Advertisement

Stratification of Treatment in a Community-Based Musculoskeletal Service: A Mixed-Methods Study to Assess Predictors of Requiring Complex Care

Published:December 29, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.12.013

      Abstract

      Objective

      To explore factors that might be relevant when designing a triage tool.

      Design

      A mixed-methods study using multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify significant factors associated with requiring different levels of care, and qualitative focus groups exploring views of patients and physiotherapy clinicians regarding case complexity.

      Setting

      A community-based adult musculoskeletal service delivering tier 1 (standard physiotherapy) and tier 2 care (complex care beyond the scope of standard physiotherapy) and providing onward referral to orthopedic clinics (tier 3).

      Participants

      Quantitative data were extracted from a random sample of patients (N=484) who had received treatment for musculoskeletal conditions. Patients and physiotherapists who had received care or who worked in the service participated in focus groups.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Themes that emerged from focus groups were compared against predictors of requiring complex care found to be significant (P<.05) after quantitative data analysis.

      Results

      A total of 184 patients (38.0%; 95% confidence interval, 33.8–42.4) received complex care. Peripheral joint problems, unclear diagnosis, and symptoms affecting sleep were significant independent predictors of requiring complex care. These data supported some of the main themes raised at focus groups.

      Conclusions

      A substantial proportion of patients receive tier 2 complex care. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether the predictive factors found to be significant in our study might be useful for developing a tool for more effective triage to the most appropriate tier of musculoskeletal care.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      CI (confidence interval), GP (general practitioner), MSK (musculoskeletal), UK (United Kingdom)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sports Injury Prevention Taskforce
        Sports Injury Prevention Taskforce final report.
        Sport and Recreation Victoria, Melbourne2013
        • McCormick A.
        • Charlton J.
        • Fleming D.
        Morbidity statistics from general practice: fourth national study 1991-1992.
        HMSO, London1995
        • Jordan K.P.
        • Jöud A.
        • Bergknut C.
        • et al.
        International comparisons of the consultation prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using population-based healthcare data from England and Sweden.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 2014; 73: 212-218
        • Confederation of British Industry
        Fit for purpose. Absence and workplace health survey.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 7, 2015)
        • Jordan K.P.
        • Kadam U.T.
        • Hayward R.
        • Porcheret M.
        • Young C.
        • Croft P.
        Annual consultation prevalence of regional musculoskeletal problems in primary care: an observational study.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010; 11: 144
        • Department of Health
        • The Musculoskeletal Services Framework
        A joint responsibility: doing it differently.
        Department of Health, London2006 (Available at:)
        http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4138412.pdf
        (Accessed June 11, 2014)
        • Glasgow R.E.
        • Vogt T.M.
        • Boles S.M.
        Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.
        Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 1322-1327
        • Linton S.J.
        • Hellsing A.L.
        • Andersson D.
        A controlled study of the effects of an early intervention on acute musculoskeletal pain problems.
        Pain. 1993; 54: 353-359
        • Linton S.J.
        • Boersma K.
        Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: the predictive validity of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire.
        Clin J Pain. 2003; 19: 80-86
        • Hagen K.B.
        • Jamtvedt G.
        • Hilde G.
        • Winnem M.F.
        The updated Cochrane review of bed rest for low back pain and sciatica.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30: 542-546
        • Joseph C.
        • Morrissey D.
        • Abdur-Rahman M.
        • Hussenbux A.
        • Barton C.
        Musculoskeletal triage: a mixed methods study, integrating systematic review with expert and patient perspectives.
        Physiotherapy. 2014; 100: 277-289
        • Huyse F.J.
        • Lyons J.S.
        • Stiefel F.C.
        • et al.
        “INTERMED”: a method to assess health service needs. I. Development and reliability.
        Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1999; 21: 39-48
        • Lack A.
        • Edwards R.T.
        • Boland A.
        Weights for waits: lessons from Salisbury.
        J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000; 5: 83-88
        • Linton S.J.
        • Hallden K.
        Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain.
        Clin J Pain. 1998; 14: 209-215
        • Childs J.D.
        • Fritz J.M.
        • Flynn T.W.
        • et al.
        A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study.
        Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 920-928
        • Hicks G.E.
        • Fritz J.M.
        • Delitto A.
        • McGill S.M.
        Preliminary development of a clinical prediction rule for determining which patients with low back pain will respond to a stabilization exercise program.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: 1753-1762
        • Dionne C.E.
        • Bourbonnais R.
        • Frémont P.
        • Rossignol M.
        • Stock S.R.
        • Larocque I.
        A clinical return-to-work rule for patients with back pain.
        CMAJ. 2005; 172: 1559-1567
        • Truchon M.
        • Cote D.
        Predictive validity of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory in subacute low back pain.
        Pain. 2005; 116: 205-212
        • Denison E.
        • Asenlöf P.
        • Sandborgh M.
        • Lindberg P.
        Musculoskeletal pain in primary health care: subgroups based on pain intensity, disability, self-efficacy, and fear-avoidance variables.
        J Pain. 2007; 8: 67-74
        • Hill J.C.
        • Whitehurst D.G.
        • Lewis M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2011; 378: 1560-1571
        • Sattelmayer M.
        • Lorenz T.
        • Röder C.
        • Hilfiker R.
        Predictive value of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire and the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire for persisting problems.
        Eur Spine J. 2012; 21: S773-S784
        • Wyatt J.C.
        • Altman D.J.
        Commentary: prognostic models: clinically useful or quickly forgotten?.
        BMJ. 1995; 311: 1539-1541
        • Carnes D.
        • Parsons S.
        • Ashby D.
        • et al.
        Chronic musculoskeletal pain rarely presents in a single body site: results from a UK population study.
        Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007; 46: 1168-1170
        • van Dijk G.M.
        • Dekker J.
        • Veenhof C.
        • van den Ende C.H.
        Carpa Study Group. Course of functional status and pain in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of the literature.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 55: 779-785
        • Mallen C.D.
        • Peat G.
        • Thomas E.
        • et al.
        The assessment of the prognosis of musculoskeletal conditions in older adults presenting to general practice: a research protocol.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7: 84
        • Hill J.C.
        • Dunn K.M.
        • Lewis M.
        • et al.
        A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 59: 632-641
        • Roddy E.
        • Zwierska I.
        • Dawes P.
        • et al.
        The Staffordshire Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Back Assessment (SAMBA) study: a prospective observational study of patient outcome following referral to a primary-secondary care musculoskeletal interface service.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010; 11: 67
        • Hosmer D.W.
        • Lemeshow S.
        A goodness-of-fit test for the multiple logistic regression model.
        Commun Stat. 1980; A10: 1043-1069
        • Barbour R.S.
        The use of focus groups to define patient needs.
        J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1999; 28: S19-S22
        • Kitzinger J.
        The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants.
        Sociol Health Illn. 1994; 16: 103-121
        • Maykut P.S.
        • Morehouse R.E.
        Beginning qualitative research: a philosophic and practical guide.
        Falmer Pr, London, Washington (DC)1994
        • Cresswell J.
        Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches.
        Sage, London1994