management or meta-cognitive training (according to guidelines), dattention-deficit specific training according to Sturm et al., eout of patients wishing for professional reintegration