Factors influencing the implementation of early discharge hospital at home and admission avoidance hospital at home: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide there is an increasing demand for Hospital at Home as an alternative to hospital admission. Although there is a growing evidence base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Hospital at Home, health service managers, health professionals and policy makers require evidence on how to implement and sustain these services on a wider scale. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on the factors that influence the implementation of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home, from the perspective of multiple stakeholders, including policy makers, health service managers, health professionals, patients and patients' caregivers. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings relate to, and help to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention reviews of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus and Scopus until 17 November 2022. We also applied reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. We searched for studies in any language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with qualitative data collection and analysis methods examining the implementation of new or existing Hospital at Home services from the perspective of different stakeholders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted study characteristics and intervention components, assessed the methodological limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Checklist (CASP) and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). We applied thematic synthesis to synthesise the data across studies and identify factors that may influence the implementation of Hospital at Home. MAIN RESULTS: From 7535 records identified from database searches and one identified from citation tracking, we included 52 qualitative studies exploring the implementation of Hospital at Home services (31 Early Discharge, 16 Admission Avoidance, 5 combined services), across 13 countries and from the perspectives of 662 service-level staff (clinicians, managers), eight systems-level staff (commissioners, insurers), 900 patients and 417 caregivers. Overall, we judged 40 studies as having minor methodological concerns and we judged 12 studies as having major concerns. Main concerns included data collection methods (e.g. not reporting a topic guide), data analysis methods (e.g. insufficient data to support findings) and not reporting ethical approval. Following synthesis, we identified 12 findings graded as high (n = 10) and moderate (n = 2) confidence and classified them into four themes: (1) development of stakeholder relationships and systems prior to implementation, (2) processes, resources and skills required for safe and effective implementation, (3) acceptability and caregiver impacts, and (4) sustainability of services. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Admission Avoidance and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services requires early development of policies, stakeholder engagement, efficient admission processes, effective communication and a skilled workforce to safely and effectively implement person-centred Hospital at Home, achieve acceptance by staff who refer patients to these services and ensure sustainability. Future research should focus on lower-income country and rural settings, and the perspectives of systems-level stakeholders, and explore the potential negative impact on caregivers, especially for Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home, as this service may become increasingly utilised to manage rising visits to emergency departments.

Are clinically unimportant findings qualified as benign in lumbar spine imaging reports? A content analysis of plain X-ray, CT and MRI reports.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine diagnostic imaging reports may cause patient and clinician concern when clinically unimportant findings are not explicitly described as benign. Our primary aim was to determine the frequency that common, benign findings are reported in lumbar spine plain X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports as either normal for age or likely clinically unimportant. METHODS: We obtained 600 random de-identified adult lumbar spine imaging reports (200 X-ray, 200 CT and 200 MRI) from a large radiology provider. Only reports requested for low back pain were included. From the report text, one author extracted each finding (e.g., 'broad-based posterior disc bulge') and whether it was present or absent (e.g., no disc bulge) until data saturation was reached, pre-defined as a minimum of 50 reports and no new/similar findings in the last ten reports within each imaging modality. Two authors independently judged whether each finding was likely clinically unimportant or important. For each likely clinicially unimportant finding they also determined if it had been explicitly reported to be benign (expressed as normal, normal for age, benign, clinically unimportant or non-significant). RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after coding 262 reports (80 X-ray, 82 CT, 100 MRI). Across all reports we extracted 3,598 findings. Nearly all reports included at least one clinically unimportant finding (76/80 (95%) X-ray, 80/82 (98%) CT, 99/100 (99%) MRI). Over half of the findings (n = 2,062, 57%; 272 X-Ray, 667 CT, 1123 MRI) were judged likely clinically unimportant. Most likely clinically unimportant findings (90%, n = 1,854) were reported to be present on imaging (rather than absent) and of those only 18% (n = 331) (89 (35%) X-ray, 93 (16%) CT and 149 (15%) MRI) were explicitly reported as benign. CONCLUSION: Lumbar spine imaging reports frequently include findings unlikely to be clinically important without explicitly qualifying that they are benign.

Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities.

