Use of high and low velocity cervical manipulative therapy procedures by Australian manipulative physiotherapists

The use of cervical manipulation presents concerns because of a risk of devastating side effects of trauma to the vertebral artery. Little is known about the frequency of use of cervical manipulation versus passive mobilisation by physiotherapists. A recent national, multi-centre randomised clinical trial of the physiotherapy management of cervicogenic headache provided an opportunity to gain an insight into practices of a sample of manipulative physiotherapists across Australia. The treatment records for the 100 subjects who received only manipulative therapy, or manipulative therapy with exercise as per the trial protocol, were audited. The results revealed that cervical manipulation was used in 20.2% of the 1090 treatments provided to these subjects but cervical joint mobilisation only was used in the vast majority of treatments (77.6%). Nevertheless, 42% of subjects were treated with cervical manipulation at some time. In most instances, manipulation was accompanied by passive mobilisation in the same treatment session. Patients were manipulated on one to six occasions and this occurred predominantly in the latter half of the 12-treatment program. Cervical manipulation was used less frequently in the group who also received exercise. The data suggest that the physiotherapists participating in this study used cervical manipulation selectively and relatively conservatively considering the high use of cervical mobilisation techniques. This may reflect their due regard to safety in the treatment of the cervical region.

Quality of care of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes

Background: Measurement and improvement of quality of care is a priority issue in health care. Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitute a high-risk population whose care, if shown to be suboptimal on the basis of available research evidence, may benefit from quality improvement interventions. Aim: To evaluate the quality of in-hospital care for patients with ACS, using explicit quality indicators. Methods: Retrospective case note review was undertaken of 397 patients admitted to three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, between 1 October 2000 and 17 April 2001. The main out-come measures were 12 process-of-care quality indicators, calculated as either: (i) the proportion of all patients who received specific interventions or (ii) the proportion of ideal patients who received -specific interventions (i.e. patients with clear indi-cations and lacking contraindications). Results: Quality indicators with values above 80% included: (i) patient selection for thrombolysis (100%) and discharge prescription of beta-blockers (84%), (ii) antiplatelet agents (94%) and (iii) lipid-lowering agents (82%). Indicators with values between 50% and 80% included: (i) timely per-formance of electrocardiogram (ECG) on admission (61%), (ii) early coronary angiography (75%), (iii) measurement of serum lipids (71%) and (iv) discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (73%). Indicators with values <50% included: (i) timely administration of thrombolysis (35%), (ii) non-invasive risk assessment (23%) and (ii) formal in-hospital and post-hospital cardiac rehabilitation (47% and 7%, respectively). Conclusion: There were delays in performing ECG and administering thrombolysis to patients who presented to emergency departments with ACS. Improvement is warranted in use of non-invasive procedures for identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from coronary revascularization as well as use of serum lipid measurements, ACE inhibitors and cardiac rehabilitation.

Neonatal respiratory therapy in the new millennium: Does clinical practice reflect scientific evidence?

Respiratory therapy has historically been considered the primary role of the physiotherapist in neonatal intensive care in Australia. In 2001 a survey was undertaken of all level three neonatal intensive care units in Australia to determine the role of the physiotherapist and of respiratory therapy in clinical practice. It appears that respiratory therapy is provided infrequently, with the number of infants treated per month ranging from 0 to 10 in 15 of the 20 units who provide respiratory therapy, regardless of therapist availability. The median number of respiratory treatments per month during the week was three, and on weekends it was one. Respiratory therapy was carried out by physiotherapists and nurses in 54.6% of units, by physiotherapists only in 36.4% of units, and by nurses only in the remaining 9% of units surveyed. There was also a diminution of the role of respiratory therapy in the extubation of premature infants. A review of the literature shows that overall the use of respiratory therapy reflects current evidence. The question remains whether it is possible to maintain the competency of staff and justify the cost of training in the current healthcare economic climate. It seems probable that the future role of physiotherapists in neonatal intensive care unit may be in the facilitation of optimal neurological development of surviving very low birth weight infants.