Determining priority of access to physiotherapy at Victorian community health services
Alison M. C. Brown A B C and Marie Pirotta AA Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 200 Berkeley Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia. Email: m.pirotta@unimelb.edu.au
B Victorian Healthcare Association, 6/136 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: alison.brown@vha.org.au
Australian Health Review 35(2) 178-184 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09850
Submitted: 26 October 2009 Accepted: 25 August 2010 Published: 25 May 2011
Abstract
Prioritisation of clients requesting physiotherapy in Victorian community health services has occurred in the absence of a uniform evidence-based prioritisation process. The effect of the varying prioritisation procedures on client outcomes is unknown. This two-part study sought to answer two questions: what are the current prioritisation practices? And what is the evidence for prioritisation? Staff of Victorian community health services offering physiotherapy (n = 67) were sent a structured questionnaire regarding their prioritisation practices. The questionnaire data revealed a wide range of poorly defined criteria and methods of assessment for prioritisation. The evidence for prioritisation and the use of specific prioritisation criteria were examined via a literature search. The literature suggested the use of acute severe pain, interference with activities of daily living and falls as indicators of need for priority service. The lack of uniformity found in determining priority of access reflects the complexity of determining need and the lack of research and validated tools to assist decision making. Further research into prioritisation criteria is required to determine their validity and if their use in a prioritisation tool would actually improve outcomes for clients.
What is known about the topic? Although there is some research on medical prioritisation of clients awaiting surgery little is known about prioritisation practices in allied health in general and physiotherapy in particular. There is also little known about client outcomes when clients are either not prioritised or have been incorrectly prioritised. The literature provides expert opinion on the potential usefulness of prioritisation criteria in determining client need.
What does this paper add? This paper highlights the discrepancy between the various poorly defined and complex physiotherapy prioritisation practices that occurred in Victorian Community Health Services at the time of the study and the literature regarding the assessment of need. The underpinning evidence base for uniform prioritisation criteria is explored. Further research is required into the risks and effect on client outcomes of prioritisation.
What are the implications for practitioners? Although practitioners, in the absence of any guidelines, have developed their own prioritisation protocols, the Victorian Department of Health has recently mandated the use of a uniform community health prioritisation procedure for physiotherapy and other allied health services, developed from the findings of this research. This study provides practitioners with an understanding of the evidence base for prioritisation criteria and approaches for assessing criteria in practice.
References
[1] Purtilo RB. Whom to treat first, and how much is enough? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8 26–34.| Whom to treat first, and how much is enough?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1601590PubMed |
[2] MacCormick AD, Collecutt WG, Parry BR. Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73 633–42.
| Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12887536PubMed |
[3] Christie HJ, Gobert AD, Matthew E, Rousseau DC, Webber SC. Waiting list management strategies for outpatient orthopaedic physical therapy. Physiother Can 1997; 49 205–6
[4] Rastall M, Fashanu B. Hospital physiotherapy outpatient department waiting lists: A survey. Physiotherapy 2001; 87 563–72.
| Hospital physiotherapy outpatient department waiting lists: A survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Dawson LJ, Ghazi F. The experience of physiotherapy extended scope practitioners in orthopaedic outpatient clinics. Physiotherapy 2004; 90 210–6.
| The experience of physiotherapy extended scope practitioners in orthopaedic outpatient clinics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Michaud M, Robitaille D, Tousignant T. Interrater reliability study of a prioritization form for orthopaedic outpatients. Physiother Can 1999; 51 180–5.
[7] Derrett S, Devlin N, Harrison A. Waiting in the NHS. Part 2: a change of prescription. J R Soc Med 2002; 95 280–3.
| Waiting in the NHS. Part 2: a change of prescription.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12042373PubMed |
[8] Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) Project. From chaos to order: making sense of waiting lists in Canada. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta; 2001.
