Implementation of musculoskeletal Models of Care in primary care settings: Theory, practice, evaluation and outcomes for musculoskeletal health in high-income economies

Musculoskeletal conditions represent one of the largest causes of years lived with disability in high-income economies. These conditions are predominantly managed in primary care settings, and yet, there is a paucity of evidence on which approaches work well in increasing the uptake of best practice and in closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Increasingly, musculoskeletal models of service delivery (as components of models of care) such as integrated care, stratified care and therapist-led care have been tested in primary health care pathways for joint pain in older adults, for low back pain and for arthritis. In this chapter, we discuss why implementation of these models is important for primary care and how models are implemented using three case examples: we review implementation theory, principles and outcomes; we consider the role of health economic evaluation; and we propose key evidence gaps in this field. We propose the following research priorities for this area: investigating the generalisability of models of care across, for example, urban and rural settings, and for different musculoskeletal conditions; increasing support for self-management; understanding the importance of context in choosing a model of care; detailing how implementation has been undertaken; and evaluation of implementation and its impact

Development of a behaviour change intervention: a case study on the practical application of theory

BACKGROUND: Use of theory in implementation of complex interventions is widely recommended. A complex trial intervention, to enhance self-management support for people with osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care, needed to be implemented in the Managing Osteoarthritis in Consultations (MOSAICS) trial. One component of the trial intervention was delivery by general practitioners (GPs) of an enhanced consultation for patients with OA. The aim of our case study is to describe the systematic selection and use of theory to develop a behaviour change intervention to implement GP delivery of the enhanced consultation. METHODS: The development of the behaviour change intervention was guided by four theoretical models/frameworks: i) an implementation of change model to guide overall approach, ii) the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify relevant determinants of change, iii) a model for the selection of behaviour change techniques to address identified determinants of behaviour change, and iv) the principles of adult learning. Methods and measures to evaluate impact of the behaviour change intervention were identified. RESULTS: The behaviour change intervention presented the GPs with a well-defined proposal for change; addressed seven of the TDF domains (e.g., knowledge, skills, motivation and goals); incorporated ten behaviour change techniques (e.g., information provision, skills rehearsal, persuasive communication); and was delivered in workshops that valued the expertise and professional values of GPs. The workshops used a mixture of interactive and didactic sessions, were facilitated by opinion leaders, and utilised 'context-bound communication skills training.' Methods and measures selected to evaluate the behaviour change intervention included: appraisal of satisfaction with workshops, GP report of intention to practise and an assessment of video-recorded consultations of GPs with patients with OA. CONCLUSIONS: A stepped approach to the development of a behaviour change intervention, with the utilisation of theoretical frameworks to identify determinants of change matched with behaviour change techniques, has enabled a systematic and theory-driven development of an intervention designed to enhance consultations by GPs for patients with OA. The success of the behaviour change intervention in practice will be evaluated in the context of the MOSAICS trial as a whole, and will inform understanding of practice level and patient outcomes in the trial

A nurse-led clinic for patients consulting with osteoarthritis in general practice: development and impact of training in a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Despite a lack of service provision for people with osteoarthritis (OA), each year 1 in 5 of the general population consults a GP about a musculoskeletal condition such as OA. Consequently this may provide an opportunity for practice nurses to take an active role in helping patients manage their condition. A nurse led clinic for supporting patients with OA was developed for the MOSAICS study investigating how to implement the NICE 2014 OA Guideline core recommendations. This paper has two main objectives, firstly to provide an overview of the nurse-led OA clinic, and secondly to describe the development, key learning objectives, content and impact of the training to support its delivery. Methods: A training programme was developed and delivered to provide practice nurses with the knowledge and skill set needed to run the nurse-led OA clinic. The impact of the training programme on knowledge, confidence and OA management was evaluated using case report forms and pre and post training questionnaires. Results: The pre-training questionnaire identified a gap between what practice nurses feel they can do and what they should be doing in line with NICE OA guidelines. Evaluation of the training suggests that it enabled practice nurses to feel more knowledgeable and confident in supporting patients to manage their OA and this was reflected in the clinical management patients received in the nurse-led OA clinics. Conclusions: A significant gap between what is recommended and what practice nurses feel they can currently provide in terms of OA management was evident. The development of a nurse training programme goes some way to develop a system in primary care for delivering the core recommendations by NICE

