A nurse-led clinic for patients consulting with osteoarthritis in general practice: development and impact of training in a cluster randomised controlled trial

Advanced Practice Physiotherapists and the implementation of the JIGSAW-E model for the management of osteoarthritis in Scottish primary care settings: a qualitative case study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the acceptability, barriers and enablers of NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in the Scottish primary care setting using the Joint Implementation of Guidelines for Osteoarthritis in Western Europe (JIGSAW-E) model and investigate the role of Advanced Physiotherapy Practitioners (APPs) in providing evidence-based care.

DESIGN

A qualitative case study comprised of semi-structured interviews followed by a workshop with participants.

SETTING

10 Scottish primary care practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Six general practitioners (GPs) and eight APPs were interviewed. Twenty-three practitioners attended the workshop including 22 physiotherapists and one GP.

RESULTS

While both GPs and APPs recognised the need to improve and standardise osteoarthritis care delivery, this study found that APPs were better situated to implement the evidence-based model. Barriers to implementation included lack of time for training, limited appointment time for GPs to consult and discuss medication use with patients, limitation of disease specific guidelines for patients with complex multimorbidity, and system-based barriers such as electronic data collection and high staff turnover. The key enabler was practitioners' motivation to provide optimal, standardised quality care for osteoarthritis. To increase acceptance, ownership and usability for both practitioners and patients, the JIGSAW-E model materials required adaptation to the local context.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that the JIGSAW-E model is acceptable in Scottish primary care. Furthermore, the evolving roles of GPs and APPs within multidisciplinary primary care teams provides a platform to implement the JIGSAW-E model, where APPs are well placed to provide leadership and training in the delivery of evidence-based care for osteoarthritis.

Primary care practice-based care management for chronically ill patients (PraCMan) in German healthcare: Outcome of a propensity-score matched cohort study

Background

Growing prevalence of chronic diseases is a rising challenge for healthcare systems. The Primary Care Practice-Based Care Management (PraCMan) programme is a comprehensive disease management intervention in primary care in Germany aiming to improve medical care and to reduce potentially avoidable hospitalisations for chronically ill patients.

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the effect of PraCMan on hospitalisation rate and related costs.

Methods

A retrospective propensity-score matched cohort study was performed. Reimbursement data related to patients treated in general practices between 1st July 2013 and 31st December 2017 were supplied by a statutory health insurance company (AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany) to compare hospitalisation rate and direct healthcare costs between patients participating in the PraCMan intervention and propensity-score matched controls following usual care. Outcomes were determined for the one-year-periods before and 12 months after beginning of participation in the intervention.

Results

In total, 6148 patients participated in the PraCMan intervention during the observation period and were compared to a propensity-score matched control group of 6148 patients from a pool of 63,446 eligible patients. In the one-year period after the intervention, the per-patient hospitalisation rate was 8.3% lower in the intervention group compared to control (p = 0.0004). Per-patient hospitalisation costs were 9.4% lower in favour of the intervention group (p = 0.0002).

Conclusion

This study showed that the PraCMan intervention may be associated with a lower rate of hospital admissions and hospitalisation costs than usual care. Further studies may assess long-term effects of PraCMan and its efficacy in preventing known complications of chronic diseases.

Understanding the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care: a qualitative study of knowledge mobilisation using the i-PARIHS framework

Background

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation.

Methods

This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5–8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results.

Results

In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. ‘Instinctive facilitation’ may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation.

Conclusion

This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-020-01055-2.

Development of generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology: a systematic literature review informing the 2018 EULAR recommendations

Objective

To identify generic competences on the desired knowledge, skills and of health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) to inform the respective EULAR recommendations.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed on the generic core competences (defined as knowledge, skills or attitudes) of HPRs (nurses, physical therapists (PTs) or occupational therapists (OTs)). Literature was obtained from electronic databases, published EULAR recommendations and via personal communication with representatives of national rheumatology societies and experts in the field. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included, and their methodological quality was scored using appropriate instruments.

Results

From 766 references reviewed, 79 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies addressed competences of multiple HPRs: 15 were of qualitative design, 1 quantitative, 1 mixed-methods, 2 systematic reviews and 1 opinion paper. The methodological quality of most studies was medium to high. Five studies concerned the development of a comprehensive set of competences. Key competences included: basic knowledge of rheumatic diseases, holistic approach to patient management, effective communication with colleagues and patients and provision of education to patients. The proposed competences were confirmed in studies focusing on one or more specific competences, on a rheumatic disease or on a specific profession (nurses, PTs or OTs).

