Economic evaluation of advanced practice physiotherapy models of care: a systematic review with meta-analyses

Physiotherapist managers views on advanced practice physiotherapy in Ireland. A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of physiotherapists working with advanced scope of practice has contributed to improvements in healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study explores the views of physiotherapist managers on the Advanced Practice Physiotherapy role and the barriers and enablers to progression of this career pathway.

METHODS

A qualitative focus group study was conducted online with 10 purposefully sampled physiotherapist managers. The focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified; 1) Physiotherapists working in advanced practice are recognized as experts and strong advocates for the physiotherapy profession; 2) Barriers to Advanced Practice Physiotherapy in Ireland include inconsistent role definition and protection, a lack of legislation and uncertainty concerning clinical governance; and 3) Physiotherapist managers can support Advanced Practice Physiotherapy through mentoring and resource provision, and implementation of the Advanced Practice Competency Framework.

CONCLUSION

Physiotherapist managers recognized the value of Advanced Practice Physiotherapy to the Irish health service but suggest that the role and reporting structures need to be clarified. They highlighted barriers preventing the full potential of this these roles being realized and provided suggestions to support the progression of this healthcare model.

Advanced practice physiotherapists can diagnose and triage patients with musculoskeletal disorders while providing effective care: a systematic review

QUESTIONS

What is the diagnostic and surgical triage concordance between advanced practice physiotherapists (APPTs) and physicians? What is the clinical efficacy of advanced practice physiotherapy care compared with usual medical care?

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analyses.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched up to March 2022.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Concordance studies on diagnostic or surgical triage between APPTs and physicians and randomised controlled trials comparing the clinical efficacy of an advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) model of care compared with usual medical care for participants with musculoskeletal disorders.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Meta-analyses were performed for concordance and clinical outcomes. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Nineteen concordance studies (n = 1,745) and six randomised trials (n = 1,960) were included. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, the pooled Kappa for diagnostic concordance between APPTs and physicians was 0.76 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.85, n = 1,108). Based on high-certainty evidence, the pooled Kappa for surgical triage concordance was 0.71 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.78, n = 1,128). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, APP care resulted in a comparable or greater reduction in pain (MD -0.92 out of 10, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.10, n = 494) when compared with usual medical care at medium-term follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, APP care resulted in a comparable or greater reduction in disability (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.04, n = 535) when compared with usual medical care at medium-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Concordance between APPTs and physicians is probably good to very good for diagnosis and good to very good for surgical triage of musculoskeletal disorders. Patients with musculoskeletal disorders managed in an APP model of care probably report comparable or greater pain and disability reductions when compared with usual medical care.

REGISTRATION

CRD42022320950.

Implementing an advanced physiotherapy outpatient triaging service as a model for improvement for patients recently discharged following surgical intervention for hip fracture

Every year there are 1.3 million hip fractures globally; this is expected to rise to 6 million by 2050. Estimates of global cost is 1.75 million disability adjusted life years, and in established market economies, costs associated with hip fracture represent 1.4% of the total healthcare burden. New models of care will be required to meet this demand. Advance physiotherapy roles in elective arthroplasty across global settings have demonstrated benefit in safely reducing time burden on surgical teams and healthcare costs. The utility of similar roles in the care of hip fracture is unclear. This quality initiative (2020-2023) aimed to implement and evaluate a new model of care substituting a surgical registrar with an advanced physiotherapist in a post-discharge hip fracture clinic. Across many nonlinear, action/reflection cycles, a multi-disciplinary team engaged to operationalize key implementation strategies, mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Across the reporting period, 346 patients were seen by an advanced physiotherapist. Eighty-one patients seen by an advanced physiotherapist required informal discussion with the consultant surgeon. Fifteen patients required a formal consultant review. There were no patient complaints, critical incidents or other unintended consequences. The net surgical time realized over the three years was 110 hours.

Assessing the feasibility of a clinical trial to evaluate an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care in chronic pain management: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain management is challenging for health systems worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines recommend interprofessional chronic pain management, but chronic pain clinics often have lengthy wait-lists. Advanced practice physiotherapists (APP) in orthopedic clinics and emergency departments have provided effective care and reduced wait times. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of a clinical trial to evaluate the effects of integrating an APP into a chronic pain clinic setting. The primary objectives are as follows: (1) determine the feasibility of implementing trial methods by evaluating participant recruitment rates, retention, and assessment completion; (2) determine the feasibility of implementing the APP model of care by monitoring care provided and treatment fidelity; and (3) assess contextual factors that may influence implementation of the APP model of care by exploring the perspectives of patient participants and healthcare providers related to the model of care.

METHODS

This will be a single-arm feasibility study with embedded qualitative interviews to assess contextual factors influencing implementation by exploring participant and provider perspectives. Approximately 40 adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain referred for care at an interprofessional chronic pain clinic will be invited to participate in the feasibility study. Approximately 10-12 patient participants and 5-10 health professionals from the interprofessional team will be interviewed using an interpretive description approach. The APP model of care will involve participants seeing a physiotherapist as the first point of contact within the interprofessional team. The APP will complete an initial assessment and make care recommendations. Outcome measures planned for the full trial will be reported descriptively, including pain severity, pain interference, health-related quality of life, psychosocial risk factors for chronic pain, treatment satisfaction, perceived change, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs over one year.

