Suppr超能文献

首诊物理治疗:临床疗效和成本评估。

First contact physiotherapy: an evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs.

机构信息

Centre for Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.

Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.

出版信息

Br J Gen Pract. 2024 Sep 26;74(747):e717-e726. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2023.0560. Print 2024 Oct.

Abstract

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 ( = 0.667). At 3 months, a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% ( = 47) GP consultees, 72.4% ( = 71) FCPP-St, and 66.4% ( = 101) FCPP-AQ ( = 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%, = 42), compared with FCPP-St (18.4%, = 21) and FCPP-AQ (24.7%, = 40) (<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) (<0.001).

CONCLUSION

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

摘要

背景

第一接触物理治疗师(FCPPs)嵌入在全科医疗中,为患有肌肉骨骼疾病(MSKDs)的患者提供专家评估、诊断和管理计划,而无需事先咨询全科医生。

目的

确定 FCPP 模式与以全科医生为主导的护理模式相比的临床效果和成本。

设计和设置

英国多个地点的普通实践案例研究设计。

方法

招募了以下三种模式的普通实践站点:1)以全科医生为主导的护理;2)不能开处方或注射的 FCPPs(FCPPs-标准 [St]);3)可以开处方和/或注射的 FCPPs(FCPPs-附加资格 [AQ])。每个站点的患者参与者在基线、3 个月和 6 个月时完成了结果数据。主要结果是 SF-36 生理成分综合评分(PCS)。收集了 6 个月的医疗保健使用情况。

结果

总共从英国的 46 个实践中招募了 426 名成年人。非劣效性分析显示,在 6 个月时,所有三个手臂的物理功能(SF-36 PCS)没有显著差异( = 0.667)。在 3 个月时,手臂之间的改善数量存在显著差异:54.7%( = 47)全科医生咨询者,72.4%( = 71)FCPP-St 和 66.4%( = 101)FCPP-AQ( = 0.037)。未发现安全问题。初次咨询后,在以全科医生为主导的治疗组中,接受药物治疗(包括阿片类药物)的患者比例更高(44.7%, = 42),而在 FCPP-St(18.4%, = 21)和 FCPP-AQ(24.7%, = 40)(<0.001)。在以全科医生为主导的模式中,NHS 成本(初始咨询和 6 个月随访)显著高于 FCPP-St(每位患者 105.5 英镑)和 FCPP-AQ(每位患者 41.0 英镑)(<0.001)。

结论

在该队列中,FCPP 主导的护理模式提供了安全、临床有效的患者管理,具有成本效益,并减少了阿片类药物的使用。

相似文献

1
First contact physiotherapy: an evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs.首诊物理治疗:临床疗效和成本评估。
Br J Gen Pract. 2024 Sep 26;74(747):e717-e726. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2023.0560. Print 2024 Oct.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验