The experiences of patients with musculoskeletal conditions accessing first contact physiotherapy practitioner appointments in general practice in the UK: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: First Contact Physiotherapy Practitioners (FCPPs) provide expert care for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in General Practice. Access to FCPPs can facilitate timely care and efficient use of health services. However, there is little evidence about patient experiences of accessing FCPP appointments. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of patients with MSK conditions who have accessed an FCPP appointment in a General Practice setting in the UK. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative design. METHODS: Patients with MSK conditions who had experience of accessing FCPP appointments were recruited via social media. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and recorded via MS Teams. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 13 patients interviewed, there were 10 females and three males, with an age range between 20 and 80 years. The main themes identified were: (1) Awareness of FCPP, (2) Access routes, (3) Facilitators to access, (4) Barriers to access, (5) Likelihood of re-accessing FCPP. Awareness of FCPP was generally low amongst participants. There were a variety of routes to access FCPP appointments; some were felt to be sub-optimal by participants. Facilitators included quick/easy access to FCPP. Barriers included difficulty contacting General Practitioner (GP) surgeries and public perception of needing to see a GP initially. The likelihood of re-consultation with a FCPP was low when participants had disappointing care experiences. CONCLUSION: This study provides new evidence about patient experiences of accessing FCPP. It explores positive and negative aspects of access from patients' perspectives. It also highlights areas for improvement in terms of GP staff/patient awareness and understanding of FCPP.

Exercise treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and intervention component analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the components used in exercise interventions for people with symptoms of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis and identify components associated with successful interventions. DATA SOURCES: Eligible papers published up to April 2023 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and trial registry websites. REVIEW METHODS: Literature searches were performed by an Information Specialist. We searched for randomised trials evaluating exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication symptoms (the primary symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis). Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool Version 2 and the TIDieR checklist for intervention reporting. Details of intervention components were extracted, tabulated, and synthesised using an intervention component analysis approach. RESULTS: We found thirteen trials reporting 23 exercise interventions delivered to 1440 participants. These featured 60 different components. Most exercise interventions included supervision and flexion-based exercises. Balance exercises were rarely included. Exercise components featured more frequently in successful interventions included stretches, strength or trunk muscle exercises, fitness exercises, especially cycling, and psychologically informed approaches. Interpretation is limited by low study numbers and heterogeneity. No conclusions could be drawn about exercise supervision or dose. DISCUSSION: Exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication typically feature multiple components. Common features such as supervision, lumbar flexion, and aerobic fitness exercises and also less common features such as stretches, strengthening exercises, and psychologically informed approaches warrant consideration for inclusion when designing and optimising exercise interventions for people with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Patient access to first contact practitioner physiotherapists in the UK: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: First Contact Practice Physiotherapists (FCPPs) offer expert care for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in Primary Care, usually within GP practices. This is a rapidly expanding area of practice endorsed by NHS England, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) and the British Medical Association (BMA). Efficient and appropriate access is important for optimising FCPP practice, but there is little published information about how patients currently access FCPP appointments. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how patients access FCPP appointments in General Practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey of FCPPs in the UK. METHODS: FCPPs were surveyed about patient access to appointments. The survey instrument was designed using Jisc Online Surveys, piloted, and then distributed via social media and professional groups to FCPPs nationwide. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse demographic and multiple-choice questions, and free text responses were analysed using quantitative content analysis. RESULTS: 193 participants completed the survey. Booking via GP Reception (n = 179) was reported as the most common route into an FCPP appointment, closely followed by booking after seeing another clinician for the problem (n = 172). CONCLUSION: This research has provided clarity regarding how patients access the rapidly growing speciality of FCPP within GP practices in the UK. The role of GP Reception staff in facilitating access to FCPPs, the application of triage and the use of digital or online systems were highlighted as important elements for enabling efficient access to FCPPs by patients with MSK conditions.

