Commissioner, clinician, and patient experiences of a pre-surgical health optimisation programme - a qualitative study

Shared decision-making in advanced physiotherapy and first contact physiotherapy management of adults with musculoskeletal disorders in the United Kingdom: An online cross-sectional survey

RATIONALE

Advanced practice physiotherapy roles (Advanced Physiotherapy Practitioners [APPs] and First Contact Physiotherapists [FCPs]) are pivotal in supporting patients to manage their musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Having a greater understanding of how decisions are made by these practitioners will inform competency frameworks and improve the provision of patient-centred care.

AIM

To evaluate the current knowledge, views and use of shared decision-making in MSK advanced physiotherapy practice in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire was used to collect demographic information, knowledge, views and self-reported use of shared decision-making (SDM) of APPs and FCPs who work with adults with MSK disorders in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Responses from 49 participants (25 APPs and 24 FCPs) were included in the study. In total, 80% of participants had received SDM training and overall high levels of knowledge were shown. Only 12% of participants used a communication model to facilitate SDM. In total, 80% of participants reported making decisions together with the patient either always or most of the time. FCPs favoured a more patient-led approach to decision-making compared to APPs who favoured collaborative decision-making. The most commonly reported barriers to SDM included lack of time, lack of patient education resources, lack of access to patient decision aids and treatment pathway restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

The responses in this study showed that overall APPs and FCPs have good knowledge of SDM and report routine use of collaborative and patient-led decision-making approaches.

What effect have NHS commissioners' policies for body mass index had on access to knee replacement surgery in England?: An interrupted time series analysis from the National Joint Registry

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of local commissioners' policies for body mass index on access to knee replacement surgery in England.

METHODS

A Natural Experimental Study using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis. We used National Joint Registry for England data linked to the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation for 481,555 patients who had primary knee replacement surgery in England between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical Commissioning Group policies introduced before June 2018 to alter access to knee replacement for patients who were overweight or obese were considered the intervention. The main outcome measures were rate per 100,000 of primary knee replacement surgery and patient demographics (body mass index, Index of Multiple Deprivation, independently-funded surgery) over time.

RESULTS

Rates of surgery had a sustained fall after the introduction of a policy (trend change of -0.98 operations per 100,000 population aged 40+, 95% confidence interval -1.22 to -0.74, P<0.001), whereas rates increased in localities with no policy introduction. At three years after introduction, there were 10.5 per 100,000 population fewer operations per quarter aged 40+ compared to the counterfactual, representing a fall of 14.1% from the rate expected had there been no change in trend. There was no dose response effect with policy severity. Rates of surgery fell in all patient groups, including non-obese patients following policy introduction. The proportion of independently-funded operations increased after policy introduction, as did the measure of socioeconomic deprivation of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Body mass index policy introduction was associated with decreases in the rates of knee replacement surgery across localities that introduced policies. This affected all patient groups, not just obese patients at whom the policies were targeted. Changes in patient demographics seen after policy introduction suggest these policies may increase health inequalities and further qualitative research is needed to understand their implementation and impact.

Evaluating a pre-surgical health optimisation programme: a feasibility study

Background

Health optimisation programmes are increasingly popular and aim to support patients to lose weight or stop smoking ahead of surgery, yet there is little published evidence about their impact. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of evaluating a programme introduced by a National Health Service (NHS) clinical commissioning group offering support to smokers/obese patients in an extra 3 months prior to the elective hip/knee surgery pathway.

Methods

Feasibility study mapping routinely collected data sources, availability and completeness for 502 patients referred to the hip/knee pathway in February–July 2018.

Results

Data collation across seven sources was complex. Data completeness for smoking and ethnicity was poor. While 37% (184) of patients were eligible for health optimisation, only 28% of this comparatively deprived patient group accepted referral to the support offered. Patients who accepted referral to support and completed the programme had a larger median reduction in BMI than those who did not accept referral (− 1.8 BMI points vs. − 0.5). Forty-nine per cent of patients who accepted support were subsequently referred to surgery, compared to 61% who did not accept referral to support.

Conclusions

Use of routinely collected data to evaluate health optimisation programmes is feasible though demanding. Indications of the positive effects of health optimisation interventions from this study and existing literature suggest that the challenge of programme evaluation should be prioritised; longer-term evaluation of costs and outcomes is warranted to inform health optimisation policy development.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-022-00255-2.

Resistance narratives in patients' accounts of a mandatory pre-operative health optimisation scheme: A qualitative study

Background

Pre-operative Health Optimisation is the engagement of patients in health behavior change, such as smoking cessation and weight reduction prior to surgery. Programmes which routinely delay surgery while some patients undergo preoperative optimisation are increasingly used within the UK. Advocates of this approach argue that it reduces perioperative risk and encourages longer term change at a teachable moment. However, critics have argued that mandatory preoperative optimisation schemes may perpetuate or exacerbate inequalities.

Aim

To understand patients' experience of a mandatory preoperative optimisation scheme at the time of referral for elective surgery.

Design and setting

Qualitative interview study in one area of the UK.

Method

Participants were recruited through GP practices and participating weight-loss schemes. Data was collected from nine semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Thematic analysis was informed by the concept of narratives of resistance.

Results

Four forms of resistance were found in relation to the programme. Interviewees questioned the way their GPs presented the scheme, suggesting they were acting for the health system rather than their patients. While interviewees accepted personal responsibility for health behaviors, those resisting the scheme emphasized that the wider system carried responsibilities too. Interviewees found referral to the scheme stigmatizing and offset this by distancing themselves from more deviant health behaviors. Finally, interviewees emphasized the logical contradictions between different health promotion messages.

Conclusion

Patients described negative experiences of mandatory pre-operative health optimisation. Framing them as resistance narratives helps understand how patients contest the imposition of optimisation and highlights the risk of unintended consequences.