Search

Introduction: Clinical guidelines recommend multidisciplinary non-surgical management for most musculoskeletal spinal conditions. Access to such services continues to be a barrier for many individuals residing outside metropolitan regions. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether clinical outcomes achieved via telerehabilitation are as good as those achieved via in-person care.Methods: A non-randomised pilot clinical trial was undertaken where eligible patients chose to access treatment either via telerehabilitation or in-person (control group). Outcome measures for pain-related disability, pain severity and health-related quality of life were recorded at baseline, 3-, 6- and 9-months. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and technical disruptions.Results: Seventy-one patients were recruited (telerehabilitation, n = 51; control group, n = 20). Patient characteristics did not differ at baseline and clinically meaningful improvements for pain-related disability and health-related quality of life were observed in both groups. Non-inferiority of telerehabilitation could not be claimed for any clinical outcome measure. There were no significant group-by-time interactions observed for either pain-related disability (p = 0.706), pain severity (p = 0.187) or health-related quality of life (p = 0.425) measures. The telerehabilitation group reported significantly higher levels of treatment satisfaction (median: 97 vs. 76.5; p = 0.021); 7.9% of telerehabilitation appointments were not completed due to technical disruptions.Discussion: Findings indicate patients with chronic musculoskeletal spinal conditions can achieve clinically meaningful improvements in their condition when accessing care via telerehabilitation. Telerehabilitation should be considered for individuals unable to access relevant in-person services; however non-inferiority remains inconclusive and requires further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Long specialist out-patient waitlists are common in public health facilities, but not all patients require consultation with a medical specialist. Studies of single allied health primary contact services have shown they provide timely, appropriate care and reduce demand on medical specialist out-patient waitlists. This study evaluated the collective benefits across multiple allied health primary contact services and models to determine their clinical effectiveness, safety, timeliness of care and impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlists. Method: Using a prospective observational study design, data were collected and analysed for patients attending 47 allied health primary contact services in Queensland public hospitals over a 2-year period. Outcomes reported are global status, adverse events, wait times and impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlists. Results: In all, 10 634 patients were managed in and discharged from the allied health services. Most adult patients (80%) who attended at least two consultations reported an improvement in health status. No adverse events were attributed to the model of care. Approximately 68%, 44% and 90% of urgent, semi-urgent and non-urgent out-patients respectively were seen within clinically recommended time frames. Between 35% and 89% of patients were removed from out-patient waitlists without medical specialist consultation across the service models. Conclusions: Allied health primary contact services provide safe, effective and timely care. The impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlists varied depending on service model and pathway characteristics. What is known about this topic?: Most studies of allied health primary contact services have focused on the management of patients on orthopaedic specialist out-patient waitlists by a physiotherapist. These studies of either individual services or groups of services with the same model cite benefits, including reduced waiting times, high levels of patient and referrer satisfaction, improved conversion to surgery, cost-effectiveness and more effective utilisation of medical specialists. What does this paper add?: This paper highlights that, collectively, allied health primary contact services are safe, effective and provide timely care. The proportion of patients independently managed and removed from various medical specialist out-patient waitlists and the services involved are reported, demonstrating the variety of service models. This study reports outcomes for primary contact services for which there is a dearth of published literature, including dietician services for patients on gastroenterology waitlists, speech pathology and audiology services for patients on ear, nose and throat waitlists, occupational therapy hand services for patients on orthopaedic waitlists and physiotherapy led pelvic-health services for patients on gynaecology waitlists. Possibilities for efficiency gains are identified and discussed. What are the implications for practitioners?: Health service managers should consider allied health primary contact services as a viable option to increase specialist out-patient capacity. Service model characteristics that maximise impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlist management are highlighted to inform resource allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Access to specialised multidisciplinary healthcare services is difficult for many patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions. A possible solution could be delivery of care via telehealth. This study aims to identify current barriers in accessing healthcare services, and to determine if telehealth is an acceptable mode of healthcare delivery, from the perspective of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Methods Surveys were distributed to current patients receiving care within the Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinic and Multidisciplinary Service (N/OPSC & MDS) at six facilities throughout Queensland, Australia. The 48-item survey evaluated five key areas including demographics; current barriers to attendance; satisfaction with current management provided by the N/OPSC & MDS; technology access and literacy; and attitudes and preference towards telehealth. Results In total, 85 patients (71%) completed the survey. The majority of patients were satisfied overall with the N/OPSC & MDS, but almost one-quarter of the patients reported ceasing treatment due to difficulty accessing services. Over half of the respondents were willing to use