BACKGROUND: The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents. OBJECTIVES: Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Implementing decision aids for cardiovascular disease prevention: stakeholder interviews and case studies in Australian primary care.

BACKGROUND: Australian cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk assessment, but less than half of eligible patients have the required risk factors recorded due to fragmented implementation over the last decade. Co-designed decision aids for general practitioners (GPs) and consumers have been developed that improve knowledge barriers to guideline-recommended CVD risk assessment and management. This study used a stakeholder consultation process to identify and pilot test the feasibility of implementation strategies for these decision aids in Australian primary care. METHODS: This mixed methods study included: (1) stakeholder consultation to map existing implementation strategies (2018-20); (2) interviews with 29 Primary Health Network (PHN) staff from all Australian states and territories to identify new implementation opportunities (2021); (3) pilot testing the feasibility of low, medium, and high resource implementation strategies (2019-21). Framework Analysis was used for qualitative data and Google analytics provided decision support usage data over time. RESULTS: Informal stakeholder discussions indicated a need to partner with existing programs delivered by the Heart Foundation and PHNs. PHN interviews identified the importance of linking decision aids with GP education resources, quality improvement activities, and consumer-focused prevention programs. Participants highlighted the importance of integration with general practice processes, such as business models, workflows, medical records and clinical audit software. Specific implementation strategies were identified as feasible to pilot during COVID-19: (1) low resource: adding website links to local health area guidelines for clinicians and a Heart Foundation toolkit for primary care providers; (2) medium resource: presenting at GP education conferences and integrating the resources into audit and feedback reports; (3) high resource: auto-populate the risk assessment and decision aids from patient records via clinical audit software. CONCLUSIONS: This research identified a wide range of feasible strategies to implement decision aids for CVD risk assessment and management. The findings will inform the translation of new CVD guidelines in primary care. Future research will use economic evaluation to explore the added value of higher versus lower resource implementation strategies.

Referral Patterns for People With Musculoskeletal Complaints in General Practice: An Analysis From an Australian Primary Care Database.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine referral patterns for people with musculoskeletal complaints presenting to Australian general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: This longitudinal analysis from the Population Level Analysis Reporting (POLAR) database includes 133,279 patients with low back (≥18 years old) or neck, shoulder, and/or knee (≥45 years old) complaints seen by 4,538 GPs across 269 practices from 2014 through 2018. Referrals to allied health and medical and/or surgical specialists were included. We determined the number of patients with referrals and GPs who made referrals and examined their timing, associations, and trends over time. RESULTS: A total of 43,666 patients (33%) received and 3,053 GPs (67%) made at least one referral. Most referrals were to allied health (n = 25,830, 19%), followed by surgeons (n = 18,805, 14%). Surgical referrals were higher for knee complaints (n = 6,140, 24%) compared with low back, neck, and shoulder complaints (range 8%-15%). The referral category varied predominantly by body region followed by gender, socioeconomic status, and primary health network. Time to allied health referral ranged between median (interquartile range [IQR]) 14 days (0-125 days) for neck complaints and 56 days (5-177 days) for knee complaints. Surgical referrals occurred sooner for those with knee complaints (15 days, IQR 0-128 days). There was a 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9%-2.4%) annual increase in the proportion of allied health referrals and a 1.9% (95% CI 1.6%-2.1%) decrease in surgical referrals across all sites. CONCLUSION: One-third of patients receive, and two-thirds of GPs make, referrals for musculoskeletal complaints. Understanding the reasons for referral and differences between GPs who refer more and less frequently may identify factors that explain variations in practice.

