Can physiotherapy first contact practitioners reduce the burden on general practitioners and improve the management of musculoskeletal conditions?

Patient access to first contact practitioner physiotherapists in the UK: A national survey

BACKGROUND

First Contact Practice Physiotherapists (FCPPs) offer expert care for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in Primary Care, usually within GP practices. This is a rapidly expanding area of practice endorsed by NHS England, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) and the British Medical Association (BMA). Efficient and appropriate access is important for optimising FCPP practice, but there is little published information about how patients currently access FCPP appointments.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how patients access FCPP appointments in General Practice.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey of FCPPs in the UK.

METHODS

FCPPs were surveyed about patient access to appointments. The survey instrument was designed using Jisc Online Surveys, piloted, and then distributed via social media and professional groups to FCPPs nationwide. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse demographic and multiple-choice questions, and free text responses were analysed using quantitative content analysis.

RESULTS

193 participants completed the survey. Booking via GP Reception (n = 179) was reported as the most common route into an FCPP appointment, closely followed by booking after seeing another clinician for the problem (n = 172).

CONCLUSION

This research has provided clarity regarding how patients access the rapidly growing speciality of FCPP within GP practices in the UK. The role of GP Reception staff in facilitating access to FCPPs, the application of triage and the use of digital or online systems were highlighted as important elements for enabling efficient access to FCPPs by patients with MSK conditions.

Patient and practitioner priorities and concerns about primary healthcare interactions for osteoarthritis: A meta-ethnography

OBJECTIVE

To explore primary care practitioners' (PCPs) and patients' priorities and concerns for healthcare interactions for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care.

METHODS

We searched Embase, CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo (1990 to present) for primary qualitative and mixed methods studies with findings concerning healthcare interactions for OA symptoms. Patient and PCP perceptions were analysed separately then inter-related using a 'line of argument' synthesis.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies reporting qualitative data from 557 patients and 199 PCPs were synthesised. Our findings suggest that therapeutic interactions for OA can be based on discordant priorities and concerns; some patients perceive that PCPs hold negative attitudes about OA and feel their concerns about impact are not appreciated; some PCPs feel patients have misconceptions about prognosis, and hold pessimistic views about outcomes; and both tend to de-prioritise OA within consultations.

CONCLUSION

Greater working in partnership could build mutual trust, facilitate tailored provision of information, and foster a shared understanding of OA upon which to build realistic goals for management.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Developing a better shared understanding of OA has the potential to improve the quality of healthcare interactions for both patients and PCPs. The significant impact of OA on everyday life means it should be given higher priority in primary care consultations.

Characterising the outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges of advanced clinical practice roles in the UK: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

In response to demographic and health system pressures, the development of non-medical advanced clinical practice (ACP) roles is a key component of National Health Service workforce transformation policy in the UK. This review was undertaken to establish a baseline of evidence on ACP roles and their outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges across the UK.

DESIGN

A scoping review was undertaken following JBI methodological guidance.

METHODS

13 online databases (Medline, CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, HMIC, AMED, Amber, OT seeker, PsycINFO, PEDro, SportDiscus, Osteopathic Research and PenNutrition) and grey literature sources were searched from 2005 to 2020. Data extraction, charting and summary was guided by the PEPPA-Plus framework. The review was undertaken by a multi-professional team that included an expert lay representative.

RESULTS

191 papers met the inclusion criteria (any type of UK evidence, any sector/setting and any profession meeting the Health Education England definition of ACP). Most papers were small-scale descriptive studies, service evaluations or audits. The papers reported mainly on clinical aspects of the ACP role. Most papers related to nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy and radiography roles and these were referred to by a plethora of different titles. ACP roles were reported to be achieving beneficial impacts across a range of clinical and health system outcomes. They were highly acceptable to patients and staff. No significant adverse events were reported. There was a lack of cost-effectiveness evidence. Implementation challenges included a lack of role clarity and an ambivalent role identity, lack of mentorship, lack of continuing professional development and an unclear career pathway.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests a need for educational and role standardisation and a supported career pathway for advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) in the UK. Future research should: (i) adopt more robust study designs, (ii) investigate the full scope of the ACP role and (iii) include a wider range of professions and sectors.

Allied health professionals' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: an integrative review

This integrative review synthesizes research studies in order to explore the perceptions of allied health professionals regarding interprofessional collaboration in primary health care. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using three electronic databases and a manual search of the Journal of Interprofessional Care. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of included papers. Study findings were extracted, critically examined and grouped into themes. Twelve studies conducted in six different countries met the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (1) shared philosophy; (2) communication and clinical interaction; (3) physical environment; (4) power and hierarchy; and (5) financial considerations. This review has identified diverse key elements related to interprofessional collaboration in primary health care, as perceived by allied health professionals. Opportunity for frequent, informal communication appeared essential for interprofessional collaboration to occur. Allied health professionals working in close proximity to health practitioners from other professions had more regular interprofessional interactions than those who were geographically separated. Co-location of multiple primary health care services within the same physical space may offer increased opportunities for interprofessional collaboration. Future research should avoid reporting on allied health professionals in primary health care collectively, and isolate data to the individual professions. Direct observational methods are warranted to investigate whether allied health professionals' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration align with their actual clinical interactions in primary health care settings.