Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on May 16, 2003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rheumatology 2003; 42: 1074-1078
© 2003 British Society for Rheumatology
A national qualitative survey of community-based musculoskeletal services in the UK
University of Sheffield, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU,
1 Unit for Professional Development, Trent Postgraduate Deanery, Postgraduate Education Centre, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH,
2 Department of Rheumatology, Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust, Gawber Road, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S75 2EP and
3 Barts and the London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End, London E1 4NS, UK
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.
KEY WORDS: Musculoskeletal, Primary care organizations, Intermediate care, Qualitative, Clinical governance.
Correspondence to: C. Roberts. E-mail: c.roberts1{at}sheffield.ac.uk
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. L. Mitchell, A. J. Carr, and D. L. Scott The management of knee pain in primary care: factors associated with consulting the GP and referrals to secondary care Rheumatology, June 1, 2006; 45(6): 771 - 776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. M. Hay and A. Adebajo Musculoskeletal general practitioners with special interests: where are we up to? Rheumatology, October 1, 2005; 44(10): 1210 - 1211. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. G. Dubey, C. Roberts, A. O. Adebajo, and M. L. Snaith Rheumatology training in the United Kingdom: the trainees' perspective Rheumatology, July 1, 2004; 43(7): 896 - 900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|