Background: First contact physiotherapy practitioners (FCPPs) are embedded within general practice, providing expert assessment, diagnosis, and management plans for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs), without the prior need for GP consultation.Aim: To determine the clinical effectiveness and costs of FCPP models compared with GP-led models of care.Design and setting: Multiple site case-study design of general practices in the UK.Method: General practice sites were recruited representing the following three models: 1) GP-led care; 2) FCPPs who could not prescribe or inject (FCPPs-standard [St]); and 3) FCPPs who could prescribe and/or inject (FCPPs-additional qualifications [AQ]). Patient participants from each site completed outcome data at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The primary outcome was the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score. Healthcare usage was collected for 6 months.Results: In total, 426 adults were recruited from 46 practices across the UK. Non-inferiority analysis showed no significant difference in physical function (SF-36 PCS) across all three arms at 6 months (P= 0.667). At 3 months, a significant difference in numbers improving was seen between arms: 54.7% (n= 47) GP consultees, 72.4% (n= 71) FCPP-St, and 66.4% (n= 101) FCPP-AQ (P= 0.037). No safety issues were identified. Following initial consultation, a greater proportion of patients received medication (including opioids) in the GP-led arm (44.7%,n= 42), compared with FCPP-St (18.4%,n= 21) and FCPP-AQ (24.7%,n= 40) (P<0.001). NHS costs (initial consultation and over 6-month follow-up) were significantly higher in the GP-led model (median £105.5 per patient) versus FCPP-St (£41.0 per patient) and FCPP-AQ (£44.0 per patient) (P<0.001).Conclusion: FCPP-led models of care provide safe, clinically effective patient management, with cost-benefits and reduced opioid use in this cohort.

Objective: This study explored stroke survivors’ experiences of altered body perception, whether these perceptions cause discomfort, and the need for clinical interventions to improve comfort. Design: A qualitative phenomenological study. Setting: Participants’ homes. Participants: A purposive sample of 16 stroke survivors were recruited from community support groups. Participants (median: age 59; time post stroke >2 years), were at least six-months post-stroke, experiencing motor or sensory impairments and able to communicate verbally. Interventions: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were analysed using an interpretive phenomenological approach and presented thematically. Results: Four themes or experiences were identified: Participants described (1) a body that did not exist; (2) a body hindered by strange sensations and distorted perceptions; (3) an uncontrollable body; and (4) a body isolated from social and clinical support. Discomfort was apparent in a physical and psychological sense and body experiences were difficult to comprehend and communicate to healthcare staff. Participants wished for interventions to improve their comfort but were doubtful that such treatments existed. Conclusion: Indications are that altered body perceptions cause multifaceted physical and psychosocial discomfort for stroke survivors. Discussions with patients about their personal perceptions and experiences of the body may facilitate better understanding and management to improve comfort after stroke.

Background: General practice services are under pressure due increased demand. Alongside substantial national recruitment challenges, there exists a shortage of general practitioners to meet current need. Resultingly, allied healthcare professionals, including paramedics, are being utilised in general practice. Aim: To determine the models of paramedics in general practice settings; the mechanisms that underpin effective paramedics in general practice; and the impact of paramedics in general practice on safety, costs and clinical and patient-reported outcomes and experience. Design: A mixed-methods realist evaluation comprised a rapid realist review followed by an evaluation of paramedics in general practice in general practice case study sites. Patient and public involvement and input was integral, ensuring validity from a patient and carer perspective. Setting: General practices in England. Participants: A total of 34 general practices participated as case study sites, of which 25 were ‘paramedics in general practice’ sites. Data from qualitative realist interviews (n = 69), quantitative questionnaires (n = 489) and electronic records (n = 22,509 consultations) were collected. Interventions: Paramedics in general practice models were classified according to: (1) level of integration of the paramedic to the general practice team; and (2) complexity of patients seen by paramedics. Main outcome measures: Qualitative interviews investigated initial programme theories with staff and patient participants. Patient participant questionnaires utilised validated measures: the Patient-Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (safety); EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (health-related quality of life); Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire; the Modular Resource Use Measure (health and care resource utilisation). Electronic health records provided data on primary care use. Review methods: A rapid realist review of the published and grey literature, supplemented with direct enquiry with system leaders and key stakeholders. Results: The rapid realist review highlighted significant variation in paramedics’ roles in general practice. Qualitative interviews identified domains related to access, safety, workforce reconfiguration, infrastructure, patient experience, and outcomes. Lower Patient-Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care practice activation scores were found at paramedics in general practice sites (perceived less engaged in promoting safety), in particular those with medium and low levels of paramedics in general practice integration and complexity. There was a small statistically significant difference in the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire ‘Confidence in Health Plan’ by paramedics in general practice complexity, such that confidence had deteriorated slightly more in the high-complexity group compared to non-paramedics in general practice. Paramedics in general practice sites had lower scores at initial visit and 30 days for the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire ‘Confidence in Health Provision’. We found little evidence that paramedics in general practice care led to substantial spillover effects via increased reconsultations, prescriptions, secondary care referrals or unplanned hospital admission costs. Limitations: The study faced challenges in recruitment. Self-selected participating sites may not be representative of all general practitioners in England, and categorising paramedics in general practice models for analysis was more complex than anticipated. The comparison of costs and outcomes between paramedics in general practice and non-paramedics in general practice sites was based on an observational study design. Conclusions: Paramedics in general practice care improves access to general practice. Safety and acceptability require resources for induction, supervision, training and education. Paramedics in general practice integration affects staff satisfaction and role longevity. Paramedics in general practice allows paramedics to develop and evolve. Future work: Larger studies utilising different study designs with longer follow-up are needed to fully understand the impact of paramedics in general practice on clinical outcomes and episode of care costs. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN56909665 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN56909665. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132736) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 13, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: General practice in the UK is under substantial pressure and practices are increasingly including paramedics as part of their workforce. Little is known about how different models of paramedic working may affect successful implementation of the role, as viewed from patient, clinician and system perspectives. This realist synthesis developed theories about ‘models of paramedic working in general practice’ in different UK contexts to understand their impact.Methods: The rapid realist synthesis comprised data from: (1) empirical and grey literature searches; (2) semi-structured realist interviews with system leaders involved with the implementation of the role; and (3) a stakeholder event with healthcare professionals and the public, to develop initial programme theories that can be tested in future work. Sources were analysed using a realist approach that explored the data for novel or causal insights to generate initial programme theories.Results: Empirical sources (n = 32), grey sources (n = 95), transcripts from system leader interviews (n = 7) and audio summaries from the stakeholder event (n = 22 participants) were synthesised into a single narrative document. The findings confirmed the presence of a wide variety of models of paramedic working in UK general practice. The perceived success of models was influenced by the extent to which the paramedic service was mature and embedded in practice, and according to four theory areas: (1) Primary care staff understanding and acceptance of the paramedic role; (2) Paramedic induction process, including access to training, supervision and development opportunities; (3) Patient understanding and acceptance of the role; (4) Variations in paramedic employment models.Conclusions: Variability in how the paramedic role is operating and embedding into general practice across the UK affects the success of the role. These findings provide a theoretical foundation for future research to investigate various ‘models of paramedic working’ in different contexts.

