Patient satisfaction with physiotherapists is not inferior to surgeons in an arthroplasty review clinic: non-inferiority study of an expanded scope model of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study evaluated whether the satisfaction of patients attending a physiotherapy-led postarthroplasty review out-patient clinic was non-inferior to that of patients attending traditional surgeon clinics. Methods Using a modified nine-item Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument (VSQ-9), 50 patients attending the physiotherapy clinic and 50 patients attending surgeon clinics were surveyed. Sample means (±s.d.) were calculated for each domain of the VSQ-9. Non-inferiority testing was performed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the adjusted mean difference to examine whether normalised patient satisfaction scores in the physiotherapy group were no worse than those in the surgeon group. Results Both groups were satisfied (overall domain; 100% of both groups rated good-excellent). Based on mean item score, there was strong evidence that the satisfaction of the physiotherapy group was non-inferior to that of the surgeon group (adjusted mean difference (physiotherapy - surgeon) in mean score 5.1 (95% CI -0.3, 10.4). Furthermore, the mean differences in all but one of the nine domains were in favour of the physiotherapy group in this study. Conclusion The satisfaction of patients attending a physiotherapy arthroplasty review clinic is not inferior to that of patients attending traditional surgeon clinics. What is known about the topic? A substitution model of care where an advanced practice physiotherapist reviews routine postarthroplasty patients instead of surgeons originated in the UK and has been adopted in Canada and Australia to address the increasingly overloaded public out-patient health services. Evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness has been demonstrated but, to the best of the authors' knowledge, only one paper has evaluated consumer engagement, and that paper was in a Canadian population. What does this paper add? This study evaluated the satisfaction of patients in an Australian public healthcare system and was able to demonstrate that patients seen by physiotherapists were no less satisfied than those seen by surgeons in traditional clinics. The findings support those reported in the Canadian study. This is an important step in the development and acceptance of these substitution model of care innovations locally. What are the implications for practitioners? The results of this study will provide an important addition to the evidence of the clinical efficacy of this model of care: that of consumer acceptance. This will assist with planning, expansion and rollout of similar initiatives in Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".