Conclusion

Generic competences were identified for HPRs. Data were mostly derived from qualitative studies. All identified studies varied and were at national level, highlighting the need for the harmonisation of HPR competences across Europe. These findings underpin the development of EULAR recommendations for the core competences of HPRs.

2019 EULAR recommendations for the generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology

Background/objectives

To maintain and optimise the quality of care provided by health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs), adequate educational offerings are needed. This task force (TF) aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the generic core competences of HPRs, with specific reference to nurses, physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) to serve as a basis for their postgraduate education.

Methods

The EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of recommendations were followed. A TF including rheumatologists, nurses, PTs, OTs, patient-representatives, an educationalist, methodologists and researchers from 12 countries met twice. In the first TF meeting, 13 research questions were defined to support a systematic literature review (SLR). In the second meeting, the SLR evidence was discussed and recommendations formulated. Subsequently, level of evidence and strength of recommendation were assigned and level of agreement (LoA) determined (0–10 rating scale).

Results

Three overarching principles were identified and 10 recommendations were developed for the generic core competences of HPRs. The SLR included 79 full-text papers, 20 of which addressed the competences, knowledge, skills, attitudes and/or educational needs of HPRs from multiple professions. The average LoA for each recommendation ranged from 9.42 to 9.79. Consensus was reached both on a research and educational agenda.

Conclusion

Evidence and expert opinion informed a set of recommendations providing guidance on the generic core competences of HPRs. Implementation of these recommendations in the postgraduate education of HPRs at the international and national level is advised, considering variation in healthcare systems and professional roles.

Optimal primary care management of clinical osteoarthritis and joint pain in older people: a mixed-methods programme of systematic reviews, observational and qualitative studies, and randomised controlled trials

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common long-term condition managed in UK general practice. However, care is suboptimal despite evidence that primary care and community-based interventions can reduce OA pain and disability.

Objectives

The overall aim was to improve primary care management of OA and the health of patients with OA. Four parallel linked workstreams aimed to (1) develop a health economic decision model for estimating the potential for cost-effective delivery of primary care OA interventions to improve population health, (2) develop and evaluate new health-care models for delivery of core treatments and support for self-management among primary care consulters with OA, and to investigate prioritisation and implementation of OA care among the public, patients, doctors, health-care professionals and NHS trusts, (3) determine the effectiveness of strategies to optimise specific components of core OA treatment using the example of exercise and (4) investigate the effect of interventions to tackle barriers to core OA treatment, using the example of comorbid anxiety and depression in persons with OA.

Data sources

The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project database, held by Keele University, was the source of data for secondary analyses in workstream 1.

Methods

Workstream 1 used meta-analysis and synthesis of published evidence about effectiveness of primary care treatments, combined with secondary analysis of existing longitudinal population-based cohort data, to identify predictors of poor long-term outcome (prognostic factors) and design a health economic decision model to estimate cost-effectiveness of different hypothetical strategies for implementing optimal primary care for patients with OA. Workstream 2 used mixed methods to (1) develop and test a ‘model OA consultation’ for primary care health-care professionals (qualitative interviews, consensus, training and evaluation) and (2) evaluate the combined effect of a computerised ‘pop-up’ guideline for general practitioners (GPs) in the consultation and implementing the model OA consultation on practice and patient outcomes (parallel group intervention study). Workstream 3 developed and investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) how to optimise the effect of exercise in persons with knee OA by tailoring it to the individual and improving adherence. Workstream 4 developed and investigated in a cluster RCT the extent to which screening patients for comorbid anxiety and depression can improve OA outcomes. Public and patient involvement included proposal development, project steering and analysis. An OA forum involved public, patient, health professional, social care and researcher representatives to debate the results and formulate proposals for wider implementation and dissemination.

Results

This programme provides evidence (1) that economic modelling can be used in OA to extrapolate findings of cost-effectiveness beyond the short-term outcomes of clinical trials, (2) about ways of implementing support for self-management and models of optimal primary care informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations, including the beneficial effects of training in a model OA consultation on GP behaviour and of pop-up screens in GP consultations on the quality of prescribing, (3) against adding enhanced interventions to current effective physiotherapy-led exercise for knee OA and (4) against screening for anxiety and depression in patients with musculoskeletal pain as an addition to current best practice for OA.

Conclusions

Implementation of evidence-based care for patients with OA is feasible in general practice and has an immediate impact on improving the quality of care delivered to patients. However, improved levels of quality of care, changes to current best practice physiotherapy and successful introduction of psychological screening, as achieved by this programme, did not substantially reduce patients’ pain and disability. This poses important challenges for clinical practice and OA research.

