Patient satisfaction with the first contact physiotherapy service: Results from the national evaluation survey.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) First Contact Physiotherapists (FCPs) are diagnostic clinicians able to assess and manage undifferentiated and undiagnosed MSK presentations. The FCP role in primary care has been introduced to allow patients with MSK pain to see a FCP directly rather than wait to see a General Practitioner (GP) first, which improves capacity within primary care. A national evaluation was undertaken of the FCP model. This article reports the thematic analysis of the free-text responses of patients who participated in the national evaluation. METHODS: An online platform collected patient-reported experience and outcomes following the FCP consultation and at 1, 2 and 3 months follow-up. Free-text responses to the Friends and Family test, reasons for consulting another health care professional (HCP) and general comments were thematically analysed and grouped according to their responses. RESULTS: Over 13 months, 680 of 2825 registered patients (24%) completed the initial questionnaire and 54% (n = 370) completed the 3-month follow-up. During the course of the evaluation, 785 participants provided free-text responses. Themes identified from free-text responses were: communication and knowledge, clinicians' characteristics, efficiency, treatment provided, assessment skills and service provided in comparison to GP care. Complaints represented 4% (n = 26 comments) of total feedback. The main reasons for consulting other HCPs after seeing a FCP were persistent pain, delays in referrals or already attending NHS physiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Thematic analysis of free-text responses in the national FCP evaluation provides context and detail to the positive outcomes reported by patients after consulting a FCP in primary care.

Demographic diversity of participants in Pfizer sponsored clinical trials in the United States.

The approval of new medicinal agents requires robust efficacy and safety clinical trial data demonstrated to be applicable to population subgroups. Limited data have previously been reported by drug sponsors on the topic of clinical trial diversity. In order to establish a baseline of diversity in our clinical trials that can be used by us and other sponsors, an analysis of clinical trial diversity was conducted covering race, ethnicity, sex, and age. This analysis includes Pfizer interventional clinical trials that initiated enrollment between 2011 through 2020. The data set comprises 213 trials with 103,103 US participants. The analysis demonstrated that overall trial participation of Black or African American individuals was at the US census level (14.3% vs 13.4%), participation of Hispanic or Latino individuals was below US census (15.9% vs 18.5%), and female participation was at US census (51.1% vs 50.8%). The analysis also examined the percentage of trials that achieved racial and ethnic distribution levels at or above census levels. Participant levels above census were achieved in 56.1% of Pfizer trials for Black or African American participants, 51.4% of trials for White participants, 16.0% of trials for Asian participants, 14.2% of trials for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander participants, 8.5% of trials for American Indian and Alaska Native participants, and 52.3% of trials for Hispanic or Latino participants. The results presented here provide a baseline upon which we can quantify the impact of our ongoing efforts to improve racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials.

First point of contact physiotherapy; a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: First point of contact physiotherapy (FPCP) provides patients direct access to a physiotherapist. Literature demonstrates efficacy of FPCP. Evidence has highlighted the need for cultural shifts from both patient and professional perspectives to optimise FPCP. This study explored stakeholder perceptions of patient awareness and understanding of FPCP to better inform FPCP implementation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative methodology utilised semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Findings from a previous realist review were used to generate a priori topic guides. Participants included patients, physiotherapists, GPs, administration staff, and commissioners. A thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Four themes emerged that are described: level of patient awareness of the FPCP role situated against the GP as first contact practitioner, patients attain an awareness of FPCP from a variety of sources, patient understanding of physiotherapy arises from several sources and is poorly aligned with the FPCP model, characteristics and behaviours of patients influence access to FPCP services. Patient awareness and understanding was poor. Patients tended to view the GP as the default first contact practitioner. Traditional advertising approaches appeared on the whole invisible to patients and there was a reliance on signposting to facilitate patient access. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study can inform implementation of FPCP. Several obstacles to the optimisation of FPCP were highlighted. Improved marketing of physiotherapy generally and FPCP specifically may increase patient awareness and understanding. However, it is likely further time will be required to bring about the cultural shift in public perception required to optimise the potential of FPCP.

Physiotherapy-as-first-point-of-contact-service for patients with musculoskeletal complaints: understanding the challenges of implementation.

