Quality of care for individuals with osteoarthritis: a longitudinal study

The impact of waiting time for orthopaedic consultation on pain levels in individuals with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Time spent waiting for access to orthopaedic specialist health services has been suggested to result in increased pain in individuals with osteoarthritis (OA). We assessed whether time spent on an orthopaedic waiting list resulted in a detrimental effect on pain levels in patients with knee or hip OA.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBSCOhost databases from inception until September 2021. Eligible articles included individuals with OA on an orthopaedic waitlist and not receiving active treatment, and reported pain measures at two or more time points. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled effect of waiting time on pain levels. Meta-regression was used to determine predictors of effect size.

RESULTS

Thirty-three articles were included (n = 2,490 participants, 67 ± 3 years and 62% female). The range of waiting time was 2 weeks to 2 years (20.8 ± 18.8 weeks). There was no significant change in pain over time (effect size = 0.082, 95% CI = -0.009, 0.172), nor was the length of time associated with longitudinal changes in pain over time (β = 0.004, 95% CI = -0.005, 0.012). Body mass index was a significant predictor of pain (β = -0.043, 95% CI = -0.079, 0.006), whereas age and sex were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain remained stable for up to 1 year in patients with OA on an orthopaedic waitlist. Future research is required to understand whether pain increases in patients waiting longer than 1 year.

Clinical Course of Pain and Function Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely considered a successful intervention for osteoarthritis and other degenerative knee diseases. This study addresses the need for a high-quality meta-analysis that outlines the clinical course of pain and function post-TKA.

METHODS

The review included prospective cohort studies assessing pain or function of patients undergoing primary TKA at baseline (preoperatively) and at least 2 additional time points including one at least 12 months postoperatively. Two reviewers independently screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The time course of recovery of pain and function was modeled using fractional polynomial meta-regression.

RESULTS

In total, 191 studies with 59,667 patients were included, most with low risk of bias. The variance-weighted mean pain score (/100, 0 = no pain) was 64.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.2-67.7) preoperatively, 24.1 (95% CI 20.3-27.9) at 3 months, 20.4 (95% CI 16.7-24.0) at 6 months, and 16.9 (95%CI 13.6-20.3) at 12 months, and remained low (10.1; 95% CI 4.8-15.4) at 10 years postoperatively. The variance-weighted mean function score (/100, 0 = worst function) was 47.1 (95% CI 45.7-48.4) preoperatively, 72.8 (95% CI 71.3-74.4) at 3 months, 76.3 (95% CI 74.7-77.8) at 6 months, and 78.1 (95%CI 76.4-79.7) at 12 months. Function scores were good (79.7; 95% CI 77.9-81.5) at 10 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing primary TKA can expect a large and rapid but incomplete recovery of pain and function in the first postoperative year. At 10 years, the gains in pain scores may still remain while there is an improvement in function.

Peer mentorship to improve self-management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a randomised feasibility trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a peer mentorship intervention to improve self-management of osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Six-month parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial.

SETTING

One secondary care and one primary care UK National Health Service Trust.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty adults aged ≥55 years old with hip and/or knee OA.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated 1:1 to the intervention or control group using an online randomisation service. Intervention group participants received usual care (information resources) and up to eight community-based self-management support sessions delivered by a peer mentor (trained volunteer with hip and/or knee OA). Control group participants received usual care only.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Key feasibility outcomes were participant and peer mentor recruitment and attrition, intervention completion and the sample size required for a definitive RCT. Based on these feasibility outcomes, four success criteria for proceeding to a definitive RCT were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were collected via questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months.

RESULTS

Ninety-six individuals were screened, 65 were eligible and 50 were randomised (25 per group). Of the 24 participants who commenced the intervention, 20 completed it. Four participants did not complete the 6-month questionnaire. Twenty-one individuals were eligible for the peer mentor role, 15 were trained and 5 withdrew prior to being matched with a participant. No intervention-related harms occurred. Allowing for 20% attrition, the sample size required for a definitive RCT was calculated as 170 participants. The intervention group showed improvements in self-management compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility outcomes achieved the prespecified criteria for proceeding to an RCT. The exploratory analyses suggest peer mentorship may improve OA self-management. An RCT of the OA peer mentorship intervention is therefore warranted with minor modifications to the intervention and trial procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN:50675542.