Background: First-contact physiotherapists assess and diagnose patients with musculoskeletal disorders, determining the best course of management without prior general practitioner consultation. Objectives: The primary aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of first-contact physiotherapists compared with general practitioner-led models of care. Design: Mixed-method realist evaluation of effectiveness and costs, comprising three main phases: A United Kingdom-wide survey of first contact physiotherapists. Rapid realist review of first contact physiotherapists to determine programme theories. A mixed-method case study evaluation of 46 general practices across the United Kingdom, grouped as three service delivery models: General practitioner: general practitioner-led models of care (no first contact physiotherapists). First-contact physiotherapists standard provision: standard first-contact physiotherapist-led model of care. First-contact physiotherapists with additional qualifications: first-contact physiotherapists with additional qualifications to enable them to inject and/or prescribe. Setting: United Kingdom general practice. Participants: A total of 46 sites participated in the case study evaluation and 426 patients were recruited; 80 staff and patients were interviewed. Main outcome measures: Short Form 36 physical outcome component score and costs of treatment. Results: No statistically significant difference in the primary outcome Short Form 36 physical component score measure at 6-month primary end point between general practitioner-led, first-contact physiotherapist standard provision and first-contact physiotherapist with additional qualifications models of care. A greater number of patients who had first-contact physiotherapist standard provision (72.4%) and first-contact physiotherapist with additional qualifications (66.4%) showed an improvement at 3 months compared with general practitioner-led care (54.7%). No statistically significant differences were found between the study arms in other secondary outcome measures, including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Some 6.3% of participants were lost to follow-up at 3 months; a further 1.9% were lost to follow-up after 3 months and before 6 months. Service-use analysis data were available for 348 participants (81.7%) at 6 months. Inspecting the entire 6 months of the study, a statistically significant difference in total cost was seen between the three service models, irrespective of whether inpatient costs were included or excluded from the calculation. In both instances, the general practitioner service model was found to be significantly costlier, with a median total cost of £105.50 versus £41.00 for first-contact physiotherapist standard provision and £44.00 for first-contact physiotherapists with additional qualifications. Base-case analysis used band 7 for first-contact physiotherapist groups. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken at band 8a for first-contact physiotherapists with additional qualifications; the general practitioner-led model of care remained significantly costlier. Qualitative investigation highlighted key issues to support implementation: understanding role remit, integrating and supporting staff including full information technology access and extended appointment times. Limitations: Services were significantly impacted by COVID-19 treatment restrictions, and recruitment was hampered by additional pressures in primary care. A further limitation was the lack of diversity within the sample. Conclusions: First-contact physiotherapists and general practitioner models of care are equally clinically effective for people with musculoskeletal disorders. Analysis showed the general practitioner-led model of care is costlier than both the first-contact physiotherapist standard provision and first-contact physiotherapist with additional qualifications models. Implementation is supported by raising awareness of the first-contact physiotherapist role, retention of extended appointment times, and employment models that provide first-contact physiotherapists with professional support. Future research: Determining whether shifting workforce impacts physiotherapy provision and outcomes across the musculoskeletal pathway. Study registration: The study is registered as Research Registry UIN researchregistry5033. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/116/03) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.