Health facility availability and readiness for family planning and maternity and neonatal care services in Nepal: Analysis of cross-sectional survey data.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the availability and readiness of health facilities to provide family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care in Nepal in 2021. Secondary objectives were to identify progress since 2015 and factors associated with readiness. METHOD: This is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional Nepal Health Facility Survey (NHFS) data collected in 2015 and 2021. The main outcome measures were availability and readiness of family planning, antenatal care, and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services. Readiness indices were calculated using WHO-recommended service availability and readiness assessment (SARA) methods (score range 0 to 100%, with 100% indicating facilities are fully prepared to provide a specific service). We used independent t-tests to compare readiness indices in 2015 and 2021. Factors potentially associated with readiness (rurality setting, ecological region, managing authority, management meeting, quality assurance activities, and external supervision) were explored using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: There were 940 and 1565 eligible health facilities in the 2015 and 2021 surveys, respectively. Nearly all health facilities provided family planning (2015: n = 919 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1530 (97.8%)) and antenatal care services (2015: n = 920 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1538 (98.3%)) in both years, but only half provided delivery services (2015: n = 457 (48.6%); 2021: n = 804 (51.4%)). There were suboptimal improvements in readiness indices over time: (2015-21: family planning 68.0% to 70.9%, p<0.001, antenatal care 49.5% to 54.1%, p<0.001 and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care 56.7% to 58.0%, p = 0.115). The regression model comprising combined datasets of both NHFSs indicates facilities with regular management meetings and/or quality assurance activities had significantly greater readiness for all three indices. Similarly, public facilities had greater readiness for family planning and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care while they had lower readiness for antenatal care. CONCLUSIONS: Readiness to deliver family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services in Nepal remains inadequate, with little improvement observed over six years.

Patterns of Imaging Requests By General Practitioners for People With Musculoskeletal Complaints: An Analysis From a Primary Care Database.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine imaging requested by general practitioners (GPs) for patients with low back, neck, shoulder, and knee complaints over 5 years (2014-2018). METHODS: This analysis from the Australian Population Level Analysis and Reporting database included patients presenting with a diagnosis of low back, neck, shoulder, and/or knee complaints. Eligible imaging requests included low back and neck x-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); knee x-ray, CT, MRI, and ultrasound; and shoulder x-ray, MRI, and ultrasound. We determined number of imaging requests and examined their timing, associated factors, and trends over time. Primary analysis included imaging requests from 2 weeks before diagnosis to 1 year after diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 133,279 patients (57% low back, 25% knee, 20% shoulder, and 11% neck complaints). Imaging was most common among those with a shoulder (49%) complaint, followed by knee (43%), neck (34%), and low back complaints (26%). Most requests occurred simultaneously with the diagnosis. Imaging modality varied by body region and, to a lesser extent, by gender, socioeconomic status, and primary health network. For low back, there was a 1.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.0-1.6) annual increase in proportion of MRI and a concomitant 1.3% (95% CI 0.8-1.8) decrease in CT requests. For neck, there was a 3.0% (95% CI 2.1-3.9) annual increase in proportion of MRI and a concomitant 3.1% (95% CI 2.2-4.0) decrease in x-ray requests. CONCLUSION: GPs commonly request early diagnostic imaging for musculoskeletal complaints at odds with recommended practice. We observed a trend towards more complex imaging for neck and back complaints.

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

BACKGROUND: Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement. RESULTS: The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5). CONCLUSION: We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing overuse of pathology test requesting by Australian general practitioners: protocol for a factorial cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Consistent evidence shows pathology services are overused worldwide and that about one-third of testing is unnecessary. Audit and feedback (AF) is effective for improving care but few trials evaluating AF to reduce pathology test requesting in primary care have been conducted. The aim of this trial is to estimate the effectiveness of AF for reducing requests for commonly overused pathology test combinations by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs) compared with no intervention control. A secondary aim is to evaluate which forms of AF are most effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in Australian general practice. It uses routinely collected Medicare Benefits Schedule data to identify the study population, apply eligibility criteria, generate the interventions and analyse outcomes. On 12 May 2022, all eligible GPs were simultaneously randomised to either no intervention control or to one of eight intervention groups. GPs allocated to an intervention group received individualised AF on their rate of requesting of pathology test combinations compared with their GP peers. Three separate elements of the AF intervention will be evaluated when outcome data become available on 11 August 2023: (1) invitation to participate in continuing professional development-accredited education on appropriate pathology requesting, (2) provision of cost information on pathology test combinations and (3) format of feedback. The primary outcome is the overall rate of requesting of any of the displayed combinations of pathology tests of GPs over 6 months following intervention delivery. With 3371 clusters, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate over 95% power to detect a difference of 4.4 requests in the mean rate of pathology test combination requests between the control and intervention groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received from the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (#JH03507; approved 30 November 2021). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Reporting will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000566730.

