Development of a core capability framework for qualified health professionals to optimise care for people with osteoarthritis: an OARSI initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a generic trans-disciplinary, skills-based capability framework for health professionals providing care for people with OA. DESIGN: e-Delphi survey. An international inter-professional Delphi Panel (researchers; clinicians; consumer representatives) considered a draft framework (adapted from elsewhere) of 131 specific capabilities mapped to 14 broader capability areas across four domains (A: person-centred approaches; B: assessment, investigation and diagnosis; C: management, interventions and prevention; D: service and professional development). Over three rounds, the Panel rated their agreement (Likert or numerical rating scales) on whether each specific capability in Domains B and C was essential (core) for all health professionals when providing care for all people with OA. Those achieving consensus (≥80% of Panel) rating of ≥ seven out of ten (Round 3) were retained. Generic domains (A and D) were included in the final framework and amended based on Panel comments. RESULTS: 173 people from 31 countries, spanning 18 disciplines and including 26 consumer representatives, participated. The final framework comprised 70 specific capabilities across 13 broad areas i) communication; ii) person-centred care; iii) history-taking; iv) physical assessment; v) investigations and diagnosis; vi) interventions and care planning; vii) prevention and lifestyle interventions; viii) self-management and behaviour change; ix) rehabilitative interventions; x) pharmacotherapy; xi) surgical interventions; xii) referrals and collaborative working; and xiii) evidence-based practice and service development). CONCLUSION: Experts agree that health professionals require an array of skills in person-centred approaches; assessment, investigation and diagnosis; management, interventions and prevention; and service and professional development to provide optimal care for people with OA.

Implementing core NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care with a model consultation (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a model osteoarthritis consultation, compared with usual care, on physical function and uptake of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis recommendations, in adults ≥45 years consulting with peripheral joint pain in UK general practice. METHOD: Two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with baseline health survey. Eight general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 525 adults ≥45 years consulting for peripheral joint pain, amongst 28,443 population survey recipients. Four intervention practices delivered the model osteoarthritis consultation to patients consulting with peripheral joint pain; four control practices continued usual care. The primary clinical outcome of the trial was the SF-12 physical component score (PCS) at 6 months; the main secondary outcome was uptake of NICE core recommendations by 6 months, measured by osteoarthritis quality indicators. A Linear Mixed Model was used to analyse clinical outcome data (SF-12 PCS). Differences in quality indicator outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: 525 eligible participants were enrolled (mean age 67.3 years, SD 10.5; 59.6% female): 288 from intervention and 237 from control practices. There were no statistically significant differences in SF-12 PCS: mean difference at the 6-month primary endpoint was -0.37 (95% CI -2.32, 1.57). Uptake of core NICE recommendations by 6 months was statistically significantly higher in the intervention arm compared with control: e.g., increased written exercise information, 20.5% (7.9, 28.3). CONCLUSION: Whilst uptake of core NICE recommendations was increased, there was no evidence of benefit of this intervention, as delivered in this pragmatic randomised trial, on the primary outcome of physical functioning at 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN06984617.

Effect of a model consultation informed by guidelines on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice. DESIGN: Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA. INTERVENTION: Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators. OUTCOMES: Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record. RESULTS: 1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4-28%), exercise (4-22%) and weight loss (1-15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1-3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06984617.

The OA Trial Bank: meta-analysis of individual patient data from knee and hip osteoarthritis trials show that patients with severe pain exhibit greater benefit from intra-articular glucocorticoids.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) glucocorticoids for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients with severe pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials. DESIGN: Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparation in patients with knee or hip OA, published from 1995 up to June 2012 were selected from the literature. IPD obtained from original trials included patient and disease characteristics and outcomes measured. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). The subgroup factors assessed included severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation (dichotomized in present or not) at baseline. Multilevel regression analyses were applied to estimate the magnitude of the effects in the subgroups with the individuals nested within each study. RESULTS: Seven out of 43 published randomized clinical trials (n = 620) were included. Patients with severe baseline pain had a significantly larger reduction in short-term pain, but not in mid- and long-term pain, compared to those with less severe pain at baseline (Mean Difference 13.91; 95% Confidence Interval 1.50-26.31) when receiving IA glucocorticoid injection compared to placebo. No statistical significant interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo and to tidal irrigation at all follow-up points. CONCLUSIONS: This IPD meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with severe knee pain at baseline derive more benefit from IA glucocorticoid injection at short-term follow-up than those with less severe pain at baseline.

Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify valid and feasible quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic reference databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO), quality indicator repositories, subject experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles referred to adults with OA, focused on development or implementation of quality indicators, and relevant to UK primary care. An English language restriction was used. The date range for the search was January 2000 to August 2013. The majority of OA management guidance has been published within this time frame. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant studies were quality assessed using previous quality indicator methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Articles were assessed through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter; indicators were mapped to management guidance for OA in adults. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. RESULTS: 10,853 articles were identified from the search; 32 were included in the review. Fifteen indicators were considered valid and feasible for implementation in primary care; these related to assessment non-pharmacological and pharmacological management. Another 10 indicators were considered less feasible, in various aspects of assessment and management. A small number of recommendations had no published corresponding quality indicator, such as use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No negative ('do not do') indicators were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There are well-developed, feasible indicators of quality of care for OA which could be implemented in primary care. Their use would assist the audit and quality improvement for this common and frequently disabling condition.

Comparison of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the IPAQ-SF and PASE in adults with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the measurement properties of two commonly used self-report physical activity (PA) measures: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Physical Activity Scale for the elderly (PASE) in adults with osteoarthritis. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the MOSAICS cluster randomised controlled trial baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires, total scores and subdomains of the IPAQ-SF and PASE were compared. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were used to assess test-retest reliability, measurement error was assessed using standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES), standard responsive measurement (SRM) and response ratio (RR). RESULTS: There was moderate correlation (r = 0.56) between the total IPAQ-SF scores (score ranges 0-16,398) and the total PASE scores (score ranges 0-400). Subdomain correlations were also moderate (ranges 0.39-0.57). The PASE showed greater reliability compared to the IPAQ-SF (ICC = 0.68; 0.61-0.74 95% CI and ICC = 0.64; 0.55-0.72, respectively). Measurement errors in both measures were large: PASE SEM = 46.7, SDC = 129.6 and 95% LoA ranges = -117 to 136, the IPAQ-SF SEM = 3532.2 METS-1 min-1 week , SDC = 9790.8 and 95% LoA ranges = -5222 to 5597. Responsiveness was poor: ES -0.14 and -0.16, SRM -0.21 and -0.21, and RR 0.12 and 0.09 for the IPAQ-SF and PASE, respectively. DISCUSSION: The IPAQ-SF and PASE appear limited in reliability, measurement error and responsiveness. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of these limitations, particularly when comparing different levels of PA and monitoring PA levels changes over time in those with osteoarthritis.

Hand problems in community-dwelling older adults: onset and effect on global physical function over a 3-year period.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the onset of hand problems on global physical functioning in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Three-year follow-up postal survey of a population sample of older adults (50 yrs and over) previously recruited to the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project. Questionnaires at baseline and 3-yr collected data on joint pain in the past 12 months in the hands and lower limbs, and physical functioning [SF-36 subscale (PF-10)]. Onset of hand problems at 3 yrs was determined in two subgroups: (i) those free from hand problems and lower limb pain at baseline (n = 762) and (ii) those free from hand problems but with lower limb pain at baseline (n = 754). Changes in PF-10 scores from baseline to 3 yrs were examined in these two subgroups. RESULTS: Onset of hand problems was similar in the two subgroups (20.6 and 24.3% in those without and with baseline lower limb pain, respectively). Females had a higher onset than males but age had little influence. Significantly greater mean change in PF-10 scores was seen in those who reported hand problem onset compared with persons who remained free of hand problems; 8.47 vs 4.62 and 4.78 vs 1.08 in those without and with baseline lower limb pain, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The development of hand problems has a detrimental effect on global physical functioning even in the absence of concurrent lower limb problems. The assessment and effective treatment of hand problems could prove to be important components of maintaining function in the older adult with joint pain and OA.

Clinical course and prognostic factors across different musculoskeletal pain sites: A secondary analysis of individual patient data from randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has identified similar prognostic factors in patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions regardless of pain presentation, generating opportunities for management based on prognosis rather than specific pain presentation. METHODS: Data from seven RCTs (2483 participants) evaluating a range of primary care interventions for different MSK pain conditions were used to investigate the course of symptoms and explore similarities and differences in predictors of outcome. The value of pain site for predicting changes in pain and function was investigated and compared with that of age, gender, social class, pain duration, widespread pain and level of anxiety/depression. RESULTS: Over the initial three months of follow-up, changes in mean pain intensity reflected an improvement, with little change occurring after this period. Participants with knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) showed poorer long-term outcome (mean difference in pain reduction at 12 months -1.85, 95% CI -2.12 to -1.57, compared to low back pain). Increasing age, manual work, longer pain duration, widespread pain and increasing anxiety/depression scores were significantly associated with poorer outcome regardless of pain site. Testing of interactions showed some variation between pain sites, particularly for knee OA, where age, manual work and pain duration were most strongly associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some differences in prognostic factors for trial participants with knee OA who were older and had more chronic conditions, similarity of outcome predictors across regional MSK pain sites provides evidence to support targeting of treatment based on prognostic factors rather than site of pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Individual patient data analysis of trials across different regional musculoskeletal pain sites was used to evaluate course and prognostic factors associated with pain and disability. Overall, similarity of outcome predictors across these different pain sites supports targeting of treatment based on prognostic factors rather than pain site alone.

