Confidence and Attitudes Toward Osteoarthritis Care Among the Current and Emerging Health Workforce: A Multinational Interprofessional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure confidence and attitudes of the current and emerging interprofessional workforce concerning osteoarthritis (OA) care. METHODS: Study design is a multinational (Australia, New Zealand, Canada) cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners [GPs], GP registrars, primary care nurses, and physiotherapists) and final-year medical and physiotherapy students. GPs and GP registrars were only sampled in Australia/New Zealand and Australia, respectively. The study outcomes are as follows: confidence in OA knowledge and skills (customized instrument), biomedical attitudes to care (Pain Attitudes Beliefs Scale [PABS]), attitudes toward high- and low-value care (customized items), attitudes toward exercise/physical activity (free-text responses). RESULTS: A total of 1886 clinicians and 1161 students responded. Although a number of interprofessional differences were identified, confidence in OA knowledge and skills was consistently greatest among physiotherapists and lowest among nurses (eg, the mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] for physiotherapist-nurse analyses were 9.3 [7.7-10.9] for knowledge [scale: 11-55] and 14.6 [12.3-17.0] for skills [scale: 16-80]). Similarly, biomedical attitudes were stronger in nurses compared with physiotherapists (6.9 [5.3-8.4]; scale 10-60) and in medical students compared with physiotherapy students (2.0 [1.3-2.7]). Some clinicians and students agreed that people with OA will ultimately require total joint replacement (7%-19% and 19%-22%, respectively), that arthroscopy is an appropriate intervention for knee OA (18%-36% and 35%-44%), and that magnetic resonance imaging is informative for diagnosis and clinical management of hip/knee OA (8%-61% and 21%-52%). Most agreed (90%-98% and 92%-97%) that exercise is indicated and strongly supported by qualitative data. CONCLUSION: Workforce capacity building that de-emphasizes biomedical management and promotes high-value first-line care options is needed. Knowledge and skills among physiotherapists support leadership roles in OA care for this discipline.

A Model of Care for Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Knee: Development of a System-Wide Plan for the Health Sector in Victoria, Australia.

Osteoarthritis (OA) imposes a significant burden to the person, the health system and the community. Models of Care (MoCs) drive translation of evidence into policy and practice and provide a platform for health system reform. The Victorian MoC for OA of the hip and knee was developed following a best-practice framework, informed by best-evidence and iterative cross-sector consultation, including direct consumer consultation. Governance and external expert advisory committees consisting of local OA care champions facilitated the development and consultation processes. The MoC outlines key components of care, care that is not recommended, and suggests phased implementation strategies. This paper describes the MoC development process and lessons learned.

Stakeholder Satisfaction with the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD).

BACKGROUND: The Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) is a voluntary national registry for monitoring the long-term benefits and safety of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for inflammatory arthritis. Both rheumatologists and patients contribute data to the ARAD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the satisfaction of patients and rheumatologists with the ARAD. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were distributed to a random sample of 100 community-dwelling ARAD patients in 2007 and to rheumatologists attending the 2007 Australian Rheumatology Association (ARA) annual scientific meeting.Survey questions included items about the usefulness of the ARAD, workload for participants, frequency of questionnaires, and experience of contact with ARAD staff. RESULTS: A total of 92.5% of patients perceived the ARAD as very important (scoring 9-10 on a numeric rating scale). Patients reported minimal difficulty in completing questionnaires, and 95.0% indicated that a 6-month interval between questionnaires was reasonable. Of responding rheumatologists, 32.3%, 62.1%, and 53.8% indicated that the ARAD was very important (scoring 8-10) with respect to clinical information, research, and the profession, respectively, while 68% of those participating in the ARAD reported that the workload required to enroll patients was manageable and 30% found it difficult or onerous. CONCLUSION: Key stakeholders in the ARAD view it as an important resource and are satisfied with its operations. Efforts will be directed towards assisting those rheumatologists who find the associated workload difficult and to improving the perceived clinical value of information available from the ARAD.