telehealth if it reduced the costs (53%) and time (57%) associated with attending appointments. Patients in paid employment were more likely (65%) to use telehealth if it reduced work absenteeism. Overall, 78% of patients were identified as having appropriate technology access to enable home telehealth. Specifically, 43% of patients would prefer home telehealth over having to travel to attend their appointments. Discussion The majority of N/OPSC & MDS patients are willing to engage in telehealth for the management of their chronic musculoskeletal condition. These findings justify consideration of telehealth as an additional method of service delivery within the existing N/OPSC & MD service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To explore patient characteristics predictive of a poor response to multidisciplinary non-surgical rehabilitation of three common orthopaedic conditions within a tertiary care service.Methods: A retrospective audit of medical records of patients who had undergone multidisciplinary non-surgical management of their knee osteoarthritis (KOA, n = 190), shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS, n = 199), or low back pain (LBP, n = 242) within a multisite tertiary care service was undertaken. Standardised clinical measures recorded by the service at the initial consultation were examined using a base binary logistic regression model to determine their relationship with a poor response to management (ie. not achieving a minimal clinically important improvement in the condition disability measure pre-post management).Results: Factors predictive of a poor response following non-surgical management included;; higher levels of anxiety (OR 1.11, P < 0.02) and lower functional score (OR 0.76, P < 0.04) for KOA, higher number of comorbidities (OR 1.16, P < 0.03) for SIS, and coexisting cervical or thorax pain (OR 2.1, P = 0.04) and lower pain self-efficacy (OR 0.98, P = 0.02) for LBP.Conclusions: General health issues may present a barrier to achieving favourable outcomes in response to multidisciplinary non-surgical rehabilitation for the management of common orthopaedic conditions in a tertiary care setting. Clinicians may need to consider these broader patient issues when designing management strategies for patients with these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore equity of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared to non-Indigenous Australians within a Queensland-wide musculoskeletal service.MethodThe service database was analysed between July 2018 and April 2022 across 18 Queensland Health facilities. Representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the service's patient population was first explored. Second, service and patient-related characteristics and outcomes between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients and non-Indigenous patients undergoing an episode of care in the service were compared using analysis of variance and chi-squared tests.ResultsA greater proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (4.34%) were represented within the service's patient population than in the general population (3.61%) state-wide. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients presented with a generally higher severity of clinical presentation across measures at initial consult. Very similar proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (63.2%) and non-Indigenous (64.3%) patients reported clinically meaningful treatment benefits. While a higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients (69.7%) were discharged from the service without requiring specialist review compared to non-Indigenous patients (65.6%), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients had higher rates of discharge due to non-attendance (20.8%) when compared to non-Indigenous (10.6%) patients (P<0.01).ConclusionsDisparity in care retention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients compared to non-Indigenous patients was observed within the musculoskeletal service. Consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is needed to address access barriers once in the service to guide service improvement.

Objectives: We tested a previously developed clinical prediction tool-a nomogram consisting of four patient measures (lower patient-expected benefit, lower patient-reported knee function, greater knee varus angle and severe medial knee radiological degeneration) that were related to poor response to non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. This study sought to prospectively evaluate the predictive validity of this nomogram to identify patients most likely to respond poorly to non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis., Design: Multisite prospective longitudinal study., Setting: Advanced practice physiotherapist-led multidisciplinary service across six tertiary hospitals., Participants: Participants with knee osteoarthritis deemed appropriate for trial of non-surgical management following an initial assessment from an advanced practice physiotherapist were eligible for inclusion., Interventions: Baseline clinical nomogram scores were collected before a trial of individualised non-surgical management commenced., Primary Outcome Measure: Clinical outcome (Global Rating of Change) was collected 6 months following commencement of non-surgical management and dichotomised to responder (a little better to a very great deal better) or poor responder (almost the same to a very great deal worse). Clinical nomogram accuracy was evaluated from receiver operating characteristics curve analysis and area under the curve, and sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative likelihood ratios were calculated., Results: A total of 242 participants enrolled. Follow-up scores were obtained from 210 participants (87% response rate). The clinical nomogram demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.70 (p<0.001), with greatest combined sensitivity 0.65 and specificity 0.64. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.81 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.36) and negative likelihood ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.75)., Conclusions: The knee osteoarthritis clinical nomogram prediction tool may have capacity to identify patients at risk of poor response to non-surgical management. Further work is required to determine the implications for service delivery, feasibility and impact of implementing the nomogram in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)