What are the patient factors that impact on decisions to progress to total knee replacement? A qualitative study involving patients with knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

General practitioners (GPs) are often the first health professionals to assess patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Despite clinical guideline recommendations for non-surgical intervention as first-line therapies, the most frequent referral from a GP for a person with knee OA is to an orthopaedic surgeon. The aim of our study was to explore patient factors that impact on the decision to progress to total knee replacement (TKR), including the experience of patients in general practice, their perceptions of their condition, and their access and use of community-based allied health interventions.

DESIGN

Qualitative investigation using semi-structured interviews. The Candidacy framework was selected as a lens to examine the factors driving healthcare access. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Codes identified in the data were mapped to the seven Candidacy domains. Themes corresponding to each domain were described.

SETTING

A public hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

27 patients with knee OA who were on a waiting list to undergo TKR.

RESULTS

Ten themes described factors influencing access and use of non-surgical interventions and decision-making for undergoing TKR: (1) History of knee problems, change in symptoms; (2) Physical and psychosocial functioning (Identification of Candidacy); (3) GP and social networks as information sources, access to care (Navigation); (4) Referral pathways (Permeability of services); (5) Communication of impact (Appearances at health services); (6) GP-Surgeon as the predominant referral pathway (Adjudications); (7) Physical activity as painful; (8) Beliefs about effectiveness of non-surgical interventions (Offers and resistance); (9) Familiarity with local system; and (10) Availability (Operating conditions and local production of Candidacy).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the Candidacy framework to analyse patients' experiences when deciding to progress to TKR highlighted missed opportunities in general practice to orient patients to first try non-surgical interventions. Patients with knee OA also require improved support to navigate allied health services.

Most Important Frequently Asked Questions From Patients With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Best-Worst Scaling Exercise

OBJECTIVE

To collect and prioritize the frequently asked questions (FAQs) that patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) and health care professionals consider to be the most important; to identify informational needs that go beyond guideline recommendations.

METHODS

FAQs were collected among health care professionals and from the arthritis helpline of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. After deleting overlapping FAQs, the remaining FAQs were prioritized by patients and health care professionals using a maximum difference scaling method. A hierarchical Bayesian method was used to calculate relative importance scores. Differences between health care professionals and patients were analyzed using independent t-tests.

RESULTS

A total of 28 health care professionals and the arthritis helpline provided 192 FAQs. After deleting overlapping FAQs, 60 FAQs were prioritized by 94 patients (57 [60.6%] women, mean age 67.3 years) and 122 health care professionals (67 [54.9%] women, mean age 45.7 years). The FAQ "What can I do myself to decrease symptoms and to prevent the OA from getting worse?" was prioritized as the most important by both patients and professionals. FAQs that were highly prioritized by patients but significantly different from professionals were more directed toward treatment options offered by health care professionals, whereas highly prioritized FAQs of professionals were more often focused on treatment options involving self-management.

CONCLUSION

The health care professionals' perspective on informational needs differs from that of OA patients. These differences are important to address in order to achieve more active involvement of patients in their own treatment process.

Qualitative study exploring the factors influencing physical therapy management of early knee osteoarthritis in Canada

OBJECTIVES

Increasingly, there is emphasis on identifying and initiating treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) in the early phases of the disease. This study aimed to identify the perceived barriers and facilitators to managing clients with early knee OA and the contextual factors affecting implementation of care by physical therapists (PTs).

DESIGN

Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews with 33 PTs. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposive sample of PTs who managed clients with knee symptoms and/or diagnosed knee OA in community/outpatient settings in three provinces in Canada (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia).

RESULTS

Factors that affected physical therapy management of early knee OA were identified at four levels: the community, healthcare system, healthcare provider and client level. Some healthcare provider factors acted primarily as enablers of management, such as PTs' confidence in their ability to manage perceived early knee OA, PTs' beliefs about consequences of OA and the PT scope of practice. However, the study illuminated a range of modifiable factors that can act as barriers to management. These factors included access to services in the community and healthcare system; healthcare provider factors such as time, access to evidence and physician's role in referrals and messaging; and client factors related to client characteristics (eg, general health, socioeconomic status), engagement in management and beliefs about OA.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide us with a basis to begin to address specific barriers and to optimise care for early knee OA.

The dynamics of quality: a national panel study of evidence-based standards

Background

Shortfalls in the receipt of recommended health care have been previously reported in England, leading to preventable poor health.

