Patients' Perceptions of Physical Therapists Addressing Opioid Misuse.

INTRODUCTION: In the US, rising numbers of patients who misuse illicit or prescribed opioids provides opportunities for physical therapists (PTs) to be engaged in their care. Prior to this engagement, it is necessary to understand the perceptions of patients who access physical therapy services about their PTs playing such a role. This project examined patients' perceptions of PTs addressing opioid misuse. METHODS: We surveyed patients, newly encountering outpatient physical therapy services in a large University-based healthcare setting, via anonymous, web-based survey. Within the survey, questions were rated on a Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree) and we evaluated responses of patients who were prescribed opioids versus those who were not. RESULTS: Among 839 respondents, the highest mean score was 6.2 (SD = 1.5) for "It is OK for physical therapists to refer their patients with prescription opioid misuse to a specialist to address the opioid misuse." The lowest mean score was 5.6 (SD = 1.9) for "It is OK for physical therapists to ask their patient why they are misusing prescription opioids." Compared to those with no prescription opioid exposure while attending physical therapy, patients with prescription opioid exposure had lower agreement that it was OK for the physical therapist to refer their patients with opioid misuse to a specialist (ß = -.33, 95% CI = -0.63 to -0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients attending outpatient physical therapy seem to support PTs addressing opioid misuse and there are differences in support based on whether the patients had exposure to opioids.

Implementation of an Alternative Pathway for Patients Seeking Care for Low Back Pain: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

Background: In the United States, low back pain (LBP) is among the most common symptoms prompting a health care visit. Patients can receive escalated care, such as advanced imaging or invasive procedures, before guideline-recommended options offered by physical therapists. A guideline-concordant alternative care pathway (RapidAccess) that emphasized early physical therapy for patients with LBP before they consulted a physiatrist was implemented. Evaluating the implementation of care pathways, such as RapidAccess using the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework, provides a broader understanding of the barriers to implementation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a guideline-concordant care pathway for patients with LBP using a RE-AIM framework. Design: This study used a prospective observational cohort design. Methods: Patients with a chief complaint of LBP who were scheduling a new appointment with physiatry were eligible. Eligible patients chose whether or not to participate in RapidAccess before a consultation with a physiatrist. Implementation outcomes were evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results: During the study period, 1556 patients with LBP called to schedule a new visit with a physiatrist. Of these, 400 (25.7%) were eligible for RapidAccess, and 124 (31% of those eligible) participated in the program (reach). Of the 400 eligible patients, 225 (56.3%) were offered RapidAccess (adoption). Compared with patients who were managed in physical therapy following a consultation with a physiatrist, RapidAccess participants demonstrated improvement in physical function with physical therapist management (effectiveness); 58.9% cancelled their physiatrist visit (implementation), and rates of imaging and injections were lower (effectiveness). Reach and adoption (maintenance) trended downward beyond the first 6 months of the project. Limitations: The results are from a single health system and might not be broadly generalizable. Conclusions: The RE-AIM framework was useful in evaluating the implementation of RapidAccess. Factors influencing reach and adoption must be further examined.