Limitations

The key limitation in this work is the lack of improvement in patient-reported pain and disability despite clear evidence of enhanced delivery of evidence-based care.

Future work recommendations

(1) New thinking and research is needed into the achievable and desirable long-term goals of care for people with OA, (2) continuing investigation into the resources needed to properly implement clinical guidelines for management of OA as a long-term condition, such as regular monitoring to maintain exercise and physical activity and (3) new research to identify subgroups of patients with OA as a basis for stratified primary care including (i) those with good prognosis who can self-manage with minimal investigation or specialist treatment, (ii) those who will respond to, and benefit from, specific interventions in primary care, such as physiotherapy-led exercise, and (iii) develop research into effective identification and treatment of clinically important anxiety and depression in patients with OA and into the effects of pain management on psychological outcomes in patients with OA.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06984617, ISRCTN93634563 and ISRCTN40721988.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research Programme; Vol. 6, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

What happens to patient experience when you want to see a doctor and you get to speak to a nurse? Observational study using data from the English General Practice Patient Survey

OBJECTIVES

To examine patient consultation preferences for seeing or speaking to a general practitioner (GP) or nurse; to estimate associations between patient-reported experiences and the type of consultation patients actually received (phone or face-to-face, GP or nurse).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from the 2013 to 2014 General Practice Patient Survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

870 085 patients from 8005 English general practices.

OUTCOMES

Patient ratings of communication and 'trust and confidence' with the clinician they saw.

RESULTS

77.7% of patients reported wanting to see or speak to a GP, while 14.5% reported asking to see or speak to a nurse the last time they tried to make an appointment (weighted percentages). Being unable to see or speak to the practitioner type of the patients' choice was associated with lower ratings of trust and confidence and patient-rated communication. Smaller differences were found if patients wanted a face-to-face consultation and received a phone consultation instead. The greatest difference was for patients who asked to see a GP and instead spoke to a nurse for whom the adjusted mean difference in confidence and trust compared with those who wanted to see a nurse and did see a nurse was -15.8 points (95% CI -17.6 to -14.0) for confidence and trust in the practitioner and -10.5 points (95% CI -11.7 to -9.3) for net communication score, both on a 0-100 scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' evaluation of their care is worse if they do not receive the type of consultation they expect, especially if they prefer a doctor but are unable to see one. New models of care should consider the potential unintended consequences for patient experience of the widespread introduction of multidisciplinary teams in general practice.

Patterns of routine primary care for osteoarthritis in the UK: a cross-sectional electronic health records study

OBJECTIVE

To determine common patterns of recorded primary care for osteoarthritis (OA), and patient and provider characteristics associated with the quality of recorded care.

DESIGN

An observational study nested within a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Eight UK general practices who were part of the Management of Osteoarthritis in Consultations study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients recorded as consulting within the eight general practices for clinical OA.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Achievement of seven quality indicators of care (pain/function assessment, information provision, exercise/weight advice, analgesics, physiotherapy), recorded through an electronic template or routinely recorded in the electronic healthcare records, was identified for patients aged ≥45 years consulting over a 6-month period with clinical OA. Latent class analysis was used to cluster patients based on care received. Clusters were compared on patient and clinician-level characteristics.

RESULTS

1724 patients (median by practice 183) consulted with clinical OA. Common patterns of recorded quality care were: cluster 1 (38%, High) received most quality indicators of care; cluster 2 (11%, Moderate) had pain and function assessment, and received or were considered for other indicators; cluster 3 (17%, Low) had pain and function assessment, and received or were considered for paracetamol or topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; cluster 4 (35%, None) had no recorded quality indicators. Patients with higher levels of recorded care consulted a clinician who saw more patients with OA, consulted multiple times and had less morbidity. Those in the High cluster were more likely to have recorded diagnosed OA and have knee/hip OA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patterns of recorded care for OA fell into four natural clusters. Appropriate delivery of core interventions and relatively safe pharmacological options for OA are still not consistently recorded as provided in primary care. Further research to understand clinical recording behaviours and determine potential barriers to quality care alongside effective training for clinicians is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN06984617; Results.

Effect of a model consultation informed by guidelines on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice.

DESIGN

Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA.

INTERVENTION

Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators.

OUTCOMES

Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record.

RESULTS

1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4-28%), exercise (4-22%) and weight loss (1-15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1-3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN06984617.