Nursing and allied health workforce in Australian public rheumatology departments is inadequate: a cross-sectional observational study.

Rheumatological conditions are complex and impact many facets of daily life. Management of people with rheumatological conditions can be optimised through multidisciplinary care. However, the current access to nursing and allied health professionals in Australia is unknown. A cross-sectional study of nursing and allied health professionals in Australian public rheumatology departments for adult and paediatric services was conducted. The heads of Australian public rheumatology departments were invited to report the health professionals working within their departments, referral pathways, and barriers to greater multidisciplinary care. A total of 27/39 (69.2%) of the hospitals responded. The most common health professionals within departments were nurses (n = 23; 85.2%) and physiotherapists (n = 10; 37.0%), followed by pharmacists (n = 5; 18.5%), psychologists (n = 4; 14.8%), and occupational therapists (n = 4; 14.8%). No podiatrists were employed within departments. Referral pathways were most common for physiotherapy (n = 20; 74.1%), followed by occupational therapy (n = 15; 55.5%), podiatry (n = 13; 48.1%), and psychology (n = 6; 22%). The mean full-time equivalent of nursing and allied health professionals per 100,000 population in Australia was 0.29. Funding was identified as the most common barrier. In Australia, publicly funded multidisciplinary care from nurses and allied health professionals in rheumatology departments is approximately 1.5 days per week on average. This level of multidisciplinary care is unlikely to meet the needs of rheumatology patients. Research is needed to determine the minimum staffing requirements of nursing and allied health professionals to provide optimal care.

Conceptualisation of a region-based group of musculoskeletal pain conditions as 'tibial loading pain' and systematic review of effects of load-modifying interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Conceptualisation of a clinically-relevant group of conditions as a region-based, load-related musculoskeletal pain condition ('tibial loading pain') to enable identification of evidence of treatment effect from load-modifying interventions. DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence synthesis based on a developed and justified theoretical position. METHODS: Musculoskeletal pain localised to the tibial (shin) region and consistent with clinical presentations of an exercise/activity-related onset mechanism, was conceptualised as a group of conditions ('tibial loading pain') that could be reasoned to respond to load modifying interventions. Five databases were searched for randomized controlled studies investigating any load-modifying intervention for pain in the anterior-anteromedial lower leg (shin). Study quality was evaluated (Risk of Bias Tool Version 2) and level of certainty for the findings assessed. RESULTS: Six studies reporting seven comparisons were included. Interventions included braces, anti-pronation taping, compression stocking and a stretch + strengthening programme. All included studies were assessed as having unclear or high risk of bias. The review found no evidence of beneficial effect from any of the load-modifying interventions on symptoms, physical performance or biomechanical measures, apart from a possible benefit of anti-pronation 'kinesio' taping. There was very low certainty evidence that kinesio taping improves pain and pain-free hopping distance after one week. The braces were associated with minor adverse effects and problems with acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: None of the treatments investigated by the included studies can be recommended. Conceptualisation of the problem as regional, primarily loading-related pain rather than as multiple distinct pathoanatomically-based conditions, and clearer load-modifying hypotheses for interventions are recommended.