Objectives

To assess changes over 6 years in the receipt of effective health-care interventions for people aged 50 years or over in England with cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes or osteoarthritis; to identify how quality varied with participant characteristics; and to compare the distribution of illness burden in the population with the distributions of diagnosis and treatment.

Setting and participants

Information on health-care quality indicators and participant characteristics was collected using face-to-face structured interviews and nurse visits in participants’ homes by the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing in 2004–5, 2006–7, 2008–9 and 2010–11. A total of 16,773 participants aged 50 years or older were interviewed at least once and 5114 were interviewed in all four waves; 5404 reported diagnosis of one or more of four conditions in 2010–11.

Main outcome measures

Percentage of indicated health care received by eligible participants for 19 quality indicators: seven for cardiovascular disease, three for depression, five for diabetes and four for osteoarthritis, and condition-level quality indicator achievement, including achievement of a bundle of three diabetes indicators.

Analysis

Changes in quality indicator achievement over time and variations in quality with participant characteristics were tested with Pearson’s chi-squared test and logistic regression models. The size of inequality between the hypothetically wealthiest and poorest participants, for illness burden, diagnosis and treatment, was estimated using slope indices of wealth inequality.

Results

Achievement of indicators for cardiovascular disease was 82.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.9% to 85.5%] in 2004–5 and 84.2% (95% CI 82.1% to 86.2%) in 2010–11, for depression 63.3% (95% CI 57.6% to 69.0%) and 59.8% (95% CI 52.4% to 64.3%), for diabetes 76.0% (95% CI 74.1% to 77.8%) and 76.5% (95% CI 74.8% to 78.1%), and for osteoarthritis 31.2% (95% CI 28.5% to 33.8%) and 35.6% (95% CI 34.2% to 37.1%). Achievement of the diabetes care bundle was 67.8% (95% CI 64.5% to 70.9%) in 2010–11. Variations in quality by participant characteristics were generally small. Diabetes indicator achievement was worse in participants with cognitive impairment [odds ratio (OR) 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7] and better in those living alone (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.0). Hypertension care was better for those aged over 74 years (vs. 50–64 years) (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.0 to 5.3). Osteoarthritis care was better for those with severe (vs. mild) pain (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.2), limiting illness (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.1), and obesity (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0). Previous non-achievement of the diabetes care bundle was the biggest predictor of non-achievement 2 years later (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.2 to 4.7). Poorer participants were always more likely than wealthier participants to have illness burden (statistically significant OR 3.9 to 16.0), but not always more likely to be diagnosed or receive treatment (0.2 to 5.3).

Conclusions

Shortfalls in quality of care for these four conditions have persisted over 6 years, with only half of the level of indicated health care achieved for osteoarthritis, compared with the other three conditions. Quality for osteoarthritis improved slightly over time but remains poor. The relatively high prevalence of specific illness burden in poorer participants was not matched by an equally high prevalence of diagnosis or treatment, suggesting that barriers to equity may exist at the stage at diagnosis. Further research is needed into the association between quality and health system characteristics at the level of clinicians, general practices or hospitals, and regions. Linkage to routinely collected data could provide information on health service characteristics at the individual patient level.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify valid and feasible quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic reference databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO), quality indicator repositories, subject experts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible articles referred to adults with OA, focused on development or implementation of quality indicators, and relevant to UK primary care. An English language restriction was used. The date range for the search was January 2000 to August 2013. The majority of OA management guidance has been published within this time frame.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies were quality assessed using previous quality indicator methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Articles were assessed through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter; indicators were mapped to management guidance for OA in adults. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes.

RESULTS

10,853 articles were identified from the search; 32 were included in the review. Fifteen indicators were considered valid and feasible for implementation in primary care; these related to assessment non-pharmacological and pharmacological management. Another 10 indicators were considered less feasible, in various aspects of assessment and management. A small number of recommendations had no published corresponding quality indicator, such as use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No negative ('do not do') indicators were identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

There are well-developed, feasible indicators of quality of care for OA which could be implemented in primary care. Their use would assist the audit and quality improvement for this common and frequently disabling condition.

