OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics of community-based musculoskeletal services provided by primary care organizations within the UK. METHODS: Members of five professional groups within UK primary care organizations (n=461) were sent a questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate by organization was 71% (328/461). Respondents described 350 community-based musculoskeletal services, 233/328 (71%) organizations had one or more musculoskeletal services within their community. Five main forms of service provision were: a scanning service, a rehabilitation service, physiotherapy services, joint or soft tissue injections and the implementation of integrated care pathways. In 162 services, patients were assessed, reviewed or triaged, by a 'non-consultant' health-care professional (physiotherapist or general practitioner), at an intermediate level between primary and secondary care. The purpose of the service was described in 292/350 services, only 39/350 had clear evaluation strategies and 53/350 had consideration of individual training needs. CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide range of musculoskeletal services flourishing within the community sector, whose quality may be variable. Whilst there is good evidence to suggest systematic planning of these services, we are concerned about the lack of data to support their effectiveness in terms of clinical outcomes, monitoring of service delivery standards and ongoing professional development of service providers. Commissioners of such services must ensure they have taken account of the evidence base and met any identified needs of local populations. Services should have a clear purpose with an appropriate evaluation strategy, and well-defined dissemination mechanisms. An integrated educational strategy for staff within the service must be sensitive to issues relating to accreditation, appraisal and revalidation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics of community-based musculoskeletal services provided by primary care organizations within the UK. METHODS: Members of five professional groups within UK primary care organizations (n=461) were sent a questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate by organization was 71% (328/461). Respondents described 350 community-based musculoskeletal services, 233/328 (71%) organizations had one or more musculoskeletal services within their community. Five main forms of service provision were: a scanning service, a rehabilitation service, physiotherapy services, joint or soft tissue injections and the implementation of integrated care pathways. In 162 services, patients were assessed, reviewed or triaged, by a 'non-consultant' health-care professional (physiotherapist or general practitioner), at an intermediate level between primary and secondary care. The purpose of the service was described in 292/350 services, only 39/350 had clear evaluation strategies and 53/350 had consideration of individual training needs. CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide range of musculoskeletal services flourishing within the community sector, whose quality may be variable. Whilst there is good evidence to suggest systematic planning of these services, we are concerned about the lack of data to support their effectiveness in terms of clinical outcomes, monitoring of service delivery standards and ongoing professional development of service providers. Commissioners of such services must ensure they have taken account of the evidence base and met any identified needs of local populations. Services should have a clear purpose with an appropriate evaluation strategy, and well-defined dissemination mechanisms. An integrated educational strategy for staff within the service must be sensitive to issues relating to accreditation, appraisal and revalidation.
Authors: Majid Artus; Danielle A van der Windt; Ebenezer K Afolabi; Rachelle Buchbinder; Linda S Chesterton; Alison Hall; Edward Roddy; Nadine E Foster Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrew James Price; Reuben Ogollah; Sujin Kang; Elaine Hay; Karen L Barker; Elena Benedetto; Stephanie Smith; James Smith; James B Galloway; Benjamin Ellis; Jonathan Rees; Sion Glyn-Jones; David Beard; Ray Fitzpatrick; Jonathan C Hill Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.692