Peter Window

Dr. Peter Window

Queensland Health
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

9Years (2018-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 March 2021 in Healthcare
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MRMaree Raymer
Maree Raymer
LMLouise Mitchell
Louise Mitchell
PWPeter Window
Peter Window
MCMichelle Cottrell
Michelle Cottrell
TCTracy Comans
Tracy Comans
SOShaun O'Leary
Shaun O'Leary
This study explored variations in the primary service and clinical outcomes of a state-wide advanced practice physiotherapist-led service embedded in public medical specialist orthopaedic and neurosurgical outpatient services across Queensland, Australia. An audit of the service database over a six-year period was taken from 18 service facilities. The primary service and clinical outcomes were described. Variations in these outcomes between facilities were explored with a regression analysis adjusting for known patient- and service-related characteristics. The findings showed substantial positive impacts of the advanced practice model across all facilities, with 69.4% of patients discharged without a need for medical specialist review (primary service outcome), consistent with 68.9% of patients reporting clinically important improvements in their condition (primary clinical outcome). However, 15 facilities significantly varied from the state average for the primary service outcome (despite only three facilities varying in the primary clinical outcome). While this disparity in the primary service outcomes appears to be influenced by potentially modifiable differences in the service-related processes between facilities, these process differences only explained part of the variation. This study described the subsequent development of a new, more comprehensive set of service evaluation metrics to better inform future service planning.

23 March 2024 in BMJ Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PWPeter Window
Peter Window
MRMaree Raymer
Maree Raymer
SMSteven M McPhail
Steven M McPhail
BVBill Vicenzino
Bill Vicenzino
AHAndrew Hislop
Andrew Hislop
SOShaun O'Leary
Shaun O'Leary
Objectives We tested a previously developed clinical prediction tool—a nomogram consisting of four patient measures (lower patient-expected benefit, lower patient-reported knee function, greater knee varus angle and severe medial knee radiological degeneration) that were related to poor response to non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. This study sought to prospectively evaluate the predictive validity of this nomogram to identify patients most likely to respond poorly to non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. Design Multisite prospective longitudinal study. Setting Advanced practice physiotherapist-led multidisciplinary service across six tertiary hospitals. Participants Participants with knee osteoarthritis deemed appropriate for trial of non-surgical management following an initial assessment from an advanced practice physiotherapist were eligible for inclusion. Interventions Baseline clinical nomogram scores were collected before a trial of individualised non-surgical management commenced. Primary outcome measure Clinical outcome (Global Rating of Change) was collected 6 months following commencement of non-surgical management and dichotomised to responder (a little better to a very great deal better) or poor responder (almost the same to a very great deal worse). Clinical nomogram accuracy was evaluated from receiver operating characteristics curve analysis and area under the curve, and sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative likelihood ratios were calculated. Results A total of 242 participants enrolled. Follow-up scores were obtained from 210 participants (87% response rate). The clinical nomogram demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.70 (p<0.001), with greatest combined sensitivity 0.65 and specificity 0.64. The positive likelihood ratio was 1.81 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.36) and negative likelihood ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.75). Conclusions The knee osteoarthritis clinical nomogram prediction tool may have capacity to identify patients at risk of poor response to non-surgical management. Further work is required to determine the implications for service delivery, feasibility and impact of implementing the nomogram in clinical practice.

6 October 2020 in BMJ Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SOShaun O'Leary
Shaun O'Leary
MRMaree Raymer
Maree Raymer
PWPeter Window
Peter Window
PKPatrick Swete Kelly
Patrick Swete Kelly
BEBula Elwell
Bula Elwell
SMSteven McPhail
Steven McPhail
Objectives To explore patient characteristics recorded at the initial consultation associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in tertiary care. Design Prospective multisite longitudinal study. Setting Advanced practice physiotherapist-led multidisciplinary orthopaedic service within eight tertiary hospitals. Participants 238 patients with KOA. Primary and secondary outcome measures Standardised measures were recorded in all patients prior to them receiving non-surgical multidisciplinary management in a tertiary hospital service across multiple sites. These measures were examined for their relationship with a poor response to management 6 months after the initial consultation using a 15-point Global Rating of Change measure (poor response (scores −7 to +1)/positive response (scores+2 to+7)). Generalised linear models with binomial family and logit link were used to examine which patient characteristics yielded the strongest relationship with a poor response to management as estimated by the OR (95% CI). Results Overall, 114 out of 238 (47.9%) participants recorded a poor response. The odds of a poor response decreased with higher patient expectations of benefit (OR 0.74 (0.63 to 0.87) per 1/10 point score increase) and higher self-reported knee function (OR 0.67 (0.51 to 0.89) per 10/100 point score increase) (p<0.01). The odds of a poor response increased with a greater degree of varus frontal knee alignment (OR 1.35 (1.03 to 1.78) per 5° increase in varus angle) and a severe (compared with mild) radiological rating of medial compartment degenerative change (OR 3.11 (1.04 to 9.3)) (p<0.05). Conclusions These characteristics may need to be considered in patients presenting for non-surgical multidisciplinary management of KOA in tertiary care. Measurement of these patient characteristics may potentially better inform patient-centred management and flag the need for judicious monitoring of outcome for some patients to avoid unproductive care.

