An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) and Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) in General Practice (GP): A Novel GP-based MSK and SEM Clinic for Managing Musculoskeletal symptoms in a GP

Musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints are common within primary care (1) (2) (3) but some General Practitioners (GPs)/family physicians do not feel comfortable managing these symptoms (3), preferring to refer onto hospital specialists or Integrated Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services (ICATs). Long waiting times for hospital outpatient reviews are a major cause of patient inconvenience and complaints (4). We therefore aimed to establish a GP-ran MSK and sport and exercise medicine (SEM) clinic based within a Belfast GP surgery that would contribute to a sustainable improvement in managing these common conditions within primary care as well as reducing waiting times for patients with these conditions to see a specialist. This shift from hospital-based to community-based management is in-keeping with recent policy changes within the UK health-system, including Transforming Your Care within Northern Ireland (NI) (5). The GP-ran MSK and SEM clinic was held monthly within a Belfast GP practice, staffed by one GP with a specialist interest in MSK and SEM conditions and its performance was reviewed over a three month period. Parameters audited included cases seen, orthopaedic and x-ray referral rates and secondary care referrals comparing the GP practice’s performance to the same time period in the previous year as well as patient satisfaction questionnaires.

How should teaching on whole person medicine, including spiritual issues, be delivered in the undergraduate medical curriculum in the United Kingdom?

Background

Although the General Medical Council recommends that United Kingdom medical students are taught ‘whole person medicine’, spiritual care is variably recognised within the curriculum. Data on teaching delivery and attainment of learning outcomes is lacking. This study ascertained views of Faculty and students about spiritual care and how to teach and assess competence in delivering such care.

A questionnaire comprising 28 questions exploring attitudes to whole person medicine, spirituality and illness, and training of healthcare staff in providing spiritual care was designed using a five-point Likert scale. Free text comments were studied by thematic analysis. The questionnaire was distributed to 1300 students and 106 Faculty at Queen’s University Belfast Medical School.

351 responses (54 staff, 287 students; 25 %) were obtained. >90 % agreed that whole person medicine included physical, psychological and social components; 60 % supported inclusion of a spiritual component within the definition. Most supported availability of spiritual interventions for patients, including access to chaplains (71 %), counsellors (62 %), or members of the patient’s faith community (59 %). 90 % felt that personal faith/spirituality was important to some patients and 60 % agreed that this influenced health. However 80 % felt that doctors should never/rarely share their own spiritual beliefs with patients and 67 % felt they should only do so when specifically invited. Most supported including training on provision of spiritual care within the curriculum; 40-50 % felt this should be optional and 40 % mandatory. Small group teaching was the favoured delivery method. 64 % felt that teaching should not be assessed, but among assessment methods, reflective portfolios were most favoured (30 %). Students tended to hold more polarised viewpoints but generally were more favourably disposed towards spiritual care than Faculty. Respecting patients’ values and beliefs and the need for guidance in provision of spiritual care were identified in the free-text comments.

Students and Faculty generally recognise a spiritual dimension to health and support provision of spiritual care to appropriate patients. There is lack of consensus whether this should be delivered by doctors or left to others. Spiritual issues impacting patient management should be included in the curriculum; agreement is lacking about how to deliver and assess.

A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for the management of low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) in pregnancy

Aim: To evaluate and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for the management of low back pain and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Background: International research demonstrates that 25-30% of women use complementary and alternative medicine to manage low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy without robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness.

Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for low back and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Data Sources: Cochrane library (1898-2013), PubMed (1996-2013), MEDLINE (1946-2013), AMED (1985-2013), Embase (1974-2013), Cinahl (1937-2013), Index to Thesis (1716-2013) and Ethos (1914-2013).

Review Methods: Selected studies were written in English, randomized controlled trials, a group 1 or 2 therapy and reported pain reduction as an outcome measure. Study quality was reviewed using Risk of Bias and evidence strength the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations and Development Evaluation Tool.

Results: Eight studies were selected for full review. Two acupuncture studies with low risk of bias showed both clinically important changes and statistically significant results. There was evidence of effectiveness for osteopathy and chiropractic. However, osteopathy and chiropractic studies scored high for risk of bias. Strength of the evidence across studies was very low.

Conclusion: There is limited evidence supporting the use of general CAM for managing pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic pain. However, the restricted availability of high-quality studies, combined with the very low evidence strength, makes it impossible to make evidence-based recommendations for practice.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) and Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) in General Practice (GP): A Novel GP-based clinic

The problem-Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common within primary care but some GPs are not comfortable managing these; waiting times for hospital appointments are a major cause of patients’ complaints. Current UK healthcare policies emphasise a need for more community-based management. We aimed to pilot an innovative general practice-based clinic to improve the management of MSK and Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) symptoms within general practice.

The approach-This project was conducted in an inner-city practice of approximately 9,000 patients and 5 GP partners. The practice commissioned a novel monthly 4-hour clinic staffed by one GP with a specialist interest in MSK and SEM conditions. Each patient was allocated a 20-minute appointment. All primary care staff within the practice could refer any patient for whom they considered hospital referral appropriate, with no specific exclusion criteria. Management plans included injection therapy, exercise prescription and onward referral. After three months (August-October 2014) numbers of consultations, sources of referral, reasons for referral and management outcomes were described; patient satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire, offered to 10 randomly selected patients by reception staff and self-completed by patients. Costs of the clinic were compared to current options.

Findings- All patients (14 males; 21 females; aged 35-77 years), were seen within four weeks of referral (one third of orthopaedic referrals in 2013 waited over 9 weeks for appointment). Most were referred from other GPs; some came from physiotherapy and podiatry. Shoulder problems were the most frequent reason for referral. The commonest management option was steroid injection, with most patients being given advice regarding exercise and analgesia; there were 3 onward referrals (2 physiotherapy; 1 rheumatology).

Comparing August-October data in 2014 and 2013, total, orthopaedic and rheumatology referrals were reduced by 147, 2 and 3, respectively; within the practice MSK presentations and physiotherapy and x-ray referrals were 60, 47 and 90 fewer, respectively.

The cost per attendance at the clinic was £61; initial orthopaedic-ICAT assessments cost £82 and a consultant appointment £213.

Satisfaction questionnaires were returned by all 10 selected participants and provided positive feedback, expressing preference for community-based, rather than hospital, management.

Consequence- Our pilot study indicates that this novel service model has potential for efficient and effective management of MSK and SEM complaints in primary care, reducing the need for hospital referral and the clinical burden on general practices. The innovation deserves further evaluation in a full-scale trial to determine its generalisability to other practice settings and populations.