Implementing patient decision aids into general practice clinical decision support systems: Feasibility study in cardiovascular disease prevention.

Objective: Patient decision aids (DA) facilitate shared decision making, but implementation remains a challenge. This study tested the feasibility of integrating a cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention DA into general practice software. Methods: We developed a desktop computer application (app) to auto-populate a CVD prevention DA from general practice medical records. 4 practices received monthly practice reports from July-Nov 2021, and 2 practices use the app with limited engagement. CVD risk assessment data and app use were monitored. Results: The proportion of eligible patients with complete CVD risk assessment data ranged from 59 to 94%. Monthly app use ranged from 0 to 285 sessions by 13 individual practice staff including GPs and nurses, with staff using the app an average of 67 sessions during the study period. High users in the 5-month study period continued to use the app for 10 months. Low use was attributed to reduced staff capacity during COVID-19 and technical issues. Conclusion: High users sustained interest in the app, but additional strategies are required for low users. The study will inform implementation plans for new guidelines. Innovation: This study showed it is feasible to integrate patient decision aids with Australian general practice software, despite the challenges of COVID-19 at the time of the study.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus. RESULTS: The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

Splinting for carpal tunnel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve causing pain and numbness and tingling typically in the thumb, index and middle finger. It sometimes results in muscle wasting, diminished sensitivity and loss of dexterity. Splinting the wrist (with or without the hand) using an orthosis is usually offered to people with mild-to-moderate findings, but its effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of splinting for people with CTS. SEARCH METHODS: On 12 December 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials were included if the effect of splinting could be isolated from other treatment modalities. The comparisons included splinting versus no active treatment (or placebo), splinting versus another disease-modifying non-surgical treatment, and comparisons of different splint-wearing regimens. We excluded studies comparing splinting with surgery or one splint design with another. We excluded participants if they had previously undergone surgical release. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed study risk of bias and the certainty in the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials randomising 1937 adults with CTS. The trials ranged from 21 to 234 participants, with mean ages between 42 and 60 years. The mean duration of CTS symptoms was seven weeks to five years. Eight studies with 523 hands compared splinting with no active intervention (no treatment, sham-kinesiology tape or sham-laser); 20 studies compared splinting (or splinting delivered along with another non-surgical intervention) with another non-surgical intervention; and three studies compared different splinting regimens (e.g. night-time only versus full time). Trials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding (all included studies) and lack of information about randomisation or allocation concealment in 23 studies. For the primary comparison, splinting compared to no active treatment, splinting may provide little or no benefits in symptoms in the short term (< 3 months). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale 1 to 5, higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 1 point) was 0.37 points better with splint (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 better to 0.08 worse; 6 studies, 306 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with no active treatment. Removing studies with high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of randomisation or allocation concealment supported our conclusion of no important effect (mean difference (MD) 0.01 points worse with splint; 95% CI 0.20 better to 0.22 worse; 3 studies, 124 participants). In the long term (> 3 months), we are uncertain about the effect of splinting on symptoms (mean BCTQ SSS 0.64 better with splinting; 95% CI 1.2 better to 0.08 better; 2 studies, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Splinting probably does not improve hand function in the short term and may not improve hand function in the long term. In the short term, the mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (1 to 5, higher is worse; MCID 0.7 points) was 0.24 points better (95% CI 0.44 better to 0.03 better; 6 studies, 306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. In the long term, the mean BCTQ FSS was 0.25 points better (95% CI 0.68 better to 0.18 worse; 1 study, 34 participants; low-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. Night-time splinting may result in a higher rate of overall improvement in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51; 1 study, 80 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain if splinting decreases referral to surgery, RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.58; 3 studies, 243 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that splinting may have a higher rate of adverse events, which were transient, but the 95% CIs included no effect. Seven of 40 participants (18%) reported adverse effects in the splinting group and 0 of 40 participants (0%) in the no active treatment group (RR 15.0, 95% CI 0.89 to 254.13; 1 study, 80 participants).  There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence for the other comparisons: splinting may not provide additional benefits in symptoms or hand function when given together with corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence) or with rehabilitation (low-certainty evidence); nor when compared with corticosteroid (injection or oral; low certainty), exercises (low certainty), kinesiology taping (low certainty), rigid taping (low certainty), platelet-rich plasma (moderate certainty), or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (moderate certainty). Splinting for 12 weeks may not be better than six weeks, but six months of splinting may be better than six weeks of splinting in improving symptoms and function (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether splinting benefits people with CTS. Limited evidence does not exclude small improvements in CTS symptoms and hand function, but they may not be clinically important, and the clinical relevance of small differences with splinting is unclear. Low-certainty evidence suggests that people may have a greater chance of experiencing overall improvement with night-time splints than no treatment. As splinting is a relatively inexpensive intervention with no plausible long-term harms, small effects could justify its use, particularly when patients are not interested in having surgery or injections. It is unclear if a splint is optimally worn full time or at night-time only and whether long-term use is better than short-term use, but low-certainty evidence suggests that the benefits may manifest in the long term.