Supporting patients to prepare for total knee replacement: Evidence-, theory- and person-based development of a 'Virtual Knee School' digital intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Digital delivery of pre-operative total knee replacement (TKR) education and prehabilitation could improve patient outcomes pre- and post-operatively. Rigorously developing digital interventions is vital to help ensure they achieve their intended outcomes whilst mitigating their potential drawbacks. OBJECTIVE: To develop a pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation digital intervention, the 'Virtual Knee School' (VKS). METHODS: The VKS was developed using an evidence-, theory- and person-based approach. This involved a mixed methods design with four phases. The first three focused on planning the VKS. The final phase involved creating a VKS prototype and iteratively refining it through concurrent think-aloud interviews with nine patients who were awaiting/had undergone TKR. Meta-inferences were generated by integrating findings from all the phases. ISRCTN registration of the overall project was obtained on 24 April 2020 (ISRCTN11759773). RESULTS: Most participants found the VKS prototype acceptable overall and considered it a valuable resource. Conversely, a minority of participants felt the prototype's digital format or content did not meet their individual needs. Participants' feedback was used to refine the prototype's information architecture, design and content. Two meta-inferences were generated and recommend: 1. Comprehensive pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation support should be rapidly accessible in digital and non-digital formats. 2. Pre-operative TKR digital interventions should employ computer- and self-tailoring to account for patients' individual needs and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating evidence, theory and stakeholders' perspectives enabled the development of a promising VKS digital intervention for patients awaiting TKR. The findings suggest future research evaluating the VKS is warranted and provide recommendations for optimising pre-operative TKR care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) was central throughout the project. For example, PPI representatives contributed to the project planning, were valued members of the Project Advisory Group, had key roles in developing the VKS prototype and helped disseminate the project findings.

Neuropathic pain questionnaires for back pain, what do we know?

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is a global public health concern, with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 84%. Axial low back pain refers to pain confined to an area in the low back and is different to radicular pain which radiates to extremities. Axial low back pain has traditionally been considered as nociceptive. However, research suggests it may have neuropathic components. Neuropathic axial low back pain is an unresolved, hotly contested topic due to controversies surrounding its aetiology, diagnosis, clinical course, prognosis and treatment options. PURPOSE: The reference standard for diagnosing neuropathic pain is by medical history and clinical assessment (i.e., sensory testing), with optional neuropathic screening tools and selective, further diagnostic tests when clinically needed. Neuropathic screening tools are not always specific for neuropathic radiating low back pain, let alone neuropathic axial low back pain. Additionally, not all have been validated for the English language (e.g., PainDETECT). Research also suggests the percentage of patients identified as having neuropathic radiating low back pain may be dependent on the combination of reference standards used. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for research that works towards improving understanding of neuropathic axial low back pain and developing a standardised, validated and reliable system for assessing and identifying this condition. This body of research will promote earlier stratification and more rapid referral for appropriate treatment, and improve awareness, assessment and visibility of this condition amongst healthcare practitioners and in healthcare settings. This will lead to transformations in Pathways and health guidelines, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Evaluation of two electronic-rehabilitation programmes for persistent knee pain: protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent, knee pain is a common cause of disability. Education and exercise treatment are advocated in all clinical guidelines; however, the increasing prevalence of persistent knee pain presents challenges for health services regarding appropriate and scalable delivery of these treatments. Digital technologies may help address this, and this trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of two electronic-rehabilitation interventions: 'My Knee UK' and 'Group E-Rehab'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a non-blinded, randomised feasibility trial with three parallel groups. The trial aims to recruit 90 participants (45 years or older) with a history of persistent knee pain consistent with a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The 'My Knee UK' intervention arm will receive a self-directed unsupervised internet-based home exercise programme plus short message service support (targeting exercise behaviour change) for 12 weeks; the 'Group E-Rehab' intervention arm will receive group-based physiotherapist-prescribed home exercises delivered via videoconferencing accompanied by internet-interactive educational sessions for 12 weeks; the control arm will receive usual physiotherapy care or continue with their usual self-management (depending on their recruitment path). Feasibility variables, patient-reported outcomes and clinical findings measured at baseline, 3 and 9 months will be assessed and integrated with qualitative interview data from a subset of Group E-Rehab and My Knee UK participants. If considered feasible and acceptable, a definitive randomised controlled trial can be conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of one or both interventions with a view to implementation in routine care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5 (Reference: 20/WS/0006). The results of the study will be disseminated to study participants, the study grant funder and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15564385.