Effect of a model consultation informed by guideline on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

Objective To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice. Design Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK. Participants General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA. Intervention Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators. Outcomes Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record. Results 1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4–28%), exercise (4–22%) and weight loss (1–15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1–3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38). Conclusions The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care

EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the clinical management of peripheral joint osteoarthritis

The increased information provided by modern imaging has led to its more extensive use. Our aim was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of imaging in the clinical management of the most common arthropathy, osteoarthritis (OA). A task force (including rheumatologists, radiologists, methodologists, primary care doctors and patients) from nine countries defined 10 questions on the role of imaging in OA to support a systematic literature review (SLR). Joints of interest were the knee, hip, hand and foot; imaging modalities included conventional radiography (CR), MRI, ultrasonography, CT and nuclear medicine. PubMed and EMBASE were searched. The evidence was presented to the task force who subsequently developed the recommendations. The strength of agreement for each recommendation was assessed. 17 011 references were identified from which 390 studies were included in the SLR. Seven recommendations were produced, covering the lack of need for diagnostic imaging in patients with typical symptoms; the role of imaging in differential diagnosis; the lack of benefit in monitoring when no therapeutic modification is related, though consideration is required when unexpected clinical deterioration occurs; CR as the first-choice imaging modality; consideration of how to correctly acquire images and the role of imaging in guiding local injections. Recommendations for future research were also developed based on gaps in evidence, such as the use of imaging in identifying therapeutic targets, and demonstrating the added value of imaging. These evidence-based recommendations and related research agenda provide the basis for sensible use of imaging in routine clinical assessment of people with OA

Inequalities in primary care management of knee pain and disability in older adults: an observational cohort study

Objectives. To describe primary care management of knee pain, in relation to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) OA guidelines, and examine variation in management by patient characteristics

Chronotype and environmental light exposure in a student population

In humans and most other species, changes in the intensity and duration of light provide a critical set of signals for the synchronisation of the circadian system to the astronomical day. The timing of activity within the 24 h day defines an individual’s chronotype, i.e. morning, intermediate or evening type. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between environmental light exposure, due to geographical location, on the chronotype of university students. Over 6 000 university students from cities in the Northern Hemisphere (Oxford, Munich and Groningen) and Southern Hemisphere (Perth, Melbourne and Auckland) completed the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire. In parallel, light measures (daily irradiance, timing of sunrise and sunset) were compiled from satellite or ground stations at each of these locations. Our data shows that later mid-sleep point on free days (corrected for oversleep on weekends MFSsc) is associated with (i) residing further from the equator, (ii) a later sunset, (iii) spending more time outside and (iv) waking from sleep significantly after sunrise. However, surprisingly, MSFscdid not correlate with daily light intensity at the different geographical locations. Although these findings appear to contradict earlier studies suggesting that in the wider population increased light exposure is associated with an earlier chronotype, our findings are derived exclusively from a student population aged between 17 and 26 years. We therefore suggest that the age and occupation of our population increase the likelihood that these individuals will experience relatively little light exposure in the morning whilst encountering more light exposure later in the day, when light has a delaying effect upon the circadian system

Cost-effectiveness of a model consultation to support self-management in patients with osteoarthritis

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a model OA consultation for OA to support self-management compared with usual care. Methods: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the three-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire was undertaken from a UK National Health Service perspective alongside a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: Differences in health outcomes between the model OA consultation and usual care arms were not statistically significant. On average, visits to the orthopaedic surgeon were lower in the model OA consultation arm by -0.28 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.06). The cost-utility analysis indicated that the model OA consultation was associated with a non-significant incremental cost of £-13.11 (95% CI: -81.09 to 54.85) and an incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) of -0.003 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02), with a 44% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. The percentage of participants who took time off and the associated productivity cost were lower in the model OA consultation arm. Conclusion: Implementing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines using a model OA consultation in primary care does not appear to lead to increased costs, but health outcomes remain very similar to usual care. Even though the intervention seems to reduce the demand for orthopaedic surgery, overall it is unlikely to be cost-effective