DISCUSSION

This study will inform plans to implement a full-scale study to evaluate the impact of an APP model of care in an interprofessional chronic pain management program. The results of the full study are intended to inform stakeholders considering this model to improve patient-centered and health system outcomes in interprofessional pain management program settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05336903 (Registered April 5, 2022).

Cost-effectiveness of specialised manual therapy versus orthopaedic care for musculoskeletal disorders: long-term follow-up and health economic model

Background

Physiotherapy is usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. If pain persists, an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon is indicated, but many disorders for which patients are placed on orthopaedic waiting lists cannot be treated in an orthopaedic clinic. Specialised manual therapy, although not mainstream, can be an effective alternative to orthopaedic care, although its cost-effectiveness beyond 12 months is unknown.

Objectives

To perform an 8-year follow-up of the quality of life and costs of specialised manual therapy versus standard orthopaedic care for working-age patients with common nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons and to develop a health economic model.

Design

Cost-effectiveness study using Markov modelling.

Methods

The index group of a previously published pragmatic randomised controlled trial received a maximum of five treatment sessions of specialised manual therapy, while the control group received orthopaedic 'care as usual'. At 3, 6, 12 and 96 months, Health-Related Quality of Life and costs were measured with Short Form Health Survey 36, Short Form Health Survey 6D and Diagnostic Related Groups. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, a Markov model was developed and a sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results

Overall, 95% (n = 75) of the participants completed the 8-year follow-up. Recovery rates during the first 3 months ('per protocol') in the index and control group were 69% and 58%, respectively. The index group had 0.159 more gains in quality-adjusted life years and cost 40,270 SEK (€4027) less per patient over 8 years. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the main results.

Conclusion

Specialised manual therapy dominated standard care after 8 years. The results of this small but very first study are promising; therefore, further exploration within other health care professions, clinics and/or countries is required. Our study raises questions about the triaging of orthopaedic outpatients, cost-effectiveness and resource allocation.

Registration

Not applicable per the information provided by ClinicalTrials.gov.

Plain Language Summary

Specialised manual therapy is more cost-effective than 'care as usual' for working-age patients referred to an orthopaedist. This study provides an 8-year follow-up of the cost effects and quality of life of a previously published trial. Why was this study conducted? The standard care for musculoskeletal pain consists of exercises with a physiotherapist in primary care. If the pain persists, a referral to an orthopaedic clinic is often made. Many of these referrals are inappropriate because they concern pain from muscles and joints that do not benefit from surgery or the resources available in an orthopaedic clinic. There is a gap in competence and treatment between primary and specialised care that is costly, time- and resource-consuming and causes prolonged patient suffering. Although specialised manual therapy (MT) is effective, its use is not mainstream. Costs and effects after more than 12 months of treatment that may shorten waiting lists have never been evaluated. What did the researchers do? Quality of life and costs were compared in 75 patients with nonsurgical disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons at 8 years after treatment with specialised MT or standard orthopaedic care. A health economics model for the probability of recovery was also developed and tested. What did the researchers find? Compared with the control group, the study participants treated with specialised MT had a better quality of life, required fewer health care interventions, underwent less surgery, incurred significantly lower costs and demonstrated an increased probability of recovery. What do these findings mean? It seems probable that using specialised MT for an old, well-known structural problem may yield better treatment effects at a significantly lower cost. Our study findings suggest that policy recommendations should focus on costs and effects rather than resource utilisation alone. The study is small and requires expansion using its economic health model.

The introduction of advanced practice physiotherapy within Dutch primary care is a quest for possibilities, added value, and mutual trust: a qualitative study amongst advanced practice physiotherapists and general practitioners

Background

Despite the increased deployment and added value of Advanced Practitioner Physiotherapy (APP) in musculoskeletal care internationally, APP is not yet widely accepted within Dutch primary care. This may be due to specific constraints in the implementation of APP within the Dutch healthcare system. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of Advanced Practitioner Physiotherapists (APPs) and General Practitioners (GPs) with respect to implementing APP within Dutch primary care.

Methods

This explorative and interpretive qualitative study included 12 APPs and 3 GPs who were in various stages of implementing an APP care model. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and March 2021. The topic list was based on existing literature, the personal input of researchers, and the Constellation Approach framework. Data were analysed using a thematic inductive approach.

Results

Four main themes emerged from the data; 1) Both GPs’ trust in APP and a clear added value of APP are critical for starting implementation, 2) APPs need continuous support from GPs, 3) APPs believe that their position needs strengthening, and 4) Implementation of the APP model creates tension over ownership. These four themes highlight the perceived difficulties in gaining trust, lack of clarity over the added value of APP, ambiguity over APPs’ professional profile and positioning, a need on behalf of GPs to maintain authority, lack of reimbursement structure, and the struggle APPs face to strike a balance with current care.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that implementing an APP model of care is challenging, in part, because the deployment of APP does not sufficiently align with the core values of GPs, while GPs appear reluctant to hand over control of elements of patient care to APPs. APPs do not appear to have ownership over the implementation, given their strong dependence on the practice, values and needs of GPs.

Trial registration

Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of VU University Medical Centre in Amsterdam; reference number 2020.17 . All participants were asked to provide written informed consent prior to participating in the study.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07906-6.