Quality of hip and knee osteoarthritis management in primary health care in a Norwegian county: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of pain and disability in the adult population. Several studies have documented discordance between general practioners (GP) practice and management recommendations, but there is limited published information about patient reported experience of quality of care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the patient perceived quality of OA management in primary health care. Secondly, we wanted to explore the factors associated with the perceived quality of OA care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey in six general practices in the county of Nord-Trøndelag in Norway, patients with radiologically diagnosed OA, according to ICPC codes L89, L90 or L91 or clinical signs and symptoms corresponding to OA in the hip or knee and patient-reported quality of OA care on the 17-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (OA-QI). OA-QI summary pass rates were calculated, in which the numerator represents the number with indicators passed and the denominator represents the total number of eligible persons. Associations with summary pass rates were explored with demographic, disease related and health care related factors as independent variables.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were included (response rate 42%). The median summary QI pass rate for all 17 QIs was 47% (Inter Quartile Range 33-65%), but there were large variation between the different items. The referral for weight reduction had the lowest pass rate (8%), whereas the highest pass rate was having received information about the importance of physical activity and exercise (84%). The median summary QI pass rates for both non-pharmacological- (QIs 1-11) and pharmacological (QIs 13-16) treatments were 50% (IQR 25-75). In bivariate regression analyses, only overall treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with QI pass rate (p = 0.001), with unstandardized beta = 6.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 9.5), i.e. a one-point increase on the five-point satisfaction scale was associated with a 6% increase in pass rate.

CONCLUSION

Considering that the median summary QI pass rate was 47%, there might be room for improvement in OA care. Advice and the referral of OA patients in need of weight reduction seem to have the greatest potential for improvement.

Factors relating to perioperative experience of older persons undergoing joint replacement surgery: an integrative literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this literature review was to examine factors relating to the perioperative experience of older persons undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery resulting from osteoarthritis.

METHOD

A literature search was undertaken using databases CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to provide relevant research articles. Articles were included if they examined the factors relating to the HRQOL, QOL and perioperative experience of older persons undergoing joint replacement surgery resulting from osteoarthritis. The use of Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklist facilitated a systematic appraisal of studies with regard to the scientific rigor of the studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-two publications were categorized into one main theme: "factors relating to perioperative experience" subcategorized into eight subthemes: "waiting time", "pain and disability", "mental health", "race/ethnicity, age and gender", "body image", "coping and social support", "patient education" and "care continuity".

CONCLUSION

There is a need to conduct further research to examine the perioperative experience of older persons undergoing joint replacement surgery, in particular, the lived perioperative experience of a diverse race, ethnicity and culture in an Asian population. Implications for Rehabilitation Healthcare services should remain focused on reducing waiting time as prolonged waiting time for joint replacement surgery was detrimental to patients' HRQOL. Healthcare professionals need to identify strategies to improve the perioperative pain experience through patient education on pain management and positive social support to support the process of recovery. Patients' expectations of pain and their process of recovery were closely linked to patient education. One model of patient education that was seen to be successful and linked to good post-operative outcomes was care continuity model. Being actively involved in the care continuity results in better post-operative outcomes for the patient and their family.

Predictors of outcomes of recovery following total hip replacement surgery: A prospective study

Objectives

To investigate psychosocial and biomedical outcomes following total hip replacement (THR) and to identify predictors of recovery from THR.

Methods

Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) on the waiting list for primary THR in North West England were assessed pre-operatively and at six and 12 months post-operatively to investigate psychosocial and biomedical outcomes. Psychosocial outcomes were anxiety and depression, social support and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Biomedical outcomes were pain, physical function and stiffness. The primary outcome was the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Total Physical Function. Potential predictors of outcome were age, sex, body mass index, previous joint replacement, involvement in the decision for THR, any comorbidities, any complications, type of medication, and pre-operative ENRICHD Social Support Instrument score, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scores and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index score.

Results

The study included 206 patients undergoing THR. There were 88 men and 118 women with a mean age of 66.3 years (sd 10.4;36 to 89). Pain, stiffness and physical function, severity of OA, HRQoL, anxiety and depression all improved significantly from pre-operative to 12-month assessment (all p < 0.001), with the greatest improvement occurring in the first six months (all p < 0.001). The predictors that were found to influence recovery six months after THR were: pain (p < 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.034), depression (p = 0.001), previous joint replacement (p = 0.006) and anti-inflammatory drugs (p = 0.012).

Conclusions

The study identified the key psychosocial and biomedical predictors of recovery following THR. By identifying these predictors, we are able to identify and provide more support for patients at risk of poor recovery following THR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:248–54.

