First contact physiotherapy: an evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs
Rattachement africain : gb, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background First contact physiotherapy practitioners (FCPPs) are embedded within general practice, providing expert assessment, diagnosis, and management plans for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs), without the prior need for GP consultation. Aim To determine the clinical effectiveness and costs of FCPP models compared with GP-led models of care. Design and setting Multiple site case-study design of general practices in the UK. Method General practice sites were recruited representing the following three models: 1) GP-led care; 2) FCPPs who could not prescribe or inject (FCPPs-standard [St]); and 3) FCPPs who could prescribe and/or inject (FCPPs-additional qualifications [AQ]). Patient participants from each site completed outcome data at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score. Healthcare usage was collected for 6 months. Results In total, 426 adults were recruited from 46 practices across the UK. Non-inferiority analysis showed no significant difference in physical function (SF-36 PCS) across all three arms at 6 months (P= 0.667). At 3 months, a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% (n= 47) GP consultees, 72.4% (n= 71) FCPP-St, and 66.4% (n= 101) FCPP-AQ (P= 0.037). No safety issues were identified. Following initial consultation, a greater proportion of patients received medication (including opioids) in the GP-led arm (44.7%,n= 42), compared with FCPP-St (18.4%,n= 21) and FCPP-AQ (24.7%,n= 40) (P<0.001). NHS costs (initial consultation and over 6-month follow-up) were significantly higher in the GP-led model (median £105.5 per patient) versus FCPP-St (£41.0 per patient) and FCPP-AQ (£44.0 per patient) (P<0.001). Conclusion FCPP-led models of care provide safe, clinically effective patient management, with cost-benefits and reduced opioid use in this cohort.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- First contact physiotherapy: an evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs
- Date Crossref
- 01/03/2024
- Éditeur
- Royal College of General Practitioners
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
University of the West of England Centre for Health and Clinical Research pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Queen's University Belfast Centre for Public Health pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Surrey Surrey Health Economics Centre pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Canterbury Christ Church University Health and Social Care pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
National Patient Safety Foundation pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisation à but non lucratif
-
Director for the Centre for Advancement in Realist Evaluation and Synthesis pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Patient Research Partner pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
Centre for Health and Clinical Research — University of the West of England, Centre for Public Health — Queen's University Belfast et Surrey Health Economics Centre — University of Surrey, avec 4 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.