Prevalence and characteristics of musculoskeletal complaints in primary care: an analysis from the population level and analysis reporting (POLAR) database.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record datasets have been used to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints in general practice but not to examine the associated characteristics and healthcare utilisation at the primary care level. AIM: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of patients presenting to general practitioners with musculoskeletal complaints. DESIGN AND SETTING: A five-year analysis within three Primary Health Networks (PHNs) in Victoria, Australia. METHOD: We included patients with at least one face-to-face consultation 2014 to 2018 inclusive and a low back (≥ 18 years), and/or neck, shoulder or knee (≥ 45 years) complaint determined by SNOMED codes derived from diagnostic text within the medical record. We determined prevalence, socio-demographic characteristics and diagnostic codes for patients with an eligible diagnosis; and number of consultations within one year of diagnosis. RESULTS: 324,793/1,294,021 (25%) presented with at least one musculoskeletal diagnosis, of whom 41% (n = 133,279) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. There were slightly more females (n = 73,428, 55%), two-thirds (n = 88,043) were of working age (18-64 years) and 83,816 (63%) had at least one comorbidity. Over half had a low back diagnosis (n = 76,504, 57%) followed by knee (n = 33,438, 25%), shoulder (n = 26,335, 20%) and neck (n = 14,492, 11%). Most codes included 'pain' and/or 'ache' (low back: 58%, neck: 41%, shoulder: 32%, knee 26%). Median (IQR) all-cause consultations per patient within one year of diagnosis was 7 (4-12). CONCLUSION: The burden of MSK complaints at the primary care level is high as evidenced by the prevalence of people with musculoskeletal complaints presenting to a general practitioner, the preponderance of comorbidities and the numerous consultations per year. Identification and evaluation of strategies to reduce this burden are needed.

Regional and national antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

Background: Antibiotic overuse and misuse in primary care are common, highlighting the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) efforts in this setting. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions can improve professional practice and performance in some settings. Objectives and methods: To leverage the expertise from international members of the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance - Primary care Antibiotic Audit and feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN). Network members all have experience of designing and delivering A&F interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care settings. We aim to introduce the network and explore ongoing A&F activities in member regions. An online survey was administered to all network members to collect regional information. Results: Fifteen respondents from 11 countries provided information on A&F activities in their country, and national/regional antibiotic stewardship programmes or policies. Most countries use electronic medical records as the primary data source, antibiotic appropriateness as the main outcome of feedback, and target GPs as the prescribers of interest. Funding sources varied across countries, which could influence the frequency and quality of A&F interventions. Nine out of 11 countries reported having a national antibiotic stewardship programme or policy, which aim to provide systematic support to ongoing AMS efforts and aid sustainability. Conclusions: The survey identified gaps and opportunities for AMS efforts that include A&F across member countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. JPIAMR-PAAN will continue to leverage its members to produce best practice resources and toolkits for antibiotic A&F interventions in primary care settings and identify research priorities.