Patient-reported quality of care for osteoarthritis: development and testing of the osteoarthritis quality indicator questionnaire

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test a new instrument for patient self-reported quality of osteoarthritis (OA) care, and to provide quality indicator (QI) pass rates in a Norwegian OA cohort.

METHODS

The OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire was developed using published QIs, expert panels, and patient interviews. Self-reported data were collected from 359 persons in a Norwegian OA cohort, and test-retest reliability and validity were assessed. Separate QI pass rates and summary QI pass rates were calculated.

RESULTS

The 17-item questionnaire includes QIs related to patient education and information, regular provider assessments, referrals, and pharmacologic treatment. The patient self-reported questionnaire was completed with minimal respondent burden. Support for content validity was confirmed by 2 patient research partners and 2 expert panels. All 10 predefined hypotheses relating to construct validity were confirmed. Test-retest kappa coefficients ranged from 0.20-0.80 and the percentage of exact agreement ranged from 62-90%. The mean pass rate for individual QIs was 31% (range 5-49%). The median summary QI pass rate was 27% (interquartile range 12-50%), with lower summary pass rates for nonpharmacologic compared to pharmacologic treatments.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first instrument developed to measure patient-reported QI pass rates for OA care. This study indicates that the OA-QI questionnaire is acceptable to persons with OA, and its short format makes it suitable for population surveys. The low patient self-reported QI pass rates in this study suggest a potential for quality improvement in OA care.

Hand, hip and knee osteoarthritis in a Norwegian population-based study--the MUST protocol

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about the prevalence and consequences of osteoarthritis (OA) in the Norwegian population is limited. This study has been designed to gain a greater understanding of musculoskeletal pain in the general population with a focus on clinically and radiologically confirmed OA, as well as risk factors, consequences, and management of OA.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker STudy (MUST) has been designed as an observational study comprising a population-based postal survey and a comprehensive clinical examination of a sub-sample with self-reported OA (MUST OA cohort). All inhabitants in Ullensaker municipality, Norway, aged 40 to 79 years receive the initial population-based postal survey questionnaire with questions about life style, general health, musculoskeletal pain, self-reported OA, comorbidities, health care utilisation, medication use, and functional ability. Participants who self-report OA in their hip, knee and/or hand joints are asked to attend a comprehensive clinical examination at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, including a comprehensive medical examination, performance-based functional tests, different imaging modalities, cardiovascular assessment, blood and urine samples, and a number of patient-reported questionnaires including five OA disease specific instruments. Data will be merged with six national data registries. A subsample of those who receive the questionnaire has previously participated in postal surveys conducted in 1990, 1994, and 2004 with data on musculoskeletal pain and functional ability in addition to demographic characteristics and a number of health related factors. This subsample constitutes a population based cohort with 20 years follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This protocol describes the design of an observational population-based study that will involve the collection of data from a postal survey on musculoskeletal pain, and a comprehensive clinical examination on those with self-reported hand, hip and/or knee OA. These data, in addition to data from national registries, will provide unique insights into clinically and radiologically confirmed OA with respect to risk factors, consequences, and management.

Surgery or consultation: a population-based cohort study of use of orthopaedic surgeon services

BACKGROUND

This population-based cohort study has the objective to understand the sociodemographic characteristics and health conditions of patients who do not receive surgery within 18 months following an ambulatory visit to an orthopaedic surgeon.

METHODS

Administrative healthcare databases in Ontario, Canada were linked to identify all patients making an initial ambulatory visit to orthopaedic surgeons between October 1(st), 2004 and September 30(th), 2005. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of not receiving surgery within 18 months.

RESULTS

Of the 477,945 patients in the cohort 49% visited orthopaedic surgeons for injury, and 24% for arthritis. Overall, 79.3% did not receive surgery within 18 months of the initial visit, which varied somewhat by diagnosis at first visit (84.5% for injury and 73.0% for arthritis) with highest proportions in the 0-24 and 25-44 age groups. The distribution by income quintile of patients visiting was skewed towards higher incomes. Regression analysis for each diagnostic group showed that younger patients were significantly more likely to be non-surgical than those aged 65+ years (age 0-24: OR 3.45 95%CI 3.33-3.57; age 25-44: OR 1.30 95%CI 1.27-1.33). The odds of not getting surgery were significantly higher for women than men for injury and other conditions; the opposite was true for arthritis and bone conditions.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of referrals were for expert diagnosis or advice on management and treatment. The findings also suggest socioeconomic inequalities in access to orthopaedic care. Further research is needed to investigate whether the high caseload of non-surgical cases affects waiting times to see a surgeon. This paper contributes to the development of evidence-based strategies to streamline access to surgery, and to develop models of care for non-surgical patients to optimize the use of scarce orthopaedic surgeon resources and to enhance the management of musculoskeletal disorders across the care continuum.

