What does high value care for musculoskeletal conditions mean and how do you apply it in practice? A consensus statement from a research network of physiotherapists in New South Wales, Australia

OBJECTIVES

To develop a physiotherapist-led consensus statement on the definition and provision of high-value care for people with musculoskeletal conditions.

DESIGN

We performed a three-stage study using Research And Development/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method methodology. We reviewed evidence about current definitions through a rapid literature review and then performed a survey and interviews with network members to gather consensus. Consensus was finalised in a face-to-face meeting.

SETTING

Australian primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Registered physiotherapists who are members of a practice-based research network (n=31).

RESULTS

The rapid review revealed two definitions, four domains of high value care and seven themes of high-quality care. Online survey responses (n=26) and interviews (n=9) generated two additional high-quality care themes, a definition of low-value care, and 21 statements on the application of high value care. Consensus was reached for three working definitions (high value, high-quality and low value care), a final model of four high value care domains (high-quality care, patient values, cost-effectiveness, reducing waste), nine high-quality care themes and 15 statements on application.

CONCLUSION

High value care for musculoskeletal conditions delivers most value for the patient, and the clinical benefits outweigh the costs to the individual or system providing the care. High-quality care is evidence based, effective and safe care that is patient-centred, consistent, accountable, timely, equitable and allows easy interaction with healthcare providers and healthcare systems.

Meaningful coproduction with clinicians: establishing a practice-based research network with physiotherapists in regional Australia

BACKGROUND

The disconnect between research and clinical practice leads to research evidence that is often not useful for clinical practice. Practice-based research networks are collaborations between researchers and clinicians aimed at coproducing more useful research. Such networks are rare in the physiotherapy field. We aimed to describe (i) clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network, (ii) the process of network establishment and (iii) research priorities for a practice-based network of physiotherapists in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia that supports research coproduction.

METHODS

We describe the methods and outcomes of the three steps we used to establish the network. Step 1 involved consultation with local opinion leaders and a formative evaluation to understand clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network. Step 2 involved establishment activities to generate a founding membership group and codesign a governance model. Step 3 involved mapping clinical problems through a workshop guided by systems thinking theory with local stakeholders and prioritizing research areas.

RESULTS

Through formative evaluation focus groups, we generated five key motivating themes and three key enablers for physiotherapists' involvement in the network. Establishment activities led to a founding membership group (n = 29, 67% from private practice clinics), a network vision and mission statement, and a joint governance group (9/13 [70%] are private practice clinicians). Our problem-mapping and prioritization process led to three clinically relevant priority research areas with the potential for significant change in practice and patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are motivated to break down traditional siloed research generation and collaborate with researchers to solve a wide array of issues with the delivery of care. Practice-based research networks have promise for both researchers and clinicians in the common goal of improving patient outcomes.