Effect of an Individualized Audit and Feedback Intervention on Rates of Musculoskeletal Diagnostic Imaging Requests by Australian General Practitioners: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Audit and feedback can improve professional practice, but few trials have evaluated its effectiveness in reducing potential overuse of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging in general practice. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and feedback for reducing musculoskeletal imaging by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This factorial cluster-randomized clinical trial included 2271 general practices with at least 1 GP who was in the top 20% of referrers for 11 imaging tests (of the lumbosacral or cervical spine, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle/hind foot) and for at least 4 individual tests between January and December 2018. Only high-requesting GPs within participating practices were included. The trial was conducted between November 2019 and May 2021, with final follow-up on May 8, 2021. Interventions: Eligible practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 different individualized written audit and feedback interventions (n = 3055 GPs) that varied factorially by (1) frequency of feedback (once vs twice) and (2) visual display (standard vs enhanced display highlighting highly requested tests) or to a control condition of no intervention (n = 764 GPs). Participants were not masked. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the overall rate of requests for the 11 targeted imaging tests per 1000 patient consultations over 12 months, assessed using routinely collected administrative data. Primary analyses included all randomized GPs who had at least 1 patient consultation during the study period and were performed by statisticians masked to group allocation. Results: A total of 3819 high-requesting GPs from 2271 practices were randomized, and 3660 GPs (95.8%; n = 727 control, n = 2933 intervention) were included in the primary analysis. Audit and feedback led to a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of imaging requests per 1000 consultations compared with control over 12 months (adjusted mean, 27.7 [95% CI, 27.5-28.0] vs 30.4 [95% CI, 29.8-30.9], respectively; adjusted mean difference, -2.66 [95% CI, -3.24 to -2.07]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Australian general practitioners known to frequently request musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging, an individualized audit and feedback intervention, compared with no intervention, significantly decreased the rate of targeted musculoskeletal imaging tests ordered over 12 months. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12619001503112.

Barriers, enablers and acceptability of home-based care following elective total knee or hip replacement at a private hospital: A qualitative study of patient and caregiver perspectives.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate implementation of home-based care following an elective total knee or hip replacement in a private hospital, we explored patient and caregiver barriers and enablers and components of care that may increase its acceptability. METHOD: Thirty-one patients (mean age 71 years, 77% female) and 14 caregivers (mean age 69 years, 57% female) were interviewed. All themes were developed using thematic analysis, then categorised as barriers or enablers to uptake of home-based care or acceptable components of care. Barrier and enabler themes were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged as barriers or enablers: feeling unsafe versus confident; caregivers' willingness to provide support and patients' unwillingness to seek help; less support and opportunity to rest; positive feelings about home over the hospital; certainty about anticipated recovery; trusting specialist advice over family and friends; length of hospital stay; paying for health insurance. Five themes emerged as acceptable components: home visits prior to discharge; specific information about recovery at home; one-to-one physiotherapy and occupational therapy perceived as first-line care; medical, nursing and a 24/7 direct-line perceived as second-line care for complications; no one-size-fits-all model for domestic support. Theoretical domains relating to barriers included emotion (e.g., feeling unsafe), environmental context and resources (e.g., perceived lack of physiotherapy) and beliefs about consequences (e.g., unwillingness to burden their caregiver). Theoretical domains relating to enablers included beliefs about capabilities (e.g., feeling strong), skills (e.g., practising stairs), procedural knowledge (e.g., receiving advice about early mobility) and social influences (e.g., caregivers' willingness to provide support). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors, such as feeling unsafe and caregivers' willingness to provide support, may influence implementation of home-based care from the perspectives of privately insured patients and caregivers. Our findings provide insights to inform design of suitable home-based care following joint replacement in a private setting.