19 July 2024 in Bone & Joint Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EBEniola S. Bada
Eniola S. Bada
AGAdrian Gardner
Adrian Gardner
SASashin Ahuja
Sashin Ahuja
DBDavid Beard
David Beard
PWPeter Window
Peter Window
NFNadine E. Foster
Nadine E. Foster
Aims: People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial).Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials.Results: There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%).Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620.

18 November 2020 in Clinical Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
YWYizhou Wu
Yizhou Wu
ESEsther J Smits
Esther J Smits
PWPeter Window
Peter Window
ABAlice Beningfield
Alice Beningfield
VJVenerina Johnston
Venerina Johnston
PMPrue McRae
Prue McRae
Objective: To (1) determine agreement between behavioural mapping and accelerometry for measuring mobility levels in an acute medical inpatient setting and to (2) explore and compare the required resources and costs for both methods. Design: Observational cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary referral teaching hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Subjects: Adult patients admitted to two acute medical wards. Main measures: Mobility levels were recorded by behavioural mapping, and thigh and chest-worn accelerometers (ActivPAL). The level of agreement between the two methods was evaluated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for each mobility level (i.e. lying, sitting, upright, standing and walking). Results: Nineteen patients (10 male (53%); mean(SD) age of 72(14) years) were included in the agreement analysis. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were high for ‘lying’ (ICC = 0.87), ‘sitting’ (ICC = 0.84) and ‘upright’ (ICC = 0.93), indicating good to excellent agreement between the two methods. For these mobility levels, mean differences between the two methods were small (<2%), with large standard deviations (up to 18%). Agreement was poor for ‘standing’ (ICC = 0.00) and ‘walking’ (ICC = 0.35). Both methods were labour-intensive, with labour costs of A$1,285/€798 (34 hours) for behavioural mapping and A$1,055/€655 (28 hours) for accelerometry. No further costs were involved in behavioural mapping, but clinical backfill was required. Accelerometry involved a financial investment for accelerometers (A$11,100/€6,894 for 22 ActivPAL devices). Conclusion: Agreement between behavioural mapping and accelerometry was good for measuring ‘lying’, ‘sitting’ and ‘upright’, but poor for ‘standing’ and ‘walking’ in an acute inpatient setting. Both behavioural mapping and accelerometry were labour-intensive, with high costs for the accelerometry equipment.

3 December 2020 in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SOShaun O’lEary
Shaun O’lEary
MRMaree Raymer
Maree Raymer
PWPeter Window
Peter Window
PKPatrick Swete Kelly
Patrick Swete Kelly
DLDarryl Lee
Darryl Lee
SMSteven Mcphail
Steven Mcphail
Background: Non-surgical multidisciplinary management is often the first pathway of care for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). This study explores if patient characteristics recorded at the initial service examination have an association with a poor response to this pathway of care in an advanced practice physiotherapist-led tertiary service.Methods: Two hundred and forty nine patients undergoing non-surgical multidisciplinary management for their LBP across 8 tertiary public hospitals in Queensland, Australia participated in this prospective longitudinal study. Generalised linear models (logistic family) examined the relationship between patient characteristics and a poor response at 6 months follow-up using a Global Rating of Change measure.Results: Overall 79 of the 178 (44%) patients completing the Global Rating of Change measure (28.5% loss to follow-up) reported a poor outcome. Patient characteristics retained in the final model associated with a poor response included lower Formal Education Level (ie did not complete school) (Odds Ratio (OR (95% confidence interval)) (2.67 (1.17–6.09),p = 0.02) and higher self-reported back disability (measured with the Oswestry Disability Index) (OR 1.33 (1.01–1.77) per 10/100 point score increase,p = 0.046).Conclusions: A low level of formal education and high level of self-reported back disability may be associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of LBP in tertiary care. Patients with these characteristics may need greater assistance with regard to their comprehension of health information, and judicious monitoring of their response to facilitate timely alternative care if no benefits are attained.