Content and delivery of pre-operative interventions for patients undergoing total knee replacement: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common operation typically performed for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Patients awaiting TKR often have poor health-related quality of life. Approximately 20% of patients experience persistent pain post-TKR. Pre-operative TKR interventions could improve pre- and post-operative outcomes, but future research is required to inform their design. This review aimed to identify and synthesize recent literature on the content and delivery of pre-operative TKR interventions to help guide future research and clinical practice. METHODS: This rapid review included randomized trials of pre-operative TKR interventions ("outcomes studies") and primary studies exploring patients' and/or health professionals' views of pre-operative TKR interventions ("views studies"). Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for English language studies published between January 2009 and December 2020. Eligible studies' reference lists were screened. Studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The findings were narratively synthesized using a convergent segregated approach. RESULTS: From 3263 records identified, 52 studies were included (29 outcomes studies, 21 views studies, two outcomes/views studies). The studies' methodological quality varied but was generally highest in qualitative studies. The outcomes studies investigated education (n=5), exercise (n=20), psychological (n=2), lifestyle (n=1), and/or other interventions (n=5). The views studies addressed education (n=20), exercise (n=3), psychological (n=1), lifestyle (n=4), and/or other interventions (n=1). Only three outcomes studies (two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a pilot study) compared the effectiveness of intervention components/delivery approaches. The two RCTs' results suggest that pre-operative TKR exercise interventions are equally effective regardless of whether they include strength or strength plus balance training and whether they are hospital- or home-based. Personal tailoring and using more than one delivery format were associated with improved outcomes and/or perceived as beneficial for multiple intervention types. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive evidence on the optimal design of pre-operative TKR interventions is lacking. Personal tailoring and employing multiple delivery formats appear to be valuable design elements. Preliminary evidence suggests that including balance training and hospital versus home delivery may not be critical design elements for pre-operative TKR exercise interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019143248 FUNDER: National Institute for Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-006).

Allied health professionals' perceptions of research in the United Kingdom national health service: a survey of research capacity and culture.

BACKGROUND: With growing recognition of the importance of research in allied healthcare, the new Health Education England (HEE) research strategy articulates a need to transform Allied Health Professional (AHP) identities, culture and roles. An understanding of current AHP research capacity and culture is first required. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey targeted AHPs working in NHS health and social care settings across the United Kingdom. The validated Research Capacity and Culture tool was modified and distributed through research and professional networks. Aggregate median scores for perceived research success were categorised as adequate, more than, or less than adequate. RESULTS: Of 3344 participants, 3145 identified as HEE-defined AHPs. Individual- and organisation-level research success was perceived as adequate (median scores 4 (IQR 2 to 6); 4 (IQR 2 to 7) respectively). Team-level research success was rated less than adequate (median score 2 (IQR 1-5)). CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, AHPs working in NHS health and social care perceive individual and organisational level research skill/success to be adequate. In contrast, inadequacies in research skill/support at team level were exposed, which may hinder successful integration of allied health research into everyday health and social care practice. Recommendations are made with reference to the HEE AHP research strategy.

Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition in older adults associated with disability, diminished quality of life, and substantial healthcare costs. Individual symptoms and needs vary. With sparse and sometimes inconsistent evidence to guide clinical decision-making, variable clinical care may lead to unsatisfactory patient outcomes and inefficient use of healthcare resources. METHODS: A three-phase modified Delphi study comprising four consensus rounds was conducted on behalf of the International Taskforce for the Diagnosis and Management of LSS to develop a treatment algorithm based on multi-professional international expert consensus. Participants with expertise in the assessment and management of people with LSS were invited using an international distribution process used for two previous Delphi studies led by the Taskforce. Separate treatment pathways for patients with different symptom types and severity were developed and incorporated into a proposed treatment algorithm through consensus rounds 1 to 3. Agreement with the proposed algorithm was evaluated in the final consensus round. RESULTS: The final algorithm combines stratified and stepped approaches. When indicated, immediate investigation and surgery is advocated. Otherwise, a stepped approach is suggested when self-directed care is unsatisfactory. This starts with tailored rehabilitation, then more complex multidisciplinary care, investigations and surgery options if needed. Treatment options in each step depend on clinical phenotype and symptom severity. Treatment response guides pathway entrance and exit points. Of 397 study participants, 86% rated their agreement ≥ 4 for the proposed algorithm on a 0-6 scale, of which 22% completely agreed. Only 7% disagreed. Over 70% of participants felt that the algorithm would be useful for clinicians in public healthcare (both primary care and specialist settings) and in private healthcare settings, and that a simplified version would help patients in shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: International and multi-professional agreement was achieved for a proposed LSS treatment algorithm developed through expert consensus. The algorithm advocates different pathway options depending on clinical indications. It is not intended as a treatment protocol and will require evaluation against current care for clinical and cost-effectiveness. It may, however, serve as a clinical guide until evidence is sufficient to inform a fully stratified care model.

The Clinical Effectiveness of a Physiotherapy Delivered Physical and Psychological Group Intervention for Older Adults With Neurogenic Claudication: The BOOST Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurogenic claudication (NC) is a debilitating spinal condition affecting older adults' mobility and quality of life. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 438 participants evaluated the effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST program) compared to physiotherapy assessment and tailored advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with NC. Participants were identified from spinal clinics (community and secondary care) and general practice records and randomized 2:1 to the BOOST program or BPA. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data were also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and falls. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 74.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 6.0) and 57% (246/435) were female. There was no significant difference in ODI scores between treatment groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference [MD]: -1.4 [95% confidence intervals (CI) -4.03, 1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favored the BOOST program (adjusted MD: -3.7 [95% CI -6.27, -1.06]). At 12 months, the BOOST program resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD: 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD: -0.2 [95% CI -0.45, -0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio: 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA. No serious adverse events were related to either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST program substantially improved mobility for older adults with NC. Future iterations of the program will consider ways to improve long-term pain-related disability. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN12698674.

Consensus on pre-operative total knee replacement education and prehabilitation recommendations: a UK-based modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Over 90,000 total knee replacement (TKR) procedures are performed annually in the United Kingdom (UK). Patients awaiting TKR face long delays whilst enduring severe pain and functional limitations. Almost 20% of patients who undergo TKR are not satisfied post-operatively. Optimising pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation could help improve patient outcomes pre- and post-operatively; however, current pre-operative TKR care varies widely. Definitive evidence on the optimal content and delivery of pre-operative TKR care is lacking. This study aimed to develop evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation. METHODS: A UK-based, three-round, online modified Delphi study was conducted with a 60-member expert panel. All panellists had experience of TKR services as patients (n = 30) or professionals (n = 30). Round 1 included initial recommendations developed from a mixed methods rapid review. Panellists rated the importance of each item on a five-point Likert scale. Panellists could also suggest additional items in Round 1. Rounds 2 and 3 included all items from Round 1, new items suggested in Round 1 and charts summarising panellists' importance ratings from the preceding round. Free-text responses were analysed using content analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. All items rated as 'Important' or 'Very important' by at least 70% of all respondents in Round 3 were included in the final set of recommendations. RESULTS: Fifty-five panellists (92%) (patients n = 26; professionals n = 29) completed Round 3. Eighty-six recommendation items were included in Round 1. Fifteen new items were added in Round 2. Rounds 2 and 3 therefore included 101 items. Seventy-seven of these reached consensus in Round 3. Six items reached consensus amongst patient or professional panellists only in Round 3. The final set of recommendations comprises 34 education topics, 18 education delivery approaches, 10 exercise types, 13 exercise delivery approaches and two other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi study developed a comprehensive set of recommendations that represent a useful resource for guiding decision-making on the content and delivery of pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation. The recommendations will need to be interpreted and reviewed periodically in light of emerging evidence.

