Dataset Information

Perceived quality of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage, where physiotherapists diagnose and determine management plans, aims to enhance effectiveness and provide the best care. However, scientific evidence for the effectiveness of this model of care remains limited, and there are few studies reporting on patients' perceptions of the care provided. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceived quality of care in a physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage in primary care, compared with standard practice.In a randomised controlled trial, patients of working age referred for orthopaedic consultation at a primary healthcare clinic in Sweden received either physiotherapist-led triage (n?=?102) or standard practice (orthopaedic surgeon assessment) (n?=?101). Neither subjects nor clinicians were blinded. The questionnaire Quality from the Patient's Perspective (QPP) was used to evaluate perceived quality of care focusing on the caregivers' medical-technical competence and identity-orientated approach. Also, to what extent patients' expectations were met, and their intention to follow advice was evaluated.For this study, 163 patients (80 %) were analysed (physiotherapist-led triage (n?=?83), standard practice (n?=?80)). Participants perceived significantly higher quality of care with the triage than with the standard practice in regards to receiving best possible examination and treatment (medical-technical competence) (p?

SUBMITTER: Samsson KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4901501 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceived quality of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

Samsson Karin S KS Bernhardsson Susanne S Larsson Maria E H ME

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20160610

<h4>Background</h4>Physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage, where physiotherapists diagnose and determine management plans, aims to enhance effectiveness and provide the best care. However, scientific evidence for the effectiveness of this model of care remains limited, and there are few studies reporting on patients' perceptions of the care provided. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceived quality of care in a physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage in primary care, compared ...[more]

PMID: 27286829

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physiotherapist-led (PT-led) orthopaedic triage is an evolving model of care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Objectives for this study were to establish the current evidence body on the impact of PT-led orthopaedic triage on health, quality, and service outcomes for patients referred for orthopaedic consultation, compared with standard (orthopaedic surgeon) care. METHODS:Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL were searched from inception until 7 May 2018; search updated 24 April 2020. Search terms (including derivatives) included physiotherapy, advanced/extended scope, musculoskeletal/orthopaedic, triage. The search was framed as Population = patients referred for orthopaedic consultation; Intervention =?PT-led orthopaedic triage; Comparison =?standard care; Outcomes =?health, quality and process outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. Screening, study selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by reviewer pairs. Quality was scored with the Downs and Black checklist. Certainty of evidence was determined using GRADE. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017070950. RESULTS:We included two RCTs and eleven cohort studies (n =?1357 participants) of variable methodological quality (range 14-23 of possible 28). Certainty of evidence was low to moderate. There was no difference between PT-led orthopaedic triage and standard care for patient-reported outcomes (two RCTs). Perceived quality of care with PT-led orthopaedic triage was higher (two RCTs, four cohort studies) or equal (one cohort study) compared with standard care. PT-led orthopaedic triage had higher surgery conversion rates (one RCT, three cohort studies) (55-91% vs 22-38%), lower (two RCTs) or equal rate (two cohort studies) of referral for investigations, shorter waiting times (one RCT, one cohort study), and lower costs (one RCT). Furthermore, there was high agreement between physiotherapists' and orthopaedic surgeons' treatment approach (eight cohort studies), referral for investigation (five cohort studies), and diagnosis (nine cohort studies). Study limitations were the low number of RCTs, and variable methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence of low to moderate certainty suggests that PT-led orthopaedic triage leads to similar diagnostic decisions as standard care, has a higher conversion-to-surgery rate, reduces waiting times, is cost effective and valued by patients, and that health outcomes are equivalent.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical therapy-led orthopedic triage is a care model used to optimize pathways for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. However, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this model of care is still limited and only a few studies report patients' perception of it. The aim of this study was to compare patients' perceived quality of care after physical therapy-led triage with standard practice in a secondary care setting for patients with primary hip or knee osteoarthritis.MethodsIn this randomized study, patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis referred for an orthopedic consultation received either physical therapy-led triage (n = 344) or a standard care assessment by an orthopedic surgeon (n = 294). To evaluate the patients' perceived quality of care, a short version of the Quality from the Patient's Perspective (QPP) questionnaire was sent to the patients within a week after their assessment. The primary outcome was the statement "I received the best examination and treatment" on QPP.ResultsA total of 348 patients (70%, physical therapy-led triage: n = 249, standard care: n = 199) answered the questionnaire. No significant difference was found in the primary outcome between the groups (p = 0.6). Participants in the triage group perceived themselves to have received significantly better information about how to take care of their osteoarthritis (p = 0.017) compared with the standard care group. The standard care group reported that they participated in the decision-making process to a greater extent (p = 0.005), that their expectations were met to a greater degree (p = 0.013), and that their care depended more on their need for care rather than the caregivers' routines (0.007).ConclusionBoth groups report high perceived quality of care. Significant differences were found in four of 14 questions, one in favor of the physical therapist and three in favor of the standard care group. The findings of this study are in line with previous research and support the use of this care model for patients with hip or knee OA in secondary care. However, due to the dropout size, the results should be interpreted with caution.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT04665908, registered 14/12/2020.

