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.

Provision of first contact physiotherapy in primary care across the UK: a survey of the service.

BACKGROUND: First Contact Physiotherapy (FCP) is an emerging model of care whereby a specialist physiotherapist located within general practice undertakes the first patient assessment, diagnosis and management without a prior GP consultation. Despite institutional and professional body support for this model and NHS commitment to its implementation, data regarding current FCP provision are limited. OBJECTIVES: To identify current FCP service provision across the UK, including models of provision and key professional capabilities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey, targeting physiotherapists and service managers involved in FCP. METHODS: Recruitment involved non-probability sampling targeting those involved in FCP service provision through emails to members of known clinical networks, snowballing and social media. The survey gathered data about respondents, FCP services and the role and scope of physiotherapists providing FCP. RESULTS: The authors received 102 responses; 32 from service managers and 70 working in FCP practice from England (n=60), Scotland (n=22), Wales (n=14), and Northern Ireland (n=2). Most practitioners were NHS band 7 or 8a (91%, n=63), with additional skills (e.g. requesting investigations, prescribing). 17% (12/70) worked 37.5hours/week; 37% (26/70) ≤10hours; most (71%, 50/70) used 20-minute appointments (range 10-30minutes); varying arrangements were reported for administration and follow-up. Services covered populations of 1200 to 600,000 (75% <100,000); access mostly involved combinations of self-booking and reception triage. Commissioning and funding arrangements varied widely; NHS sources provided 90% of services. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides new evidence regarding variation in FCP practice across the UK, indicating that evidence-informed, context specific guidance on optimal models of provision is required.

The revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease scale: validation in six countries.

Objective: To evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS V2) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) scale in six countries. Methods: We surveyed RA patients in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, including the HAQ, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and potential revisions of the BRAF-NRS coping and Spanish RAID coping items. Factor structure and internal consistency were examined by factor analysis and Cronbach's α and construct validity by Spearman's correlation. Results: A total of 1276 patients participated (76% female, 25% with a disease duration <5 years, median HAQ 1.0). The original BRAF-MDQ four-factor structure and RAID single-factor structure were confirmed in every country with ⩾66% of variation in items explained by each factor and all item factor loadings of 0.71-0.98. Internal consistency for the BRAF-MDQ total and subscales was a Cronbach's α of 0.75-0.96 and for RAID, 0.93-0.96. Fatigue construct validity was shown for the BRAF-MDQ and BRAF-NRS severity and effect scales, correlated internally with SF-36 vitality and with RAID fatigue (r = 0.63-0.93). Broader construct validity for the BRAFs and RAID was shown by correlation with each other, HAQ and SF-36 domains (r = 0.46-0.82), with similar patterns in individual countries. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 Coping item had stronger validity than the original in all analyses. The revised Spanish RAID coping item performed as well as the original. Conclusion: Across six European countries, the BRAF-MDQ identifies the same four aspects of fatigue, and along with the RAID, shows strong factor structure and internal consistency and moderate-good construct validity. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 shows improved construct validity and replaces the original.

The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy for adults with joint hypermobility syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) is a heritable disorder associated with laxity and pain in multiple joints. Physiotherapy is the mainstay of treatment, but there is little research investigating its clinical effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To develop a comprehensive physiotherapy intervention for adults with JHS; to pilot the intervention; and to conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine the feasibility of conducting a future definitive RCT. DESIGN: Patients' and health professionals' perspectives on physiotherapy for JHS were explored in focus groups (stage 1). A working group of patient research partners, clinicians and researchers used this information to develop the physiotherapy intervention. This was piloted and refined on the basis of patients' and physiotherapists' feedback (stage 2). A parallel two-arm pilot RCT compared 'advice' with 'advice and physiotherapy' (stage 3). Random allocation was via an automated randomisation service, devised specifically for the study. Owing to the nature of the interventions, it was not possible to blind clinicians or patients to treatment allocation. SETTING: Stage 1 - focus groups were conducted in four UK locations. Stages 2 and 3 - piloting of the intervention and the pilot RCT were conducted in two UK secondary care NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Stage 1 - patient focus group participants (n = 25, three men) were aged > 18 years, had a JHS diagnosis and had received physiotherapy within the preceding 12 months. The health professional focus group participants (n = 16, three men; 14 physiotherapists, two podiatrists) had experience of managing JHS. Stage 2 - patient participants (n = 8) were aged > 18 years, had a JHS diagnosis and no other musculoskeletal conditions causing pain. Stage 3 - patient participants for the pilot RCT (n = 29) were as for stage 2 but the lower age limit was 16 years. INTERVENTION: For the pilot RCT (stage 3) the advice intervention was a one-off session, supplemented by advice booklets. All participants could ask questions specific to their circumstances and receive tailored advice. Participants were randomly allocated to 'advice' (no further advice or physiotherapy) or 'advice and physiotherapy' (an additional six 30-minute sessions over 4 months). The physiotherapy intervention was supported by a patient handbook and was delivered on a one-to-one patient-therapist basis. It aimed to increase patients' physical activity through developing knowledge, understanding and skills to better manage their condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data from patient and health professional focus groups formed the main outcome from stage 1. Patient and physiotherapist interview data also formed a major component of stages 2 and 3. The primary outcome in stage 3 related to the feasibility of a future definitive RCT [number of referrals, recruitment and retention rates, and an estimate of the value of information (VOI) of a future RCT]. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures (physical function, pain, global status, self-reported joint count, quality of life, exercise self-efficacy and adverse events) and resource use (to estimate cost-effectiveness). Outcomes were recorded at baseline, 4 months and 7 months. RESULTS: Stage 1 - JHS is complex and unpredictable. Physiotherapists should take a long-term holistic approach rather than treating acutely painful joints in isolation. Stage 2 - a user-informed physiotherapy intervention was developed and evaluated positively. Stage 3 - recruitment to the pilot RCT was challenging, primarily because of a perceived lack of equipoise between advice and physiotherapy. The qualitative evaluation provided very clear guidance to inform a future RCT, including enhancement of the advice intervention. Some patients reported that the advice intervention was useful and the physiotherapy intervention was again evaluated very positively. The rate of return of questionnaires was low in the advice group but reasonable in the physiotherapy group. The physiotherapy intervention showed evidence of promise in terms of primary and secondary clinical outcomes. The advice arm experienced more adverse events. The VOI analysis indicated the potential for high value from a future RCT. Such a trial should form the basis of future research efforts. CONCLUSION: A future definitive RCT of physiotherapy for JHS seems feasible, although the advice intervention should be made more robust to address perceived equipoise and subsequent attrition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29874209. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Diagnosis, Management and Assessment of Adults with Joint Hypermobility Syndrome: A UK-Wide Survey of Physiotherapy Practice.

Joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) is a heritable disorder associated with excessive joint range of motion and pain in the absence of inflammatory joint disease. It is a relatively common cause of musculoskeletal pain but is generally understood to be under-recognized and poorly managed in clinical practice. The present study therefore aimed to identify how JHS is diagnosed, managed and assessed in routine physiotherapy practice. A survey tool was developed from similar physiotherapy surveys of musculoskeletal practice, a review of the literature, and consultation with researchers and clinicians. Paper copies of the final survey were sent to 201 randomly selected secondary care organizations across the UK and an electronic version was advertised through physiotherapy professional networks. A total of 66 responses (80% women) were received from physiotherapists, with a wide range of clinical experience. Only 32% of respondents reported that they had received formal training in JHS management. The Brighton diagnostic criteria for JHS were not often used (only 31% of respondents). The stated aims of physiotherapy and the specific interventions employed seem well matched, with a focus on advice, education, exercise and self-management. Although pain relief was not reported as a high priority in terms of treatment aims, pain was most often assessed as an outcome, suggesting a mismatch between what clinicians aim to achieve and what they measure. The results suggest that reported management strategies are broadly appropriate to long-term musculoskeletal conditions but additional training specific to JHS may be required, particularly in diagnosis and assessment.

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Randomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence. SETTING: A single ED in England. PARTICIPANTS: 372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Economic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings. RESULTS: From a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care. CONCLUSIONS: These results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.

Exercise and self-management for people with chronic knee, hip or lower back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness. Study protocol.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic musculoskeletal pain and osteoarthritis can significantly limit the functional independence of individuals, and given that 25% of the population experience these problems, the socioeconomic impact is immense. Exercise and self-management have proven benefits for these conditions, but most trials tailor interventions for specific joints. Epidemiological data demonstrates that many older people with degenerative joint problems experience pain and functional difficulty in other joints, seeking further healthcare input when these present. Managing multiple joint presentations simultaneously could potentially reduce the need for repeat visits to healthcare professionals as advice is frequently the same for differing site presentations. This single-blind cluster randomised controlled trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an exercise and self-management intervention delivered to people over-50 with either hip, knee or lower back pain, compared to 'standard' GP care. A qualitative analysis will also establish the acceptability of the intervention. METHODS: 352 people with chronic degenerative musculoskeletal pain of the hip, knee or lower back will be recruited from primary care. GP surgeries will be randomised to either the intervention or control arms. Participants in the intervention arm will receive a 6-week group exercise and self-management programme facilitated by a physiotherapist in primary care. Participants allocated to the control arm will continue under 'standard' GP care. The primary outcome measure is the Dysfunction Index of the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA). ANALYSIS: Individual patient responses will be modelled using a mixed effects linear regression, allowing for the clustering effects. Resource use and related intervention costs will be estimated and broader resource use data will be collected using a version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory adapted for musculoskeletal relevance. In addition, a cost-utility analysis will be undertaken to present an estimate of the incremental cost per QALY. A qualitative analysis investigating the acceptability of the intervention to participants and healthcare professionals will also be undertaken and thematically analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from South West 4 REC, identification number 11/SW/0053. Study findings will be disseminated via conference and journal presentation; via arthritis charitable organisations; and through local GP consortia.