首次接触物理治疗:临床效果和成本评估

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-26 Print Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2023.0560
Nicola E Walsh, Serena Halls, Rachel Thomas, Alice Berry, Cathy Liddiard, Margaret E Cupples, Heather Gage, Daniel Jackson, Fiona Cramp, Hannah Stott, Paula Kersten, Justin Jagosh, Dave Foster, Peter Williams
{"title":"首次接触物理治疗:临床效果和成本评估","authors":"Nicola E Walsh, Serena Halls, Rachel Thomas, Alice Berry, Cathy Liddiard, Margaret E Cupples, Heather Gage, Daniel Jackson, Fiona Cramp, Hannah Stott, Paula Kersten, Justin Jagosh, Dave Foster, Peter Williams","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>First contact physiotherapy practitioners (FCPPs) are embedded within general practice, providing expert assessment, diagnosis, and management plans for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs), without the prior need for GP consultation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the clinical effectiveness and costs of FCPP models compared with GP-led models of care.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Multiple site case-study design of general practices in the UK.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>General practice sites were recruited representing the following three models: 1) GP-led care; 2) FCPPs who could not prescribe or inject (FCPPs-standard [St]); and 3) FCPPs who could prescribe and/or inject (FCPPs-additional qualifications [AQ]). Patient participants from each site completed outcome data at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score. Healthcare usage was collected for 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 426 adults were recruited from 46 practices across the UK. Non-inferiority analysis showed no significant difference in physical function (SF-36 PCS) across all three arms at 6 months (<i>P</i> = 0.667). At 3 months, a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% (<i>n</i> = 47) GP consultees, 72.4% (<i>n</i> = 71) FCPP-St, and 66.4% (<i>n</i> = 101) FCPP-AQ (<i>P</i> = 0.037). No safety issues were identified. Following initial consultation, a greater proportion of patients received medication (including opioids) in the GP-led arm (44.7%, <i>n</i> = 42), compared with FCPP-St (18.4%, <i>n</i> = 21) and FCPP-AQ (24.7%, <i>n</i> = 40) (<i>P</i><0.001). NHS costs (initial consultation and over 6-month follow-up) were significantly higher in the GP-led model (median £105.5 per patient) versus FCPP-St (£41.0 per patient) and FCPP-AQ (£44.0 per patient) (<i>P</i><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FCPP-led models of care provide safe, clinically effective patient management, with cost-benefits and reduced opioid use in this cohort.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e717-e726"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11325442/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First contact physiotherapy: an evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs.\",\"authors\":\"Nicola E Walsh, Serena Halls, Rachel Thomas, Alice Berry, Cathy Liddiard, Margaret E Cupples, Heather Gage, Daniel Jackson, Fiona Cramp, Hannah Stott, Paula Kersten, Justin Jagosh, Dave Foster, Peter Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>First contact physiotherapy practitioners (FCPPs) are embedded within general practice, providing expert assessment, diagnosis, and management plans for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs), without the prior need for GP consultation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the clinical effectiveness and costs of FCPP models compared with GP-led models of care.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Multiple site case-study design of general practices in the UK.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>General practice sites were recruited representing the following three models: 1) GP-led care; 2) FCPPs who could not prescribe or inject (FCPPs-standard [St]); and 3) FCPPs who could prescribe and/or inject (FCPPs-additional qualifications [AQ]). Patient participants from each site completed outcome data at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score. Healthcare usage was collected for 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 426 adults were recruited from 46 practices across the UK. Non-inferiority analysis showed no significant difference in physical function (SF-36 PCS) across all three arms at 6 months (<i>P</i> = 0.667). At 3 months, a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% (<i>n</i> = 47) GP consultees, 72.4% (<i>n</i> = 71) FCPP-St, and 66.4% (<i>n</i> = 101) FCPP-AQ (<i>P</i> = 0.037). No safety issues were identified. Following initial consultation, a greater proportion of patients received medication (including opioids) in the GP-led arm (44.7%, <i>n</i> = 42), compared with FCPP-St (18.4%, <i>n</i> = 21) and FCPP-AQ (24.7%, <i>n</i> = 40) (<i>P</i><0.001). NHS costs (initial consultation and over 6-month follow-up) were significantly higher in the GP-led model (median £105.5 per patient) versus FCPP-St (£41.0 per patient) and FCPP-AQ (£44.0 per patient) (<i>P</i><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FCPP-led models of care provide safe, clinically effective patient management, with cost-benefits and reduced opioid use in this cohort.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e717-e726\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11325442/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0560\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0560","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:第一接触物理治疗师(FCPPs)被纳入全科医疗实践中,为肌肉骨骼疾病(MSKDs)患者提供专家评估、诊断和管理计划,而无需事先咨询全科医生。目的:与全科医生主导的医疗模式相比,确定第一接触物理治疗师主导的医疗模式的临床效果和成本:设计与环境:多地点案例研究设计。英国全科医生诊所:招募了代表三种模式的全科诊所:1.全科医生主导的护理;2.不能开处方/注射的全科医生(标准(St));3.能开处方/注射的全科医生(附加资格(AQ))。每个地点的患者参与者都填写了基线、3 个月和 6 个月的临床结果数据。主要结果是 SF-36v.2 物理成分得分 (PCS)。此外,还收集了 6 个月的医疗保健使用情况:从英国的 46 家诊所招募了 426 名成年人。非劣效性分析表明,在 6 个月时,所有三个治疗组在身体功能(SF36-PCS)方面均无显著差异(P=0.999)。在 3 个月时,不同治疗组在改善人数上有显著差异:54.7% 的全科医生咨询者;72.4% 的 FCPP-St,66.4% 的 FCPP-AQ;(p=0.037)。未发现安全问题。在初次会诊后,全科医生主导组接受药物治疗(包括阿片类药物)的患者比例(44.7%)高于 FCPP-St(17.5%)和 FCPP-AQ(22.8%);(p结论:以 FCPP 为主导的模式为全科医生治疗 MSKD 患者提供了安全、临床有效且具有成本效益的管理方法,并减少了该队列中阿片类药物的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
First contact physiotherapy: an evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs.