Non-Surgical Interventions for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Leading To Neurogenic Claudication: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causing neurogenic claudication (NC) is increasingly common with an aging population and can be associated with significant symptoms and functional limitations. We developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on nonsurgical management of patients with LSS causing NC. Using the GRADE approach, a multidisciplinary guidelines panel based recommendations on evidence from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published through June 2019, or expert consensus. The literature monitored up to October 2020. Clinical outcomes evaluated included pain, disability, quality of life, and walking capacity. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with LSS (congenital and/or acquired, lateral recess or central canal, with or without low back pain, with or without spondylolisthesis) causing NC. The guidelines panel developed 6 recommendations based on randomized controlled trials and 5 others based on professional consensus, summarized in 3 overarching recommendations: (Grade: statements are all conditional/weak recommendations) Recommendation 1. For patients with LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may initially select multimodal care nonpharmacological therapies with education, advice and lifestyle changes, behavioral change techniques in conjunction with home exercise, manual therapy, and/or rehabilitation (moderate-quality evidence), traditional acupuncture on a trial basis (very low-quality evidence), and postoperative rehabilitation (supervised program of exercises and/or educational materials encouraging activity) with cognitive-behavioral therapy 12 weeks postsurgery (low-quality evidence). Recommendation 2. In patients LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may consider a trial of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants. (very low-quality evidence). Recommendation 3. For patients LSS causing NC, we recommend against the use of the following pharmacological therapies: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methylcobalamin, calcitonin, paracetamol, opioids, muscle relaxants, pregabalin (consensus-based), gabapentin (very low-quality), and epidural steroidal injections (high-quality evidence). PERSPECTIVE: This guideline, on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence on the nonsurgical management of lumbar spine stenosis, provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Safe and effective non-surgical management of lumbar spine stenosis should be on the basis of a plan of care tailored to the individual and the type of treatment involved, and multimodal care is recommended in most situations.

A systematic review of the non-surgical treatment of Perthes' disease.

AIMS: Perthes' disease is a condition leading to necrosis of the femoral head. It is most common in children aged four to nine years, affecting around one per 1,200 children in the UK. Management typically includes non-surgical treatment options, such as physiotherapy with/without surgical intervention. However, there is significant variation in care with no consensus on the most effective treatment option. METHODS: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for the treatment of Perthes' disease. Comparative studies (experimental or observational) of any non-surgical intervention compared directly with any alternative intervention (surgical, non-surgical or no intervention) were identified from: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMcare, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Data were extracted on interventions compared and methodological quality. For post-intervention primary outcome of radiological scores (Stulberg and/or Mose), event rates for poor scores were calculated with significance values. Secondary outcomes included functional measures, such as range of movement, and patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life. RESULTS: In all, 15 studies (1,745 participants) were eligible for inclusion: eight prospective cohort studies, seven retrospective cohort studies, and no randomized controlled trials were identified. Non-surgical interventions largely focused on orthotic management (14/15 studies) and physical interventions such as muscle strengthening or stretching (5/15 studies). Most studies were of high/unknown risk of bias, and the range of patient outcomes was very limited, as was reporting of treatment protocols. Similar proportions of children achieving poor radiological outcomes were found for orthotic management and physical interventions, such as physiotherapy or weightbearing alteration, compared with surgical interventions or no intervention. CONCLUSION: Evidence from non-randomized studies found no robust evidence regarding the most effective non-surgical interventions for the treatment of children with Perthes' disease. Future research, employing randomized trial designs, and reporting a wider range of patient outcomes is urgently needed to inform clinical practice.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2020;1-12:720-730.

A case review to describe variation in care following diagnosis of Perthes' disease.