BACKGROUND: Primary care faces unprecedented challenges. A move towards a more comprehensive, multi-disciplinary service delivery model has been proposed as a means with which to secure more sustainable services for the future. One seemingly promising response has been the implementation of physiotherapy self-referral schemes, however there is a significant gap in the literature regarding implementation. Aim This evaluation aimed to explore how the professionals and practice staff involved in the delivery of an in-practice physiotherapy self-referral scheme understood the service, with a focus on perceptions of value, barriers and impact. Design and setting A qualitative evaluation was conducted across two UK city centre practices that had elected to participate in a pilot self-referral scheme offering 'physiotherapy-as-a-first-point-of-contact' for patients presenting with a musculoskeletal complaint. METHODS: Individual and focus group interviews were conducted amongst participating physiotherapists, administration/reception staff, general practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse (in their capacity as practice partner). Interview data were collected from a total of 14 individuals. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three key themes were highlighted by this evaluation. First, the imperative of effecting a cultural change - including management of patient expectation with particular reference to the belief that GPs represented the 'legitimate choice', re-visioning contemporary primary care as a genuine team approach, and the physiotherapists' reconceptualisation of their role and practices. Second, the impact of the service on working practice across all stakeholders - specifically re-distribution of work to 'unburden' the GP, and the critical role of administration staff. Finally, beliefs regarding the nature and benefits of physiotherapeutic musculoskeletal expertise - fears regarding physiotherapists' ability to work autonomously or identify 'red flags' were unfounded. CONCLUSION: This qualitative evaluation draws on the themes to propose five key lessons which may be significant in predicting the success of implementing physiotherapy self-referral schemes.

Physiotherapy as a first point of contact in general practice: a solution to a growing problem?

UNLABELLED: Aim To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction and economic efficacy of a physiotherapy service providing musculoskeletal care, as an alternative to GP care. BACKGROUND: There is a growing demand on general practice resources. A novel '1st Line Physiotherapy Service' was evaluated in two GP practices (inner city practice, university practice). Physiotherapy, as a first point of contact, was provided as an alternative to GP care for patients with musculoskeletal complaints. Participants A convenience cohort sample of over 500 patients with a musculoskeletal complaint was assessed within the physiotherapy service. For the economic evaluation a cohort of 100 GP patients was retrospectively reviewed. METHOD: Clinical outcome measures were collected at assessment, one and six months following assessment. Patient satisfaction was collected at assessment. An economic evaluation was undertaken on the physiotherapy cohort of patients and compared to a retrospective cohort of patients (n=100) seen by a GP. This evaluation considered only the health care perspective (primary and secondary care). Societal issues such as absence from employment were not considered. RESULTS: There were no adverse events associated with the physiotherapy service. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the physiotherapy service. Patients managed within the 1st Line Physiotherapy Service demonstrated clinical improvements (EQ-5D-5L, Global Rating of Change) at the six-month point. There was a statistically significant difference in favour of the physiotherapy groups using a non-parametric bootstrap test; inner city practice, mean difference in costs=£538.01 (P =0.006; 95% CI; £865.678, £226.98), university practice mean difference in costs=£295.83 (P=0.044; 95% CI; £585.16, £83.69). CONCLUSION: The limitations of this pragmatic service evaluation are acknowledged. Nevertheless, the physiotherapy service appears to provide a safe and efficacious service. The service is well received by patients. There appear to be potential financial implications to the health economy. Physiotherapists, as a first point of contact for patients with musculoskeletal-related complaints, could contribute to the current challenges faced in primary care.

Real-World Emissions from Conventional Passenger Cars.

It has long been recognized that vehicles emit more pollutants than allowed under the new car emission standards. Further tightening of the certification standards based on existing test procedures does not directly address the largest sources of emissions. This study attempts to quantify vehicle emissions by source, in order to prioritize future policymaking. Several new sets of data are used in conjunction with regulatory emission models to characterize the lifetime emissions from the average Model Year (MY)93 vehicle. Special attention is paid to two of the largest sources of real-world emissions: (1) high-power driving by cars with properly functioning emissions controls, and (2) cars with malfunctioning emissions controls. Emissions are projected to MY2000 and 2010, based on estimates of the effectiveness of recently adopted and proposed regulatory policies. These new policies are projected to reduce total emissions substantially.