Project description:BackgroundEmergence of more autonomous roles for physiotherapists warrants more evidence regarding their diagnostic capabilities. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate diagnostic and surgical triage concordance between a physiotherapist and expert physicians and to assess the diagnostic validity of the physiotherapist's musculoskeletal examination (ME) without imaging.MethodsThis is a prospective diagnostic study where 179 consecutive participants consulting for any knee complaint were independently diagnosed and triaged by two evaluators: a physiotherapist and one expert physician (orthopaedic surgeons or sport medicine physicians). The physiotherapist completed only a ME, while the physicians also had access to imaging to make their diagnosis. Raw agreement proportions and Cohen's kappa (k) were calculated to assess inter-rater agreement. Sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp), as well as positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+/-) were calculated to assess the validity of the ME compared to the physicians' composite diagnosis.ResultsPrimary knee diagnoses included anterior cruciate ligament injury (n = 8), meniscal injury (n = 36), patellofemoral pain (n = 45) and osteoarthritis (n = 79). Diagnostic inter-rater agreement between the physiotherapist and physicians was high (k = 0.89; 95% CI:0.83-0.94). Inter-rater agreement for triage recommendations of surgical candidates was good (k = 0.73; 95% CI:0.60-0.86). Se and Sp of the physiotherapist's ME ranged from 82.0 to 100.0% and 96.0 to 100.0% respectively and LR+/- ranged from 23.2 to 30.5 and from 0.03 to 0.09 respectively.ConclusionsThere was high diagnostic agreement and good triage concordance between the physiotherapist and physicians. The ME without imaging may be sufficient to diagnose or exclude common knee disorders for a large proportion of patients. Replication in a larger study will be required as well as further assessment of innovative multidisciplinary care trajectories to improve care of patients with common musculoskeletal disorders.

Project description:AimThe aim of the present study was to analyse concomitant drug use and its association with outcome in patients (N = 17 701) receiving rivaroxaban or standard of care (SOC) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after major orthopaedic surgery in the non-interventional, phase IV XAMOS (Xarelto® in the prophylaxis of post-surgical venous thromboembolism after elective major orthopaedic surgery of hip or knee) study.MethodsConcomitant drug use was at the discretion of the treating physician. Prespecified co-medications of interest were cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4/P-glycoprotein inhibitors/inducers, platelet aggregation inhibitors (PAIs) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Crude event incidences were compared between rivaroxaban and SOC groups.ResultsCYP3A4/P-glycoprotein inhibitor/inducer use was infrequent, in contrast to PAI (~7%) and NSAID (~52%) use. Rivaroxaban was associated with a lower incidence of overall symptomatic thromboembolic events compared with SOC, regardless of co-medication use. In both treatment groups, PAI users, with higher age and prevalence of cardiovascular co-morbidities, had similar higher (>7-fold) incidences of symptomatic arterial but not venous thromboembolic events compared with non-users. NSAID use had no influence on thromboembolic events. However, odds ratios (ORs) for major bleeding events (European Medicines Agency definition) were higher in NSAID users compared with non-users in rivaroxaban [OR = 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06, 2.13] and SOC (OR = 1.70; CI 1.16, 2.49) groups. In PAI users, ORs for major bleeding events were no different from those of non-users in both the rivaroxaban (OR = 1.49; CI 0.84, 2.65) and SOC (OR = 1.46; CI 0.82, 2.62) groups.ConclusionsUse of NSAIDs in XAMOS was frequent and associated with a higher frequency of bleeding events in patients receiving rivaroxaban or SOC, although the benefit-risk profile of rivaroxaban compared with SOC was maintained.

