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.

Influences on the decision to use an osteoarthritis diagnosis in primary care: a cohort study with linked survey and electronic health record data.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians may record patients presenting with osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms with joint pain rather than an OA diagnosis. This may have implications for OA research studies and patient care. The objective was to assess whether older adults recorded with joint pain are similar to those with a recorded OA diagnosis. METHOD: A study of adults aged ≥50 years in eight United Kingdom general practices, with electronic health records linked to survey data. Patients with a recorded regional OA diagnosis were compared to those with a recorded joint pain symptom on socio-demographics, risk factors, body region, pain severity, prescribed analgesia, and potential differential diagnoses. A sub-group was compared on radiographic knee OA. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand eight hundred and thirty-one survey responders consented to record review. One thousand four hundred and twenty-seven (10%) received an OA (n = 616) or joint pain (n = 811) code with wide practice variation. Receiving an OA diagnosis was associated with age (75+ compared to 50-64 OR 3.25; 95% Credible intervals (CrI) 2.36, 4.53), obesity (1.72; 1.22, 2.33), and pain interference (1.45; 1.09, 1.92). Analgesia management was similar. Radiographic OA was common in both groups. A quarter of those with a joint pain record received an OA diagnosis in the following 6 years. CONCLUSION: Recording OA diagnoses are less common than recording a joint pain symptom and associated with risk factors and severity. OA studies in primary care need to consider joint pain symptoms to understand the burden and quality of care across the spectrum of OA. Patients recorded with joint pain may represent early cases of OA with need for early intervention.

Primary care treatment of knee pain--a survey in older adults.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the treatment of knee pain in older adults in primary care and to compare reported practice with published evidence. METHODS: A semi-structured interview of older adults with knee pain about their use of 26 interventions for knee pain. RESULTS: 201 adults were interviewed. A median of six interventions had been advised for each participant, with heat and ice (84%) the most frequently advised, followed by paracetamol (71%), compound opioid analgesics (59%) and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (59%). Three core treatments for knee pain (written information, exercise and weight loss) were advised to 16%, 46% and 39% of the participants, respectively. Half of the interventions had been initiated through 'self care'. Most core treatments had not been initiated before second-line interventions had been used, paracetamol being the exception. Referral to surgery was commonly initiated before more conservative options had been tried. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions recommended as core treatment for knee pain in older adults were underused-in particular, exercise, weight loss and the provision of written information. There appeared to be early reliance on pharmacological treatments with underuse of non-pharmacological interventions in early treatment choices. Self care played an important role in the management of this condition. The study provides clear evidence on the need to improve the delivery of core treatments for osteoarthritis and highlights the need to support and encourage self care.

Treatment of knee pain in older adults in primary care: development of an evidence-based model of care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a stepped model of care for the treatment of knee pain in older adults in primary care based on recommended interventions. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken to identify interventions recommended for knee osteoarthritis or knee pain in clinical guidelines and systematic reviews. Following this, a nominal group consensus exercise was conducted with members of the Primary Care Rheumatology Society to allocate the interventions to a stepped model of care. RESULTS: Twenty-seven recommended interventions were identified from 77 publications following the systematic search. A four-step model of care incorporating these interventions was developed through the consensus exercise. Step 1 comprised ten interventions that should be offered to all older adults with knee pain, but could also be provided through self-care. These included exercise, weight loss, paracetamol and written information. Steps 2 and 3 comprised 10 and 6 interventions, respectively, to be considered for people with persisting pain and disability. These included pharmacological interventions such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in step 2 and intra-articular corticosteroids in step 3, and non-pharmacological interventions such as physiotherapy in step 2 and occupational therapy in step 3. Step 4 was referral for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Previous evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of knee problems have been developed in secondary care. A systematic search for recommended interventions, and a consensus exercise, has now enabled an evidence-based and practical model of care for knee pain in older adults to be developed for use in primary care.