Search

Background: Clinical management of musculoskeletal shoulder pain can be challenging due to diagnostic uncertainty, variable prognosis and limited evidence for long-term treatment benefits. The UK-based PANDA-S programme (Prognostic And Diagnostic Assessment of the Shoulder) is investigating short and long-term shoulder pain outcomes. This paper reports linked qualitative research exploring patients' and clinicians' views towards primary care consultations for shoulder pain. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 patients and 15 primary care clinicians. Twenty-two interviews (11 patients, 11 clinicians) were conducted as matched patient-clinician 'dyads'. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Clinicians reported attempts to involve patients in management decisions; however, there was variation in whether patients preferred treatment choice, or for decisions to be clinician-led. Some patients felt uncertain about the decisions made, due to a lack of discussion about available management options. Many General Practitioners expressed a lack of confidence in diagnosing the underlying cause of shoulder pain. Patients reported either not being given a diagnosis, or receiving different diagnoses from different professionals, resulting in confusion. Whilst clinicians reported routinely discussing prognosis of shoulder pain, patients reported that prognosis was not raised. Patients also expressed concern that their shoulder pain could be caused by serious pathology; however, clinicians felt that this was not a common concern for patients. Conclusions: Findings showed disparities between patients' and clinicians' views towards shoulder pain consultations, indicating a need for improved patient-clinician communication. Findings will inform the design of an intervention to support treatment and referral decisions for shoulder pain that will be tested in a randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The intelligent knee osteoarthritis lifestyle app (iKOALA) has been co-developed with target users to extend the support for physical activity (PA) and musculoskeletal health, beyond short-term structured rehabilitation, using personalised PA guidance, education, and social support. The purpose of this study was to assess the preliminary effectiveness and usability of the iKOALA digital intervention on indices of musculoskeletal (MSK) health, symptoms, and physical activity levels in a broad range of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) over 12 weeks to inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial. Methods: Thirty-eight (33 female) participants living in the UK with a mean (SD) age of 58 (± 9) years diagnosed radiographically or clinically with KOA completed a 12-week user trial of the iKOALA. Participants completed an in-app physical activity questionnaire which intelligently recommended suitable strengthening and aerobic based activities to individuals. Throughout the trial, participants wore a physical activity monitor and were given access to functions within the app (physical activity (PA) reminders, information and education, symptom and PA tracking as well as social support forums) to support them in maintaining their PA plan. Participants completed a MSK questionnaire for chronic symptoms and quality of life (MSK-HQ) as well as an acute iKOALA symptoms questionnaire (confidence, fatigue, mood, pain during the day/night, sleep and ability to walk) in the week prior to starting and following completion of the trial. Results: Physical activity levels were consistent over the 12 weeks with total daily steps of 9102 (± 3514) in week 1, 9576 (± 4214) in week 6 and 9596 (± 3694) in week 12. Group mean changes in all iKOALA MSK symptom scores and the total MSK-HQ (pre 33.1 (7.6) vs. post 40.2 (7.6)) score improved significantly (p <.001, 95% CI [-8.89, -5.16]) over the 12-week period. Conclusions: Physical activity levels were maintained at a high level throughout the 12 weeks. Significant improvements in mean MSK symptom scores and the total MSK-HQ score were also observed. Efforts to ensure more generalised reach amongst sex and socioeconomic status of the digital intervention in a randomised controlled clinical trial are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoarthritis is a common, painful and disabling long-term condition. Delivery of high-quality guideline-informed osteoarthritis care that successfully promotes and maintains supported self-management is imperative. However, osteoarthritis care remains inconsistent, including under use of core non-pharmacological approaches of education, exercise and weight loss. Community pharmacies are an accessible healthcare provider. United Kingdom government initiatives are promoting their involvement in a range of long-term conditions, including musculoskeletal conditions. It is not known what an enhanced community pharmacy role for osteoarthritis care should include, what support is needed to deliver such a role, and whether it would be feasible and acceptable to community pharmacy teams. In this (PharmOA) study, we aim to address these gaps, and co-design and test an evidence-based extended community pharmacy model of service delivery for managing osteoarthritis. Methods: Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, Normalisation Process Theory, and the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions, we will undertake a multi-methods study involving five phases: 1. Systematic review to summarise currently available evidence on community pharmacy roles in supporting adults with osteoarthritis and other chronic (non-cancer) pain. 2. Cross-sectional surveys and one-to-one qualitative interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and pharmacy staff to explore experiences of current, and potential extended community pharmacy roles, in delivering osteoarthritis care. 3. Stakeholder co-design to: a) agree on the extended role of community pharmacies in osteoarthritis care; b) develop a model of osteoarthritis care within which the extended roles could be delivered (PharmOA model of service delivery); and c) refine existing tools to support community pharmacies to deliver extended osteoarthritis care roles (PharmOA tools). 4. Feasibility study to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools to community pharmacy teams. 5. Final stakeholder workshop to: a) finalise the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools, and b) if applicable, prioritise recommendations for its wider future implementation. Discussion: This novel study paves the way to improving access to and availability of high-quality guideline-informed, consistent care for people with osteoarthritis from within community pharmacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Follow-up visits 5 or 7 years after surgery were recommended for people having primary hip or knee replacement. The benefits of this practice to patients and the healthcare system, however, have not yet been specifically examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between long-term follow-up outpatient hospital visits and revision rates for patients who undergo primary knee or hip replacement surgery. Methods: Cohorts were identified for patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery using medical records from primary care practices within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset linked to hospital records from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. Two groups of patients were compared in terms of revision and mortality rates: those with at least one long-term (between five and 10 years since primary surgery) follow-up visit at the orthopaedic department ('Follow-up' group), and those without ('No follow-up' group). Results: A total of 9856 (4349 in the Follow-up group) patients with knee replacement and 10,837 (4870 in the Follow-up group) with hip replacement were included in the analysis. For knee replacement, the incidence of revision was 3.6% for those followed-up and 0.6% for those not followed-up. An adjusted regression model confirmed the difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for revision was statistically significant (HR: 5.65 [95% CI 3.62 to 8.81]). Mortality at 4 years was lower for the Follow-up (17%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but this difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.95 [0.84 to 1.07]). For hip replacement, the incidence of revision rates were 3.2 and 1.4% for the follow-up and not follow-up groups, respectively, the difference being statistically significant (HR: 2.34 [1.71 to 3.20]). Mortality was lower for the Follow-up (15%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.91 [0.81 to 1.02]). Conclusion: Patients attending follow-up orthopaedic consultations show a higher risk of revision surgery compared to those who are not followed-up. A cause for this difference could not be identified in this study but a likely explanation is that surgeons play an effective role as ultimate arbitrators when identifying patients to be included in long-term follow-up lists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]