Patient satisfaction with physiotherapists is not inferior to surgeons in an arthroplasty review clinic: non-inferiority study of an expanded scope model of care
Michael Thomas Murphy
A B D and John Radovanovic C
A Physiotherapy Department, Mater Hospital Brisbane, Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Qld 4101, Australia.
B Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.
C Department of Orthopaedics, Mater Hospital Brisbane, Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Qld 4101, Australia. Email: john.radovanovic@mater.org.au
D Corresponding author. Email: michael.murphy@mater.org.au
Australian Health Review - https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19217
Submitted: 19 September 2019 Accepted: 11 March 2020 Published online: 21 December 2020
Abstract
Objective This study evaluated whether the satisfaction of patients attending a physiotherapy-led postarthroplasty review out-patient clinic was non-inferior to that of patients attending traditional surgeon clinics.
Methods Using a modified nine-item Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument (VSQ-9), 50 patients attending the physiotherapy clinic and 50 patients attending surgeon clinics were surveyed. Sample means (±s.d.) were calculated for each domain of the VSQ-9. Non-inferiority testing was performed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the adjusted mean difference to examine whether normalised patient satisfaction scores in the physiotherapy group were no worse than those in the surgeon group.
Results Both groups were satisfied (overall domain; 100% of both groups rated good–excellent). Based on mean item score, there was strong evidence that the satisfaction of the physiotherapy group was non-inferior to that of the surgeon group (adjusted mean difference (physiotherapy – surgeon) in mean score 5.1 (95% CI –0.3, 10.4). Furthermore, the mean differences in all but one of the nine domains were in favour of the physiotherapy group in this study.
Conclusion The satisfaction of patients attending a physiotherapy arthroplasty review clinic is not inferior to that of patients attending traditional surgeon clinics.
What is known about the topic? A substitution model of care where an advanced practice physiotherapist reviews routine postarthroplasty patients instead of surgeons originated in the UK and has been adopted in Canada and Australia to address the increasingly overloaded public out-patient health services. Evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness has been demonstrated but, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, only one paper has evaluated consumer engagement, and that paper was in a Canadian population.
What does this paper add? This study evaluated the satisfaction of patients in an Australian public healthcare system and was able to demonstrate that patients seen by physiotherapists were no less satisfied than those seen by surgeons in traditional clinics. The findings support those reported in the Canadian study. This is an important step in the development and acceptance of these substitution model of care innovations locally.
What are the implications for practitioners? The results of this study will provide an important addition to the evidence of the clinical efficacy of this model of care: that of consumer acceptance. This will assist with planning, expansion and rollout of similar initiatives in Australia.
Keywords: consumers, health services, out-patients, physiotherapy, primary health care.
References
[1] Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA). National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR): hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty. Annual report 2018. Adelaide: AOA; 2018. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/576950/Hip%2C%20Knee%20%26%20Shoulder%20Arthroplasty [verified 30 July 2020].[2] Ackerman IN, Bohensky MA, Zomer E, Tacey M, Gorelik A, Brand CA, de Steiger R. The projected burden of primary total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis in Australia to the year 2030. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20 90
| The projected burden of primary total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis in Australia to the year 2030.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30797228PubMed |
[3] McPherson K, Kersten P, George S, Lattimer V, Breton A, Ellis B, Kaur D, Frampton G. A systematic review of evidence about extended roles for allied health professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy 2006; 11 240–7.
| A systematic review of evidence about extended roles for allied health professionals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17018199PubMed |
[4] Stanhope J, Grimmer-Somers K, Milanese S, Kumar S, Morris J. Extended scope physiotherapy roles for orthopedic outpatients: an update systematic review of the literature. J Multidiscip Healthc 2012; 5 37–45.
| 22359462PubMed |
[5] Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 984–91.
| Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18534466PubMed |
[6] March LM, Cross MJ, Lapsley H, Brnabic AJM, Tribe KL, Bachmeier CJM, Courtenay BG, Brooks PM. Outcomes after hip or knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study comparing patients’ quality of life before and after surgery with age-related population norms. Med J Aust 1999; 171 235–8.
| Outcomes after hip or knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study comparing patients’ quality of life before and after surgery with age-related population norms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10495753PubMed |
[7] Lovelock TM, Broughton NS. Follow-up after arthroplasty of the hip and knee: are we over-servicing or under-caring? Bone Joint J 2018; 100 6–10.
| 29305444PubMed |
[8] Broughton N, Collopy D, Solomon M. Arthroplasty Society of Australia position statement on follow-up of joint replacement patients. Adelaide: Arthroplasty Society of Australia; 2016. Available at: https://test.aoa.org.au/docs/default-source/advocacy/asa-position-statement-follow-up-of-hip-and-knee-arthroplasty-october-2016b.pdf?sfvrsn=9668c404_6 [verified 30 July 2020].
[9] Kersten P, McPherson K, Lattimer V, George S, Breton A, Ellis B. Physiotherapy extended scope of practice – who is doing what and why? Physiotherapy 2007; 93 235–42.
| Physiotherapy extended scope of practice – who is doing what and why?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Kennedy DM, Robarts S, Woodhouse L. Patients are satisfied with advanced practice physiotherapists in a role traditionally performed by orthopaedic surgeons. Physiother Can 2010; 62 298–305.
| Patients are satisfied with advanced practice physiotherapists in a role traditionally performed by orthopaedic surgeons.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21886368PubMed |
[11] Large KE, Page CJ, Brock K, Dowsey MM, Choong PF. Physiotherapy-led arthroplasty review clinic: a preliminary outcomes analysis. Aust Health Rev 2014; 38 510–16.
| Physiotherapy-led arthroplasty review clinic: a preliminary outcomes analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25297119PubMed |
[12] Harding P, Burge A, Walter K, Shaw B, Page C, Phan U, Terrill D, Liew S. Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapists in post arthroplasty review clinics: a state wide implementation program evaluation. Physiotherapy 2018; 104 98–106.
| Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapists in post arthroplasty review clinics: a state wide implementation program evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28964524PubMed |
[13] Walton MJ, Walton JC, Bell M, Scammell BE. The effectiveness of physiotherapist-led arthroplasty follow-up clinics. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90 117–19.
| The effectiveness of physiotherapist-led arthroplasty follow-up clinics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18325209PubMed |
[14] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). The National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards: 2. Partnering with consumers. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2012. Available at: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/standards/nsqhs-standards/partnering-consumers-standard [verified 30 July 2020].
[15] RAND Health Care. Visit-specific satisfaction instrument (VSQ-9). 2020. Available at: https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/vsq9.html [verified 30 July 2020].
[16] Rubin HR, Gandek B, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, McHorney CA, Ware JE. Patients’ ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1993; 270 835–40.
| Patients’ ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings: results from the Medical Outcomes Study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 8340982PubMed |
[17] Harris C, Ko H, Waller C, Sloss P, Williams P. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 4: exploring opportunities and methods for consumer engagement in resource allocation in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 329
| Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 4: exploring opportunities and methods for consumer engagement in resource allocation in a local healthcare setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28476155PubMed |
[18] Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, Lyman S, Denissen G, Dawson J, Dunn J, Eresian Chenok K, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Lubbeke A. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 2016; 87 9–23.
| Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27228230PubMed |
[19] Bourne RB, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K. Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA: is there a difference? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 542–6.
| Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA: is there a difference?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19760472PubMed |