Comparison of physical treatments versus a brief pain-management programme for back pain in primary care: a randomised clinical trial in physiotherapy practice.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for the management of low back pain in primary care emphasise the importance of recognising and addressing psychosocial factors at an early stage. We compared the effectiveness of a brief pain-management programme with physiotherapy incorporating manual therapy for the reduction of disability at 12 months in patients consulting primary care with subacute low back pain. METHODS: For this pragmatic, multicentre, randomised clinical trial, eligible participants consulted primary care with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration. They were randomly assigned either a programme of pain management (n=201) or manual therapy (n=201). The primary outcome was change in the score on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Of 544 patients assessed for eligibility, 402 were recruited (mean age 40.6 years) and 329 (82%) reached 12-month follow-up. Mean disability scores were 13.8 (SD 4.8) for the pain-management group and 13.3 (4.9) for the manual-therapy group. The mean decreases in disability scores were 8.8 (6.4) and 8.8 (6.1) at 12 months (difference 0 [95% CI -1.3 to 1.4], p=0.99), and median numbers of physiotherapy visits per patient were three (IQR one to five) and four (two to five), respectively (p=0.001). One adverse reaction (an exacerbation of pain after the initial assessment) was recorded. INTERPRETATION: Brief pain management techniques delivered by appropriately trained clinicians offer an alternative to physiotherapy incorporating manual therapy and could provide a more efficient first-line approach for management of non-specific subacute low back pain in primary care.

A systematic search and narrative review of radiographic definitions of hand osteoarthritis in population-based studies.

OBJECTIVE: Currently there is no agreed "gold standard" definition of radiographic hand osteoarthritis (RHOA) for use in epidemiological studies. We therefore undertook a systematic search and narrative review of community-based epidemiological studies of hand osteoarthritis (OA) to identify (1) grading systems used, (2) definitions of radiographic OA for individual joints and (3) definitions of overall RHOA. METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index and Ageline (inception to Dec 2006). The search strategy combined terms for "hand" and specific joint sites, OA and radiography. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Data were extracted from each paper covering: hand joints studied, grading system used, definitions applied for OA at individual joints and overall RHOA. RESULTS: Titles and abstracts of 829 publications were reviewed and the full texts of 399 papers were obtained. One hundred fifty-two met the inclusion criteria and 24 additional papers identified from screening references. Kellgren and Lawrence (K&L) was the most frequently applied grading system used in 80% (n=141) of studies. In 71 studies defining OA at the individual joint level 69 (97%) used a definition of K&L grade > or = 2. Only 53 publications defined overall RHOA, using 21 different definitions based on five grading systems. CONCLUSION: The K&L scheme remains the most frequently used grading system. There is a consistency in defining OA in a single hand joint as K&L grade > or = 2. However, there are substantial variations in the definitions of overall RHOA in epidemiological studies.

A systematic search and critical review of measures of disability for use in a population survey of hand osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE: In order to develop a hand assessment questionnaire for a population survey, a systematic review was undertaken of measures of hand disability. The purpose of this review was to identify valid measures to evaluate hand osteoarthritis (HOA) in the general population and primary care and to perform a quality appraisal of them. METHOD: Measurement tools were identified from an online search of databases (Medline, CINAHL and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), 1990-2002) restricted to English language and adult population. Search terms combined "osteoarthritis" and "arthritis" with "hand" and ["function" or "disability" or "outcome"]. Instruments used in the evaluation of HOA were identified following application of strict eligibility criteria. The use of these tools in HOA was rated by pairs of independent reviewers according to criteria developed by the Medical Outcomes Trust. RESULTS: The initial search yielded a list of articles which were not mutually exclusive (ISI, 127; Medline, 64; CINAHL, 61). Full journal articles were ordered from relevant abstracts (ISI, 28; Medline, 3; CINAHL, 5). Further hand searching of articles produced an additional 34 references. A total of 61 references were identified, 18 measurement tools, 5 of which met the inclusion criteria [Algofunctional Index (FIHOA), Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2 (AIMS2), Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), Cochin]. Overall, the AIMS2 and AUSCAN were more highly rated than the FIHOA, Cochin and HAQ. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this review was not to recommend any one instrument over another but to provide an overall summary of the robustness of commonly used measures. The choice of instrument will depend on many factors, and will differ from project to project depending on the question asked.