[9] Derrett S, Paul C, Herbison P, Williams H. Evaluation of explicit prioritisation for elective surgery: a prospective study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002a; 7 14–22.
| Evaluation of explicit prioritisation for elective surgery: a prospective study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Coleman B, McChesney S, Twaddle B. Does the priority scoring system for joint replacement really identify those in most need? N Z Med J 2005; 118 U1463
| 15915186PubMed |
[11] Edwards RT. Points for pain: waiting list priority scoring systems: may be the way forward but we need to learn more about their effects. BMJ 1999; 318 412–4.
| 9974435PubMed |
[12] Edwards RT, Boland A, Wilkinson C, Cohen D, Williams J. Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales. Health Policy 2003; 63 229–37.
| Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12595123PubMed |
[13] Pain terms: a list with definitions and notes on usage recommended by the IASP Subcommittee on Taxonomy. Pain 1979; 6 249–52.
| 460932PubMed |
[14] Britt H, Miller GC, editors. General practice in Australia, health priorities and policies 1998 to 2008. Joint report by the Uni. Sydney and AIHW. General practice series no. 24. Cat. no. GEP 24. Canberra: AIHW; 2009.
[15] Carers Victoria website. Available at www.carersvic.org.au [verified March 2009].
[16] Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group (AAMPGG). Evidence-based Management of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain – A Guide for Clinicians. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press; 2004.
[17] Bogduk N. Evidence based clinical guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. Chapter 5. NH&MRC; 1999. Available at www.emia.com.au/MedicalProviders/EvidenceBasedMedicine/afmm/ [verified February 2009].
[18] Turner JA, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Egan K, Wickizer TM, Lymp JF, et al Prediction of chronic disability in work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a prospective, population-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2004; 5 14
| 15157280PubMed |
[19] Bogduk N. Chapter 6. In: Evidence based clinical guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. NH&MRC; 1999. Available at https://www.employersmutual.com.au/nsw/links/evidence/musculoskeletal-medicine.pdf [verified February 2009].
[20] Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P. Assessing global pain severity by self report in clinical and health services research. Spine 2000; 25 3140–51.
| Assessing global pain severity by self report in clinical and health services research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11124730PubMed |
[21] Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE. The West Haven Yale multidimensional pain inventory. Pain 1985; 23 345–56.
| The West Haven Yale multidimensional pain inventory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 4088697PubMed |
[22] Hadorn DC, Holmes AC. The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: overview. BMJ 1997; 314 131
| 9006477PubMed |
[23] ICF Introduction. World Health Organization; 2006. Available at www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm?myurl=introduction.html%20&mytitle=Introduction [verified February 2009].
[24] Morris ME, Dodd KJ, Taylor NF. AusTOMs for physiotherapy. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2004.
[25] Service Coordination: Tool Templates. Department of Human Services; 2009. Available at http://www.health.vic.gov.au/pcps/coordination/sctt2006.htm#forms [verified July 2009].
[26] Evidence-based health promotion: Resources for planning – No. 3 Falls Prevention. Melbourne: Department of Human Services, Public Health Division; 2001.
[27] Hindmarsh JJ, Estes EH. Falls in older persons: causes and interventions. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149 2217–22.
| Falls in older persons: causes and interventions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 2679474PubMed |
[28] Murphy SL, Dubin JA, Gill TM. The development of fear of falling among community living older women: predisposing factors and subsequent falls events. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2003; 58 M943–7.
| 14570863PubMed |
[29] Powell LE, Myers AM. The activities-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1995; 50A M28–34.
| 7814786PubMed |
[30] Apley AG. Apley’s system of orthopaedics and fractures. London: Butterworth Scientific; 1982.
[31] Koes BW, Van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, Burton A, Waddell G. Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine 2001; 26 2504–13.
| Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11707719PubMed |
[32] Neubauer E, Junge A, Pirron P, Seemann H, Schiltenwolf M. HKF-R 10 – screening for predicting chronicity in acute low back pain (LBP): a prospective clinical trial. Eur J Pain 2006; 10 559–66. [Published online ahead of print 3 October 2005]
| HKF-R 10 – screening for predicting chronicity in acute low back pain (LBP): a prospective clinical trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16202634PubMed |
[33] Hunter J. Physical symptoms and signs and chronic pain. Clin J Pain 2001; 17 S26–32.
| Physical symptoms and signs and chronic pain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11783828PubMed |
[34] Outcome measures database. Chartered Society of Physiotherapists; 2006. Available at www.csp.org.uk/director/effectivepractice/outcomemeasures.cfm [verified February 2009].
[35] Guidelines for the HACC Priority of Access Tool Version 3 (Poa3). National Ageing Research Institute; 2004. Available at www.mednwh.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/POA/POA3_guidelines.pdf [verified August 2005].
[36] Community Health Priority Tools. Department of Health; 2009. Available at http://www.health.vic.gov.au/communityhealth/downloads/community_health_priority_tools.pdf [verified August 2010].
