Lindsey Brown-Taylor1, Andrew Lynch2, Randi Foraker3, Marcie Harris-Hayes4, Bryant Walrod5, W Kelton Vasileff6, Kathryn Glaws7, Stephanie Di Stasi8. 1. DPT, PhD, Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center of Innovation, Veterans Affairs, 500 Foothill Dr, Building 2, Room 2C10A, Salt Lake City, UT, 84148 (USA). 2. Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 4. DPT, MS, Program in Physical Therapy and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. 5. Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio; and Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University. 6. Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University. 7. DPT, Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. 8. Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and Division of Physical Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical therapy and surgery are viable treatment options for nonarthritic hip disease (NAHD). Interdisciplinary collaboration can help patients make informed treatment decisions. Understanding how each provider can contribute is a critical first step in developing collaborative evaluation efforts. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the current evaluation of NAHD by both physical therapists and physicians, and evaluate national use of expert-recommended evaluation guidelines. DESIGN: A national survey study distributed in the United States was implemented to accomplish the objective. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 25,027 potential physical therapist and physician respondents. Respondents detailed their evaluation content for patients with NAHD across the following domains: patient-reported outcomes, patient history, special tests, movement assessment, clinical tests, and imaging. Respondents ranked importance of each domain using a 5-point Likert scale (not important, slightly important, important, very important, or extremely important). Odds ratios (ORs [95% CIs]) were calculated to identify the odds that physical therapists, compared with physicians, would report each evaluation domain as at least very important. Fisher exact tests were performed to identify statistically significant ORs. RESULTS: Nine hundred and fourteen participants (3.6%) completed the survey. Physical therapists were more likely to indicate movement assessment (OR: 4.23 [2.99-6.02]) and patient-reported outcomes (OR: 2.56 [1.67-3.99]) as at least very important for determining a diagnosis and plan of care. Physical therapists had lower odds of rating imaging (OR: 0.09 [0.06-0.14]) and special tests (OR: 0.72 [0.53-0.98]) as at least very important compared with physicians. LIMITATIONS: This survey study did not include many orthopedic surgeons and thus, primarily represents evaluation practices of physical therapists and nonsurgical physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapists were more likely to consider movement assessment very important for the evaluation of patients with NAHD, whereas physicians were more likely to consider imaging and special testing very important.
BACKGROUND: Physical therapy and surgery are viable treatment options for nonarthritic hip disease (NAHD). Interdisciplinary collaboration can help patients make informed treatment decisions. Understanding how each provider can contribute is a critical first step in developing collaborative evaluation efforts. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the current evaluation of NAHD by both physical therapists and physicians, and evaluate national use of expert-recommended evaluation guidelines. DESIGN: A national survey study distributed in the United States was implemented to accomplish the objective. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 25,027 potential physical therapist and physician respondents. Respondents detailed their evaluation content for patients with NAHD across the following domains: patient-reported outcomes, patient history, special tests, movement assessment, clinical tests, and imaging. Respondents ranked importance of each domain using a 5-point Likert scale (not important, slightly important, important, very important, or extremely important). Odds ratios (ORs [95% CIs]) were calculated to identify the odds that physical therapists, compared with physicians, would report each evaluation domain as at least very important. Fisher exact tests were performed to identify statistically significant ORs. RESULTS: Nine hundred and fourteen participants (3.6%) completed the survey. Physical therapists were more likely to indicate movement assessment (OR: 4.23 [2.99-6.02]) and patient-reported outcomes (OR: 2.56 [1.67-3.99]) as at least very important for determining a diagnosis and plan of care. Physical therapists had lower odds of rating imaging (OR: 0.09 [0.06-0.14]) and special tests (OR: 0.72 [0.53-0.98]) as at least very important compared with physicians. LIMITATIONS: This survey study did not include many orthopedic surgeons and thus, primarily represents evaluation practices of physical therapists and nonsurgical physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapists were more likely to consider movement assessment very important for the evaluation of patients with NAHD, whereas physicians were more likely to consider imaging and special testing very important.
Authors: T Sean Lynch; Anas Minkara; Stephen Aoki; Asheesh Bedi; Srino Bharam; John Clohisy; Joshua Harris; Christopher Larson; Jeffrey Nepple; Shane Nho; Marc Philippon; James Rosneck; Marc Safran; Allston J Stubbs; Robert Westermann; J W Thomas Byrd Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Ryan P McGovern; John J Christoforetti; RobRoy L Martin; Amy L Phelps; Benjamin R Kivlan Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Damian R Griffin; Edward J Dickenson; Peter D H Wall; Felix Achana; Jenny L Donovan; James Griffin; Rachel Hobson; Charles E Hutchinson; Marcus Jepson; Nick R Parsons; Stavros Petrou; Alba Realpe; Joanna Smith; Nadine E Foster Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 79.321