Developing and embedding an advanced practice musculoskeletal physiotherapy service in public specialist outpatient services in Queensland: A health service masterclass.

INTRODUCTION: The Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Screening Clinic and Multi-disciplinary Service (MPSC&MDS) is an advanced practice physiotherapist-led model of care developed initially to address overburdened specialist orthopaedic outpatient public hospital services across Queensland, Australia. PURPOSE: This Masterclass explores the experiences and success of embedding the MPSC&MDS state-wide across the Queensland public health system and its expansion in scale and reach to other specialist services. Key characteristics and development strategies are described that have collectively underpinned the expansion and sustainability of the service, using relevant stream sections and themes from a recommended musculoskeletal model of care framework. IMPLICATIONS: The aim of this masterclass is to be informative for readers involved in the future development or refinement of similar models of care.

A multisite longitudinal evaluation of patient characteristics associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of low back pain in an advanced practice physiotherapist-led tertiary service.

BACKGROUND: Non-surgical multidisciplinary management is often the first pathway of care for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). This study explores if patient characteristics recorded at the initial service examination have an association with a poor response to this pathway of care in an advanced practice physiotherapist-led tertiary service. METHODS: Two hundred and forty nine patients undergoing non-surgical multidisciplinary management for their LBP across 8 tertiary public hospitals in Queensland, Australia participated in this prospective longitudinal study. Generalised linear models (logistic family) examined the relationship between patient characteristics and a poor response at 6 months follow-up using a Global Rating of Change measure. RESULTS: Overall 79 of the 178 (44%) patients completing the Global Rating of Change measure (28.5% loss to follow-up) reported a poor outcome. Patient characteristics retained in the final model associated with a poor response included lower Formal Education Level (ie did not complete school) (Odds Ratio (OR (95% confidence interval)) (2.67 (1.17-6.09), p = 0.02) and higher self-reported back disability (measured with the Oswestry Disability Index) (OR 1.33 (1.01-1.77) per 10/100 point score increase, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: A low level of formal education and high level of self-reported back disability may be associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of LBP in tertiary care. Patients with these characteristics may need greater assistance with regard to their comprehension of health information, and judicious monitoring of their response to facilitate timely alternative care if no benefits are attained.

Patient characteristics associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of knee osteoarthritis: a multisite prospective longitudinal study in an advanced practice physiotherapist-led tertiary service.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient characteristics recorded at the initial consultation associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in tertiary care. DESIGN: Prospective multisite longitudinal study. SETTING: Advanced practice physiotherapist-led multidisciplinary orthopaedic service within eight tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 238 patients with KOA. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardised measures were recorded in all patients prior to them receiving non-surgical multidisciplinary management in a tertiary hospital service across multiple sites. These measures were examined for their relationship with a poor response to management 6 months after the initial consultation using a 15-point Global Rating of Change measure (poor response (scores -7 to +1)/positive response (scores+2 to+7)). Generalised linear models with binomial family and logit link were used to examine which patient characteristics yielded the strongest relationship with a poor response to management as estimated by the OR (95% CI). RESULTS: Overall, 114 out of 238 (47.9%) participants recorded a poor response. The odds of a poor response decreased with higher patient expectations of benefit (OR 0.74 (0.63 to 0.87) per 1/10 point score increase) and higher self-reported knee function (OR 0.67 (0.51 to 0.89) per 10/100 point score increase) (p<0.01). The odds of a poor response increased with a greater degree of varus frontal knee alignment (OR 1.35 (1.03 to 1.78) per 5° increase in varus angle) and a severe (compared with mild) radiological rating of medial compartment degenerative change (OR 3.11 (1.04 to 9.3)) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These characteristics may need to be considered in patients presenting for non-surgical multidisciplinary management of KOA in tertiary care. Measurement of these patient characteristics may potentially better inform patient-centred management and flag the need for judicious monitoring of outcome for some patients to avoid unproductive care.

Agreement between telehealth and in-person assessment of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions presenting to an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of agreement between a telehealth and in-person assessment of a representative sample of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions referred to an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic. DESIGN: Repeated-measures study design. PARTICIPANTS: 42 patients referred to the Neurosurgical & Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinic (Queensland, Australia) for assessment of their chronic lumbar spine, knee or shoulder condition. INTERVENTION: Participants underwent two consecutive assessments by different physiotherapists within a single clinic session. In-person assessments were conducted as per standard clinical practice. Telehealth assessments took place remotely via videoconferencing. Six Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists were paired together to perform both assessment types. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical management decisions including (i) recommended management pathways, (ii) referral to allied health professions, (iii) clinical diagnostics, and (iv) requirement for further investigations were compared using reliability and agreement statistics. RESULTS: There was substantial agreement (83.3%; 35/42 cases) between in-person and telehealth assessments for recommended management pathways. Moderate to near perfect agreement (AC1 = 0.58-0.9) was reached for referral to individual allied health professionals. Diagnostic agreement was 83.3% between the two delivery mediums, whilst there was substantial agreement (81%; AC1 = 0.74) when requesting further investigations. Overall, participants were satisfied with the telehealth assessment. CONCLUSION: There is a high level of agreement between telehealth and in-person assessments with respect to clinical management decisions and diagnosis of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions managed in an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic. Telehealth can be considered as a viable and effective medium to assess those patients who are unable to attend these services in person.