Background: First contact physiotherapy practitioners (FCPPs) are embedded within general practice, providing expert assessment, diagnosis, and management plans for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs), without the prior need for GP consultation.

Aim: To determine the clinical effectiveness and costs of FCPP models compared with GP-led models of care.

Design and setting: Multiple site case-study design of general practices in the UK.

Method: General practice sites were recruited representing the following three models: 1) GP-led care; 2) FCPPs who could not prescribe or inject (FCPPs-standard [St]); and 3) FCPPs who could prescribe and/or inject (FCPPs-additional qualifications [AQ]). Patient participants from each site completed outcome data at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score. Healthcare usage was collected for 6 months.

Results: In total, 426 adults were recruited from 46 practices across the UK. Non-inferiority analysis showed no significant difference in physical function (SF-36 PCS) across all three arms at 6 months (P = 0.667). At 3 months, a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% (n = 47) GP consultees, 72.4% (n = 71) FCPP-St, and 66.4% (n = 101) FCPP-AQ (P = 0.037). No safety issues were identified. Following initial consultation, a greater proportion of patients received medication (including opioids) in the GP-led arm (44.7%, n = 42), compared with FCPP-St (18.4%, n = 21) and FCPP-AQ (24.7%, n = 40) (P<0.001). NHS costs (initial consultation and over 6-month follow-up) were significantly higher in the GP-led model (median £105.5 per patient) versus FCPP-St (£41.0 per patient) and FCPP-AQ (£44.0 per patient) (P<0.001).

Conclusion: FCPP-led models of care provide safe, clinically effective patient management, with cost-benefits and reduced opioid use in this cohort.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme uptake, patient satisfaction, and QOF achievement: an ecological study from 2020-2023. Antipsychotic management in general practice: serial cross-sectional study (2011-2020). Improving personal continuity in general practice: a focus group study. The association between cancer risk assessment tool use and GP consultation duration: an observational study. Supporting patients to use online services in general practice: focused ethnographic case study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1