Clinical placements in private practice for physiotherapy students are perceived as safe and beneficial for students, private practices and universities: a national mixed-methods study

Question: What are the extent and characteristics of clinical placements in private practice for physiotherapy students? What do university clinical education managers perceive to be the benefits, risks, barriers and enablers of clinical placements in private practice for physiotherapy students? What training and support are available for private practitioners? Design: Mixed methods study combining a national survey and in-depth, semi-structured focus group interviews. Participants: Twenty clinical education managers from Australian universities who had graduating students in entry-level physiotherapy programs in 2017 (95% response rate) responded to the survey with data on 2,000 students. Twelve clinical education managers participated in the focus groups. Results: It was found that 44% of physiotherapy graduates in Australia in 2017 completed a 5-week private practice placement. Private practice placement experiences were perceived to be safe and beneficial for students, private practices and universities. The main risks identified by clinical education managers were related to the quality and consistency of the student's experience on placement and not risks to service or clients. The main perceived barriers were time costs (both practitioner and university clinical education managers) and perceived lost earning capacity. Clinical education managers emphasised that more time and resources to establish and support private practitioners would enable them to reduce risk and overcome barriers to increasing private practice placement capacity and quality. Engaging private practitioners and working collaboratively appear vital for establishing, monitoring and supporting private practice placements. Conclusion: By working collaboratively, universities and private practice physiotherapists can enhance private practice placement capacity and quality

Confidence and Attitudes Toward Osteoarthritis Care Among the Current and Emerging Health Workforce: A Multinational Interprofessional Study.

Objective: To measure confidence and attitudes of the current and emerging interprofessional workforce concerning osteoarthritis (OA) care. Methods: Study design is a multinational (Australia, New Zealand, Canada) cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners [GPs], GP registrars, primary care nurses, and physiotherapists) and final-year medical and physiotherapy students. GPs and GP registrars were only sampled in Australia/New Zealand and Australia, respectively. The study outcomes are as follows: confidence in OA knowledge and skills (customized instrument), biomedical attitudes to care (Pain Attitudes Beliefs Scale [PABS]), attitudes toward high- and low-value care (customized items), attitudes toward exercise/physical activity (free-text responses). Results: A total of 1886 clinicians and 1161 students responded. Although a number of interprofessional differences were identified, confidence in OA knowledge and skills was consistently greatest among physiotherapists and lowest among nurses (eg, the mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] for physiotherapist-nurse analyses were 9.3 [7.7-10.9] for knowledge [scale: 11-55] and 14.6 [12.3-17.0] for skills [scale: 16-80]). Similarly, biomedical attitudes were stronger in nurses compared with physiotherapists (6.9 [5.3-8.4]; scale 10-60) and in medical students compared with physiotherapy students (2.0 [1.3-2.7]). Some clinicians and students agreed that people with OA will ultimately require total joint replacement (7%-19% and 19%-22%, respectively), that arthroscopy is an appropriate intervention for knee OA (18%-36% and 35%-44%), and that magnetic resonance imaging is informative for diagnosis and clinical management of hip/knee OA (8%-61% and 21%-52%). Most agreed (90%-98% and 92%-97%) that exercise is indicated and strongly supported by qualitative data. Conclusion: Workforce capacity building that de-emphasizes biomedical management and promotes high-value first-line care options is needed. Knowledge and skills among physiotherapists support leadership roles in OA care for this discipline

Health professionals and students encounter multi-level barriers to implementing high-value osteoarthritis care: a multi-national study

Objective: Consistent evidence-practice gaps in osteoarthritis (OA) care are observed in primary care settings globally. Building workforce capacity to deliver high-value care requires a contemporary understanding of barriers to care delivery. We aimed to explore barriers to OA care delivery among clinicians and students. Design: A cross-sectional, multinational study sampling clinicians (physiotherapists, primary care nurses, general practitioners (GPs), GP registrars; total possible denominator: n = 119,735) and final-year physiotherapy and medical students (denominator: n = 2,215) across Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Respondents answered a survey, aligned to contemporary implementation science domains, which measured barriers to OA care using categorical and free-text responses. Results: 1886 clinicians and 1611 students responded. Items within the domains ‘health system’ and ‘patient-related factors’ represented the most applicable barriers experienced by clinicians (25–42% and 20–36%, respectively), whereas for students, ‘knowledge and skills’ and ‘patient-related factors’ (16–24% and 19–28%, respectively) were the most applicable domains. Meta-synthesis of qualitative data highlighted skills gaps in specific components of OA care (tailoring exercise, nutritional/overweight management and supporting positive behaviour change); assessment, measurement and monitoring; tailoring care; managing case complexity; and translating knowledge to practice (especially among students). Other barriers included general infrastructure limitations (particularly related to community facilities); patient-related factors (e.g., beliefs and compliance); workforce-related factors such as inconsistent care and a general knowledge gap in high-value care; and system and service-level factors relating to financing and time pressures, respectively. Conclusions: Clinicians and students encounter barriers to delivery of high-value OA care in clinical practice/training (micro-level); within service environments (meso-level); and within the health system (macro-level)