Project description:IntroductionThis double-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to estimate the effect of a physiotherapist-led intervention with targeted strengthening compared with a physiotherapist-led intervention with standardised stretching, on hip-related quality of life (QOL) or perceived improvement at 6 months in people with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. We hypothesise that at 6 months, targeted strengthening physiotherapist-led treatment will be associated with greater improvements in hip-related QOL or greater patient-perceived global improvement when compared with standardised stretching physiotherapist-led treatment.Methods and analysisWe will recruit 164 participants with FAI syndrome who will be randomised into one of the two intervention groups, both receiving one-on-one treatment with the physiotherapist over 6 months. The targeted strengthening physiotherapist-led treatment group will receive a personalised exercise therapy and education programme. The standardised stretching physiotherapist-led treatment group will receive standardised stretching and personalised education programme. Primary outcomes are change in hip-related QOL using International Hip Outcome Tool-33 and patient-perceived global improvement. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, muscle strength, range of motion, functional task performance, biomechanics, hip cartilage structure and physical activity levels. Statistical analyses will make comparisons between both treatment groups by intention to treat, with all randomised participants included in analyses, regardless of protocol adherence. Linear mixed models (with baseline value as a covariate and treatment condition as a fixed factor) will be used to evaluate the treatment effect and 95% CI at primary end-point (6 months).Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved (La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (HEC17-080)) and prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. The findings of this RCT will be disseminated through peer reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Patients were involved in study development and will receive a short summary following the completion of the RCT.Trial registration numberACTRN12617001350314.

Project description:BackgroundDecentralised services using outreach clinics or modern technology are methods to reduce both patient transports and costs to the healthcare system. Telemedicine consultations via videoconference are one such modality. Before new technologies are implemented, it is important to investigate both the quality of care given and the economic impact from the use of this new technology. The aim of this clinical trial was to study the quality of planned remote orthopaedic consultations by help of videoconference.MethodWe performed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel groups: video-assisted remote consultations at a regional medical centre (RMC) as an intervention versus standard consultation in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN) as a control. The participants were patients referred to or scheduled for a consultation at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. The orthopaedic surgeons evaluated each consultation they performed by completing a questionnaire. The primary outcome measurement was the difference in the sum score calculated from this questionnaire, which was evaluated by the non-inferiority of the intervention group. The study design was based on the intention to treat principle. Ancillary analyses regarding complications, the number of consultations per patient, operations, patients who were referred again and the duration of consultations were performed.ResultsFour-hundred patients were web-based randomised. Of these, 199 (98 %) underwent remote consultation and 190 (95 %) underwent standard consultation. The primary outcome, the sum score of the specialist evaluation, was significantly lower (i.e. 'better') at UNN compared to RMC (1.72 versus 1.82, p = 0.0030). The 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in score (0.05, 0.17) was within the non-inferiority margin. The orthopaedic surgeons involved evaluated 98 % of the video-assisted consultations as 'good' or 'very good'. In the ancillary analyses, there was no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionsThis study supports the argument that it is safe to offer video-assisted consultations for selected orthopaedic patients. We did not find any serious events related to the mode of consultation. Further assessments of the economic aspects and patient satisfaction are needed before we can recommend its wider application.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00616837.

Project description:BackgroundArthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI) is known to lead to self-reported symptom improvement. In the context of surgical interventions with known contextual effects and no true sham comparator trials, it is important to ascertain outcomes that are less susceptible to placebo effects. The primary aim of this trial was to determine if study participants with FAI who have hip arthroscopy demonstrate greater improvements in delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of cartilage (dGEMRIC) index between baseline and 12 months, compared to participants who undergo physiotherapist-led management.MethodsMulti-centre, pragmatic, two-arm superiority randomised controlled trial comparing physiotherapist-led management to hip arthroscopy for FAI. FAI participants were recruited from participating orthopaedic surgeons clinics, and randomly allocated to receive either physiotherapist-led conservative care or surgery. The surgical intervention was arthroscopic FAI surgery. The physiotherapist-led conservative management was an individualised physiotherapy program, named Personalised Hip Therapy (PHT). The primary outcome measure was change in dGEMRIC score between baseline and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included a range of patient-reported outcomes and structural measures relevant to FAI pathoanatomy and hip osteoarthritis development. Interventions were compared by intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsNinety-nine participants were recruited, of mean age 33 years and 58% male. Primary outcome data were available for 53 participants (27 in surgical group, 26 in PHT). The adjusted group difference in change at 12 months in dGEMRIC was -59 ms (95%CI - 137.9 to - 19.6) (p = 0.14) favouring PHT. Hip-related quality of life (iHOT-33) showed improvements in both groups with the adjusted between-group difference at 12 months showing a statistically and clinically important improvement in arthroscopy of 14 units (95% CI 5.6 to 23.9) (p = 0.003).ConclusionThe primary outcome of dGEMRIC showed no statistically significant difference between PHT and arthroscopic hip surgery at 12 months of follow-up. Patients treated with surgery reported greater benefits in symptoms at 12 months compared to PHT, but these benefits are not explained by better hip cartilage metabolism.Trial registration detailsAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry reference: ACTRN12615001177549 . Trial registered 2/11/2015.

Dataset Information

Perceived quality of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Perceived quality of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage compared with standard practice in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets