RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis, principally affecting the older population. Highly prevalent, disabling diseases such as osteoarthritis strain the capacity of health systems, and can result in unmet need for services. The Joint Clinic was initiated to provide secondary care consultations and access to outpatient services for people with advanced hip or knee osteoarthritis, who were referred by their general practitioner for orthopaedic consultation but not offered an orthopaedic specialist appointment. METHODS: This longitudinal programme evaluation comprised four components: a proof-of-concept evaluation; an implementation evaluation; a process evaluation; and an outcomes evaluation. Interviews and surveys of general practitioners, staff, and patients were conducted pre- and post-implementation. Interviews were transcribed, and thematic analysis was completed. In addition, Joint Clinic patient visits and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven primary care physicians (GPs) and 66 patients were surveyed, and 28 semi-structured interviews of hospital staff and GPs were conducted. Proof of concept was satisfied. Interim and final implementation evaluations indicated adherence to the concept model, high levels of acceptance of and confidence in the programme and its staff, and timely completion within budget. Process evaluation revealed positive impacts of the programme and positive stakeholder perceptions, with some weaknesses in communication to the outer context of primary care. The Joint Clinic saw a total of 637 patient visits during 2 years of operation. Unmet need was reduced by 90%. Patient and referring physician satisfaction was high. Hospital management confirmed that the programme will continue. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation indicates that the Joint Clinic concept model is fit for purpose, functioned well within the organisation, and achieved its primary objective of reducing unmet need of secondary care consultation for those suffering advanced hip or knee osteoarthritis.
Asunto(s)
Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , Osteoartritis de la Cadera/diagnóstico , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla/diagnóstico , Derivación y Consulta/organización & administración , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Atención Ambulatoria/estadística & datos numéricos , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Necesidades y Demandas de Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Osteoartritis de la Cadera/terapia , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla/terapia , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: A factorial randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the addition of manual therapy to exercise therapy for the reduction of pain and increase of physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA), and whether "booster sessions" compared to consecutive sessions may improve outcomes. BACKGROUND: The benefits of providing manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy, or of distributing treatment sessions over time using periodic booster sessions, in people with knee OA are not well established. METHODS: All participants had knee OA and were provided 12 sessions of multimodal exercise therapy supervised by a physical therapist. Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 groups: exercise therapy in consecutive sessions, exercise therapy distributed over a year using booster sessions, exercise therapy plus manual therapy without booster sessions, and exercise therapy plus manual therapy with booster sessions. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC score; 0-240 scale) at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the numeric pain-rating scale and physical performance tests. RESULTS: Of 75 participants recruited, 66 (88%) were retained at 1-year follow-up. Factorial analysis of covariance of the main effects showed significant benefit from booster sessions (P = .009) and manual therapy (P = .023) over exercise therapy alone. Group analysis showed that exercise therapy with booster sessions (WOMAC score, -46.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -80.0, -12.0) and exercise therapy plus manual therapy (WOMAC score, -37.5 points; 95% CI: -69.7, -5.5) had superior effects compared with exercise therapy alone. The combined strategy of exercise therapy plus manual therapy with booster sessions was not superior to exercise therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Distributing 12 sessions of exercise therapy over a year in the form of booster sessions was more effective than providing 12 consecutive exercise therapy sessions. Providing manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy improved treatment effectiveness compared to providing 12 consecutive exercise therapy sessions alone. Trial registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612000460808).