Factors influencing clinician prescribing of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for inflammatory arthritis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

Understanding factors that influence prescribing of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) will inform strategies to optimise care of people with inflammatory arthritis. We performed a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies to explore these factors. Inclusion criteria were: use of qualitative or mixed methods; rheumatologist, nurse or pharmacist perspectives; prescription of any DMARD (conventional [cs], targeted synthetic [ts], biologic [b], biosimilars) and/or glucocorticoids; in any healthcare setting in any country. MEDLINE, Embase and EBSCOhost CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to 15 June 2021. Pairs of review authors independently identified studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and extracted and thematically synthesised data. Confidence in synthesis themes was evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. We included 15 studies involving 716 clinicians (683 rheumatologists, 27 nurses, 6 pharmacists) across 10 countries, all focusing on management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Six themes were identified: Rheumatologist prescribing is influenced by patients' characteristics, preferences, symptoms and negative responses to medication; Rheumatologist knowledge, experience, habits and subjective judgements are strong drivers of prescribing behaviour; High demands on consultation time impede shared decision-making; Costs and complexity of medication funding arrangements limit prescribing options; Clinicians recognise the importance of providing patient education about medication options; and Clinicians value colleagues' opinions and support to inform prescribing decisions. The majority of themes were graded as moderate confidence (n  =  4), reflecting they are likely to reasonably represent the factors influencing prescribing of DMARDs to people with RA. Quality improvement strategies that address these factors are likely to support best practice pharmacologic management of RA and may be potentially applicable to other types of inflammatory arthritis. High demand on consultation time and complexity of medication funding arrangements are system factors that may or may not be amenable to change. Easily accessible living national guidelines which include lay summaries and treatment algorithms to support prescribing decisions may address some of the themes.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I2 = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I2 = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I2 = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Improving adherence to acute low back pain guideline recommendations with chiropractors and physiotherapists: the ALIGN cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain is a common condition, has high burden, and there are evidence-to-practice gaps in the chiropractic and physiotherapy setting for imaging and giving advice to stay active. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to estimate the effects of a theory- and evidence-based implementation intervention to increase chiropractors' and physiotherapists' adherence to a guideline for acute low back pain compared with the comparator (passive dissemination of the guideline). In particular, the primary aim of the intervention was to reduce inappropriate imaging referral and improve patient low back pain outcomes, and to determine whether this intervention was cost-effective. METHODS: Physiotherapy and chiropractic practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, comprising at least one practising clinician who provided care to patients with acute low back pain, were invited to participate. Patients attending these practices were included if they had acute non-specific low back pain (duration less than 3 months), were 18 years of age or older, and were able to understand and read English. Practices were randomly assigned either to a tailored, multi-faceted intervention based on the guideline (interactive educational symposium plus academic detailing) or passive dissemination of the guideline (comparator). A statistician independent of the study team undertook stratified randomisation using computer-generated random numbers; four strata were defined by professional group and the rural or metropolitan location of the practice. Investigators not involved in intervention delivery were blinded to allocation. Primary outcomes were X-ray referral self-reported by clinicians using a checklist and patient low back pain-specific disability (at 3 months). RESULTS: A total of 104 practices (43 chiropractors, 85 physiotherapists; 755 patients) were assigned to the intervention and 106 practices (45 chiropractors, 97 physiotherapists; 603 patients) to the comparator; 449 patients were available for the patient-level primary outcome. There was no important difference in the odds of patients being referred for X-ray (adjusted (Adj) OR: 1.40; 95% CI 0.51, 3.87; Adj risk difference (RD): 0.01; 95% CI - 0.02, 0.04) or patient low back pain-specific disability (Adj mean difference: 0.37; 95% CI - 0.48, 1.21, scale 0-24). The intervention did lead to improvement for some key secondary outcomes, including giving advice to stay active (Adj OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.20, 3.22; Adj RD: 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19) and intending to adhere to the guideline recommendations (e.g. intention to refer for X-ray: Adj OR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.17, 0.44; intention to give advice to stay active: Adj OR: 2.37; 95% CI 1.51, 3.74). CONCLUSIONS: Intervention group clinicians were more likely to give advice to stay active and to intend to adhere to the guideline recommendations about X-ray referral. The intervention did not change the primary study outcomes, with no important differences in X-ray referral and patient disability between groups, implying that hypothesised reductions in health service utilisation and/or productivity gains are unlikely to offset the direct costs of the intervention. We report these results with the caveat that we enrolled less patients into the trial than our determined sample size. We cannot recommend this intervention as a cost-effective use of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 . Retrospectively registered on 25 November 2009.