AIMS: Perthes' disease is a condition which leads to necrosis of the femoral head. It is most commonly reported in children aged four to nine years, with recent statistics suggesting it affects around five per 100,000 children in the UK. Current treatment for the condition aims to maintain the best possible environment for the disease process to run its natural course. Management typically includes physiotherapy with or without surgical intervention. Physiotherapy intervention often will include strengthening/stretching programmes, exercise/activity advice, and, in some centres, will include intervention, such as hydrotherapy. There is significant variation in care with no consensus on which treatment option is best. The importance of work in this area has been demonstrated by the British Society for Children's Orthopaedic Surgery through the James Lind Alliance's prioritization of work to determine/identify surgical versus non-surgical management of Perthes' disease. It was identified as the fourth-highest priority for paediatric lower limb surgery research in 2018. METHODS: Five UK NHS centres, including those from the NEWS (North, East, West and South Yorkshire) orthopaedic group, contributed to this case review, with each entre providing clinical data from a minimum of five children. Information regarding both orthopaedic and physiotherapeutic management over a two-year post-diagnosis period was reviewed. RESULTS: Data were extracted from the clinical records of 32 children diagnosed with Perthes' disease; seven boys and 25 girls. The mean age of the children at diagnosis was 6.16 years (standard deviation (SD) 3.001). In all, 26 children were referred for physiotherapy. In the two-year period following diagnosis, children were seen a median of 7.5 times (interquartile range (IQR) 4.25 to 11) by an orthopaedic surgeon, and a median of 9.5 times (IQR 8 to 18.25) by a physiotherapist. One centre had operated on all of their children, while another had operated on none. Overall, 17 (53%) of the children were managed conservatively in the two-year follow-up period, and 15 (47%) of the children underwent surgery in the two-year follow-up period. CONCLUSION: The results of this case review demonstrate a variation of care provided to children in the UK with Perthes' disease. Further national and international understanding of current care is required to underpin the rationale for different treatment options in children with Perthes' disease.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:691-695.

Understanding the mechanisms of a combined physical and psychological intervention for people with neurogenic claudication: protocol for a causal mediation analysis of the BOOST trial.

INTRODUCTION: Conservative treatments such as exercise are recommended for the management of people with neurogenic claudication from spinal stenosis. However, the effectiveness and mechanisms of effect are unknown. This protocol outlines an a priori plan for a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of a physiotherapist-delivered, combined physical and psychological intervention (Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) programme). METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will use causal mediation analysis to estimate the mechanistic effects of the BOOST programme on the primary outcome of disability (measured by the Oswestry Disability Index). The primary mechanism of interest is walking capacity, and secondary mediators include fear-avoidance behaviour, walking self-efficacy, physical function, physical activity and/or symptom severity. All mediators will be measured at 6 months and the outcome will be measured at 12 months from randomisation. Patient characteristics and possible confounders of the mediator-outcome effect will be measured at baseline. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the estimated effects to varying levels of residual confounding. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given on 3 March 2016 (National Research Ethics Committee number: 16/LO/0349). The results of this analysis will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at relevant scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12698674.

SHADES of grey - The challenge of 'grumbling' cauda equina symptoms in older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Diagnosing cauda equina syndrome is challenging in older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. Understanding these challenges is vital for clinicians who are faced with difficult decisions about when to refer for investigation or surgical management. This is a growing clinical issue because of the escalating prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis in our ageing population, and increasing demands on healthcare services including imaging and surgical services. This professional issue explores the challenges and evidence gaps relating to cauda equina syndrome in older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The degenerative patho-anatomical changes in the lumbar spine that are responsible for lumbar spinal stenosis also have the potential to lead to a gradual compromise of the cauda equina nerve roots. The clinical presentation may be unclear. As a result, there is a risk that slow-onset 'grumbling' cauda equina symptoms may be overlooked or dismissed in older patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Furthermore, a lack of standardised diagnostic criteria and management pathways add to the challenges for clinicians diagnosing and managing potential cauda equina compromise associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. We recommend careful assessment, appropriate safety netting, and ongoing clinical monitoring and vigilance when assessing and managing this potentially vulnerable patient group.