Agreement of general practitioners with the guideline-based stepped-care strategy for patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a cross-sectional study

Background

To improve the management of hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), a multidisciplinary guideline-based stepped-care strategy (SCS) with recommendations regarding the appropriate non-surgical treatment modalities and optimal sequence for care has been developed. Implementation of this SCS in the general practice may be hampered by the negative attitude of general practitioners (GPs) towards the strategy. In order to develop a tailored implementation plan, we assessed the GPs’ views regarding specific recommendations in the SCS and their working procedures with regard to OA.

Methods

A survey was conducted among a random sample of Dutch GPs. Questions included the GP’s demographical characteristics and the practice setting as well as how the management of OA was organized and whether the GPs supported the SCS recommendations. In particular, we assessed GP’s views regarding the effectiveness of 14 recommended and non-recommended treatment modalities. Furthermore, we calculated their agreement with 7 statements based on the SCS recommendations regarding the sequence for care. With a linear regression model, we identified factors that seemed to influence the GPs’ agreement with the SCS recommendations.

Results

Four hundred fifty-six GPs (37%) aged 30–65 years, of whom 278 males (61%), responded. Seven of the 11 recommended modalities (i.e. oral Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, physical therapy, glucocorticoid intra-articular injections, education, lifestyle advice, acetaminophen, and tramadol) were considered effective by the majority of the GPs (varying between 95-60%). The mean agreement score, based on a 5-point scale, with the recommendations regarding the sequence for care was 2.8 (SD = 0.5). Ten percent of the variance in GPs’ agreement could be explained by the GPs’ attitudes regarding the effectiveness of the recommended and non-recommended non-surgical treatment modalities and the type of practice.

Conclusion

In general, GPs support the recommendations in the SCS. Therefore, we expect that their attitudes will not impede a successful implementation in general practice. Our results provide several starting points on which to focus implementation activities for specific SCS recommendations; those related to the prescription of pain medication and the use of X-rays. We could not identify factors that contribute substantially to GPs’ attitudes regarding the SCS recommendations regarding the sequence for care.

A single group follow-up study of non-surgical patients seen by physiotherapists working in expanded roles in orthopaedic departments: recall of recommendations, change in exercise and self-efficacy

BACKGROUND

Specially trained physiotherapists (advanced practice physiotherapists (APP)) are working in orthopaedic clinics to improve access to orthopaedic services and support chronic disease management. Little attention has been paid to the impact APPs may have on non-surgical patients. In non-surgical patients with hip or knee arthritis consulting an APP in an orthopaedic clinic, the objectives were to: 1) describe patients' recall of APP recommendations, use of self-management strategies, and barriers to management six weeks following consultation; and, 2) compare exercise behaviour and self-efficacy at baseline and six weeks.

FINDINGS

This was a single group pre-and post-intervention study of patients who saw an APP when consulting the orthopaedic departments of two hospitals. At baseline and six weeks participants completed the adapted Stanford Exercise Behaviour Scale (response options: none, < 60 minutes/week, 1-3 hours/week or > 3 hours/week), and the Chronic Disease Self-efficacy Scale (range 1-10; higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy). At follow-up participants completed questions on recall of APP recommendations, use of self-management strategies and barriers to management. Seventy three non-surgical patients with hip or knee arthritis participated, a response rate of 89% at follow-up. Seventy one percent of patients reported that the APP recommended exercise, of whom 83% reported exercising to manage their arthritis since the visit. Almost 50% reported an increase in time spent stretching; over 40% reported an increase in time spent walking or doing strengthening exercises at follow-up. Common barriers to arthritis management were time, cost and other health problems. Mean chronic disease self-efficacy scores significantly improved from 6.3 to 7.2 (p < 0.001). The mean difference was 0.95 (95% CI 0.43, 1.62); the effect size was 0.51.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study of an APP intervention for non-surgical patients referred for orthopaedic consultation showed promising results, particularly for enhancing use of conservative management strategies such as exercise.