First Contact Physiotherapy: An evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs.

BACKGROUND: First Contact Physiotherapy Practitioners (FCPPs) are embedded within general practice, providing expert assessment, diagnosis and management plans for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs), without the prior need for GP consultation. AIM: To determine the clinical effectiveness and costs of FCPP-led compared to GP-led models of care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multiple site case study design. UK GP practices. METHOD: General Practice sites were recruited representing three models: 1. GP-led care; 2. FCPPs who could not prescribe/inject (Standard (St)); 3. FCPPs who could prescribe/inject (Additional Qualifications (AQ)). Patient participants from each site completed clinical outcome data at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36v.2 Physical Component Score (PCS). Healthcare usage was collected for 6 months. RESULTS: N=426 adults were recruited from 46 practices across the UK. Non-inferiority analysis showed no significant difference in physical function (SF36-PCS) across all three arms at 6 months (p=0.999). At 3 months a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% GP consultees; 72.4% FCPP-St, 66.4% FCPP-AQ; (p=0.037). No safety issues were identified. Following initial consultation, a greater proportion of patients received medication (including opioids) in the GP-led arm (44.7%) compared with FCPP-St (17.5%) and FCPP-AQ (22.8%); (p<0.001). NHS costs (initial consultation and over 6 months follow up) were significantly higher in the GP-led model (median £105.50) vs FCPP-St (£41) and FCPP-AQ (£44); (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: FCPP led models provide safe, clinically effective and cost-beneficial management for patients with MSKDs in general practice and reduced opioid use in this cohort.

Understanding paramedic work in general practice in the UK: a rapid realist synthesis.

BACKGROUND: General practice in the UK is under substantial pressure and practices are increasingly including paramedics as part of their workforce. Little is known about how different models of paramedic working may affect successful implementation of the role, as viewed from patient, clinician and system perspectives. This realist synthesis developed theories about 'models of paramedic working in general practice' in different UK contexts to understand their impact. METHODS: The rapid realist synthesis comprised data from: (1) empirical and grey literature searches; (2) semi-structured realist interviews with system leaders involved with the implementation of the role; and (3) a stakeholder event with healthcare professionals and the public, to develop initial programme theories that can be tested in future work. Sources were analysed using a realist approach that explored the data for novel or causal insights to generate initial programme theories. RESULTS: Empirical sources (n = 32), grey sources (n = 95), transcripts from system leader interviews (n = 7) and audio summaries from the stakeholder event (n = 22 participants) were synthesised into a single narrative document. The findings confirmed the presence of a wide variety of models of paramedic working in UK general practice. The perceived success of models was influenced by the extent to which the paramedic service was mature and embedded in practice, and according to four theory areas: (1) Primary care staff understanding and acceptance of the paramedic role; (2) Paramedic induction process, including access to training, supervision and development opportunities; (3) Patient understanding and acceptance of the role; (4) Variations in paramedic employment models. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in how the paramedic role is operating and embedding into general practice across the UK affects the success of the role. These findings provide a theoretical foundation for future research to investigate various 'models of paramedic working' in different contexts.

How do emergency department staff respond to behaviour that challenges displayed by people living with dementia? A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate staff experiences of, and approaches to behaviour that challenges displayed by patients with dementia in the emergency department (ED). Behaviour that challenges is defined as 'actions that detract from the well-being of individuals due to the physical or psychological distress they cause within the settings they are performed', and can take many forms including aggressive physical actions, shouting and verbal aggression and non-aggressive behaviour including repetitive questioning, inappropriate exposure and resistance to care. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study consisting of an online survey and semistructured telephone interviews. Quantitative data were analysed and presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. SETTING: The EDs of three National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Trusts in Southwest England. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary NHS staff working in the ED. RESULTS: Fifty-two online survey responses and 13 telephone interviews were analysed. Most (24/36, 67%) survey respondents reported that they had received general training in relation to dementia in the last 2-5 years, however, less than a fifth (4/23, 17%) had received any ED-specific dementia training. All (48/48) felt that behaviour that challenges could potentially be prevented, though resource constraints and practice variation were identified. Four main themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) the 'perfect storm' of the ED; (2) behaviour that challenges is preventable with the right resources; (3) improvisation and (4) requirement for approaches that are specific to the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that ED staff do not feel that they are prepared to respond effectively to behaviour that challenges displayed by people living with dementia. Future work could adapt or develop an intervention to support ED staff in responding to behaviour that challenges.

Benefits of realist evaluation for rapidly changing health service delivery.

Realist evaluation is a methodology that addresses the questions: 'what works, for whom, in which circumstances, and how?'. In this approach, programme theories are developed and tested against available evidence. However, when complex interventions are implemented in rapidly changing environments, there are many unpredictable forces that determine the programme's scope and architecture, as well as resultant outcome. These forces can be theorised, in real time, and included in realist evaluation outputs for current and future optimisation of programmes. Reflecting on a realist evaluation of first-contact physiotherapy in primary care (the FRONTIER Study), five important considerations are described for improving the quality of realist evaluation outputs when studying rapidly changing health service delivery. These are: (1) ensuring that initial programme theories are developed through creative thinking sessions, empirical and non-empirical literature, and stakeholder consultation; (2) testing the causal impact of formal and informal (eg, emergent) components of service delivery models; (3) contrasting initial programme theories with rival theory statements; (4) envisioning broad system impacts beyond the immediate implementation setting; and (5) incorporating rapidly evolving service developments and context changes into the theory testing process in real-time (eg, Additional Role Reimbursement Scheme, COVID-19). Through the reflections presented, the aim is to clarify the benefit of realist evaluation to assess emerging models of care and rapidly changing health service delivery.