ISSLS Prize Winner: Consensus on the Clinical Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Results of an International Delphi Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Delphi. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to obtain an expert consensus on which history factors are most important in the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LSS is a poorly defined clinical syndrome. Criteria for defining LSS are needed and should be informed by the experience of expert clinicians. METHODS: Phase 1 (Delphi Items): 20 members of the International Taskforce on the Diagnosis and Management of LSS confirmed a list of 14 history items. An online survey was developed that permits specialists to express the logical order in which they consider the items, and the level of certainty ascertained from the questions. Phase 2 (Delphi Study) Round 1: Survey distributed to members of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine. Round 2: Meeting of 9 members of Taskforce where consensus was reached on a final list of 10 items. Round 3: Final survey was distributed internationally. Phase 3: Final Taskforce consensus meeting. RESULTS: A total of 279 clinicians from 29 different countries, with a mean of 19 (±SD: 12) years in practice participated. The six top items were "leg or buttock pain while walking," "flex forward to relieve symptoms," "feel relief when using a shopping cart or bicycle," "motor or sensory disturbance while walking," "normal and symmetric foot pulses," "lower extremity weakness," and "low back pain." Significant change in certainty ceased after six questions at 80% (P < .05). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to reach an international consensus on the clinical diagnosis of LSS, and suggests that within six questions clinicians are 80% certain of diagnosis. We propose a consensus-based set of "seven history items" that can act as a pragmatic criterion for defining LSS in both clinical and research settings, which in the long term may lead to more cost-effective treatment, improved health care utilization, and enhanced patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Stratification of Treatment in a Community-Based Musculoskeletal Service: A Mixed-Methods Study to Assess Predictors of Requiring Complex Care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore factors that might be relevant when designing a triage tool. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study using multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify significant factors associated with requiring different levels of care, and qualitative focus groups exploring views of patients and physiotherapy clinicians regarding case complexity. SETTING: A community-based adult musculoskeletal service delivering tier 1 (standard physiotherapy) and tier 2 care (complex care beyond the scope of standard physiotherapy) and providing onward referral to orthopedic clinics (tier 3). PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative data were extracted from a random sample of patients (N=484) who had received treatment for musculoskeletal conditions. Patients and physiotherapists who had received care or who worked in the service participated in focus groups. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes that emerged from focus groups were compared against predictors of requiring complex care found to be significant (P<.05) after quantitative data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients (38.0%; 95% confidence interval, 33.8-42.4) received complex care. Peripheral joint problems, unclear diagnosis, and symptoms affecting sleep were significant independent predictors of requiring complex care. These data supported some of the main themes raised at focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients receive tier 2 complex care. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether the predictive factors found to be significant in our study might be useful for developing a tool for more effective triage to the most appropriate tier of musculoskeletal care.

A home exercise programme is no more beneficial than advice and education for people with neurogenic claudication: results from a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a physiotherapy programme with a control treatment of advice and education in patients with neurogenic claudication symptoms. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Primary care-based musculoskeletal service. PATIENTS: Adults aged 50 or over with neurogenic claudication symptoms causing limitation of walking. INTERVENTIONS: Condition-specific home exercises combined with advice and education, or advice and education alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in improvement of symptom severity scores on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Scale at eight weeks. Secondary outcomes included measures of physical function, pain and general well-being at eight weeks and 12 months. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups in the Swiss Spinal Stenosis symptom severity scale at eight weeks (t = 0.47, p = 0.643): mean change (SD) control group -0.18 (0.47), treatment group -0.10 (0.66), difference (95% CI) 0.08 (-0.19, 0.35); baseline-adjusted difference 0.06 (-0.19, 0.31)]. An unplanned subgroup analysis suggested that for patients with the top 25% of baseline symptom severity scores, the physiotherapy exercise programme resulted in an improvement in the primary outcome, and modest but consistently better secondary outcomes at both time-points compared to the control group. The effectiveness in different subgroups requires further direct evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of patients with neurogenic claudication symptoms, a physiotherapist-prescribed home exercise programme is no more effective than advice and education. ETHICAL APPROVAL: The study was approved by Leeds Central Ethics Committee and informed consent was given by all participating patients. COPYRIGHT: The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located; and, vi) licence any third party to do any or all of the above. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 78288224 - doi10.1186/ISRCTN35836727; UKCRN 4814.