Disparities in Service and Clinical Outcomes in State-Wide Advanced Practice Physiotherapist-Led Services

Evaluating allied health primary contact models of care: A mixed methods analysis of current practice

RATIONALE

Allied Health Primary Contact Clinic (AHPCC) models of care are increasingly used to manage growing demands on health service capacity. There is a critical need for new models of care to demonstrate value, however comprehensive evaluation of AHPCCs, including use of metrics frameworks like the Moretto framework, have been slow to uptake, and the reasons for this are unclear.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To understand current evaluation practices as mapped to the Moretto framework, and explore clinician attitudes to the process of service evaluation across a variety of AHPCC models implemented within a metropolitan health service in Queensland, Australia.

METHOD

A convergent mixed methods approach was used. Data were collected in 2022 using a quantitative presurvey, followed by a qualitative descriptive interview with AHPCC lead clinicians. Thirty AHPCCs were eligible, and all potential participants who provided consent were included. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used for quantitative and qualitative data respectively, then merged and reported jointly.

RESULTS

Twenty-three clinicians representing 22 different AHPCCs participated. AHPCC models were found to be complex and varied. Evaluation practices were variable across AHPCCs, although more than half collected most of the Moretto framework measures. Quality of life and resource use measures were least commonly collected. Themes regarding participants' experience of AHPCCs evaluation were that: Evaluation is complex and challenging; Evaluation is important; and Evaluation needs to be enabled.

CONCLUSION

For health services to fully understand the value of their AHPCC services and direct their limited resources appropriately, evaluation activity needs to be better valued and enabled at a local, statewide and national level. Strategies should include protected time, funding, administrative support, leadership support, access to mentorship, development of structures which enable collaborative evaluation at a state-wide (or broader) level, and a shared understanding of value and core areas for measurement across stakeholders.

Exploring equity of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the state-wide Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Screening Clinic and Multi-disciplinary Service in Queensland Health

Objective This 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. Method The 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. Results A 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). Conclusions Disparity 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.

Implementing good life with osteoArthritis from Denmark (GLA:D®) in australian public hospitals. Part 1: Feasibility

BACKGROUND

Literature reporting positive outcomes from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) program in Australia mainly involves patients attending private physiotherapy services.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the feasibility of implementing GLA:D® in Australian public hospitals.

DESIGN

Implementation study in three metropolitan tertiary public hospitals over six months.

METHOD

Patients aged ≥18 years with knee or hip joint-related problems deemed appropriate for non-surgical care were invited to participate in GLA:D®. Feasibility was evaluated using RE-AIM framework components (Implementation, Effectiveness, Maintenance) using service-level metrics, patient-level data, and program fidelity assessment. Findings of qualitative interviews with service providers are presented in Part 2.

RESULTS

Implementation: 70 patients (69 with knee osteoarthritis) participated (13 cohorts). 55 (79%) patients attended both education sessions, and 49 patients (70%) attended 10-12 exercises sessions. Fidelity was met based on environmental, therapist, participant- and program-related criteria.

EFFECTIVENESS

At 3 months, patients reported lower average pain (visual analogue scale [0-100 mm]: effect size -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.23) and disability (HOOS/KOOS-12 [100-0]: 0.67, 0.28 to 1.05), and improved quality of life (EQ-5D overall score: 0.46, 0.11 to 0.80). No adverse events were reported. All patients who completed 3-month assessment (n = 52) would recommend GLA:D®. Maintenance: All participating services elected to continue delivering GLA:D® beyond the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing GLA:D® in Australian public hospitals is feasible, safe, and acceptable to patients with knee osteoarthritis. Public hospital patients with knee osteoarthritis reported improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life similar to previous GLA:D® cohorts.

Developing and embedding an advanced practice musculoskeletal physiotherapy service in public specialist outpatient services in Queensland: A health service masterclass

INTRODUCTION

The Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Screening Clinic and Multi-disciplinary Service (MPSC&MDS) is an advanced practice physiotherapist-led model of care developed initially to address overburdened specialist orthopaedic outpatient public hospital services across Queensland, Australia.

PURPOSE

This Masterclass explores the experiences and success of embedding the MPSC&MDS state-wide across the Queensland public health system and its expansion in scale and reach to other specialist services. Key characteristics and development strategies are described that have collectively underpinned the expansion and sustainability of the service, using relevant stream sections and themes from a recommended musculoskeletal model of care framework.

IMPLICATIONS

The aim of this masterclass is to be informative for readers involved in the future development or refinement of similar models of care.

Osteoarthritis management care pathways are complex and inefficient: A qualitative study of physiotherapist perspectives from specialised osteoarthritis services

OBJECTIVE

Hip and knee osteoarthritis guidelines internationally provide consistent first-line care recommendations. However, uptake of these recommendations remains suboptimal. This qualitative study explores factors influencing guideline-based care from the perspectives of physiotherapists working in specialised osteoarthritis services across different models of care.

METHODS

Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with physiotherapists working in specialist osteoarthritis services across three different Australian models of care (OsteoArthritis Hip and Knee Service n = 10; OsteoArthritis Chronic Care Programme n = 4; Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinics and Multidisciplinary Services n = 5). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were coded and analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The overarching theme to emerge was that accessing first-line osteoarthritis care is complex and difficult, regardless of model of care. Subthemes indicated that: (i) services are either unavailable or inadequately funded, (ii) referral pathways are labyrinthine and lengthy, (iii) patients and other health professionals often believe that surgery is the only/best option and (iv) managing patient co-morbidities is challenging.

CONCLUSION

Physiotherapists working in specialised osteoarthritis services perceive multiple and complex factors influencing adherence to first-line care. Barriers occur at various levels in all models of care, including patient and health professional beliefs, health service, and system levels. These results suggest improving healthcare for people with osteoarthritis requires urgent system reform.