Effects on health and process outcomes of physiotherapist-led orthopaedic triage for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of comparative studies.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapist-led (PT-led) orthopaedic triage is an evolving model of care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Objectives for this study were to establish the current evidence body on the impact of PT-led orthopaedic triage on health, quality, and service outcomes for patients referred for orthopaedic consultation, compared with standard (orthopaedic surgeon) care. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL were searched from inception until 7 May 2018; search updated 24 April 2020. Search terms (including derivatives) included physiotherapy, advanced/extended scope, musculoskeletal/orthopaedic, triage. The search was framed as Population = patients referred for orthopaedic consultation; Intervention = PT-led orthopaedic triage; Comparison = standard care; Outcomes = health, quality and process outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. Screening, study selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by reviewer pairs. Quality was scored with the Downs and Black checklist. Certainty of evidence was determined using GRADE. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017070950. RESULTS: We included two RCTs and eleven cohort studies (n = 1357 participants) of variable methodological quality (range 14-23 of possible 28). Certainty of evidence was low to moderate. There was no difference between PT-led orthopaedic triage and standard care for patient-reported outcomes (two RCTs). Perceived quality of care with PT-led orthopaedic triage was higher (two RCTs, four cohort studies) or equal (one cohort study) compared with standard care. PT-led orthopaedic triage had higher surgery conversion rates (one RCT, three cohort studies) (55-91% vs 22-38%), lower (two RCTs) or equal rate (two cohort studies) of referral for investigations, shorter waiting times (one RCT, one cohort study), and lower costs (one RCT). Furthermore, there was high agreement between physiotherapists' and orthopaedic surgeons' treatment approach (eight cohort studies), referral for investigation (five cohort studies), and diagnosis (nine cohort studies). Study limitations were the low number of RCTs, and variable methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low to moderate certainty suggests that PT-led orthopaedic triage leads to similar diagnostic decisions as standard care, has a higher conversion-to-surgery rate, reduces waiting times, is cost effective and valued by patients, and that health outcomes are equivalent.

Does early identification of work-related stress, combined with feedback at GP-consultation, prevent sick leave in the following 12 months? a randomized controlled trial in primary health care.

BACKGROUND: Experiencing work-related stress constitutes an obvious risk for becoming sick-listed. In primary health care, no established method to early identify, advise and treat people with work-related stress exists. The aim was to evaluate if the use of the Work Stress Questionnaire (WSQ) brief intervention, including feedback from the general practitioner (GP), had an impact on the level of sickness absence. METHOD/DESIGN: In total 271 (intervention group, n = 132, control group, n = 139) non-sick-listed employed women and men, aged 18 to 64 years, who had mental and physical health complaints and sought care at primary health care centers participated in this two-armed randomized controlled trial. The main outcomes were the number of registered sick leave days and episodes, and time to first sick leave during the 12-months follow-up. The intervention included early identification of work-related stress by the WSQ, GP awareness supported by a brief training session, patients' self-reflection by WSQ completion, GP feedback at consultation, and initiation of preventive measures. RESULTS: The mean days registered for the WSQ intervention group and the control group were 39 and 45 gross days respectively, and 31 and 39 net days respectively (ns). No statistical significant difference for the number of sick leave episodes or time to first day of sick leave episode were found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The WSQ brief intervention combined with feedback and suggestions of measures at patient-GP-consultation was not proven effective in preventing sick leave in the following 12 months compared to treatment as usual. More research is needed on methods to early identify, advise and treat people with work-related stress in primary health care, and on how and when GPs and other professionals in primary health care can be trained to understand this risk of sick leave due to work-related stress, on how to prevent it, and on how to advise and treat employees at risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02480855 . Registered 20 May 2015.

Use of a self-rating scale to monitor depression severity in recurrent GP consultations in primary care - does it really make a difference? A randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Little information is available about whether the use of self-assessment instruments in primary care affects depression course and outcome. The purpose was to evaluate whether using a depression self-rating scale in recurrent person-centred GP consultations affected depression severity, quality of life, medication use, and sick leave frequency. METHODS: Patients in the intervention group met their GP regularly at least 4 times during the 3 months intervention. In addition to treatment as usual (TAU), patients completed a self-assessment instrument (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) on each occasion, and then GPs used the completed instrument as the basis for a person-centred discussion of changes in depression symptoms. The control group received TAU. Frequency of visits in the TAU arm was the result of the GPs' and patients' joint assessments of care need in each case. Depression severity was measured with Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), quality of life with EQ-5D, and psychological well-being with the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Data on sick leave, antidepressant and sedatives use, and care contacts were collected from electronic patient records. All variables were measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean intra-individual changes were compared between the intervention and TAU group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the intervention and control group in depression severity reduction or remission rate, change in quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative prescriptions, or sick leave during the whole 12-month follow-up. However, significantly more patients in the intervention group continued antidepressants until the 6 month follow-up (86/125 vs 78/133, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When GPs used a depression self-rating scale in recurrent consultations, patients more often continued antidepressant medication according to guidelines, compared to TAU patients. However, reduction of depressive symptoms, remission rate, quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative use, sick leave, and health care use 4-12 months was not significantly different from the TAU group. These findings suggest that frequent use of depression rating scales in person-centred primary care consultations has no further additional effect on patients' depression or well-being, sick leave, or health care use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01402206 . Registered June 27 2011(retrospectively registered).