Impacts of Physiotherapy Services in a Quebec Emergency Department

October 26, 2020 updated by: Rose Gagnon

Impacts of Physiotherapy Services in a Quebec Emergency Department - Randomized Clinical Trial

Emergency departments (ED) in several countries integrated physiotherapists in order to reduce wait times for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD). These initiatives have indeed reduced wait times, length of stay, time waited before seeing a professional and the prescription of unnecessary consultations and diagnostic tests. In Canada, such initiatives are marginal and their effects have not been studied.

The objectives of the project are to evaluate the effects of physiotherapy management of patients with MSKD in ED compared to usual practice on clinical course of patients, use of services and resources, and waiting time and length of stay in ED. The hypothesis is that patients presenting with a MSKD to the ED with direct access to a physiotherapist will have better clinical outcomes and that use of services, waiting time, and length of stay are going to be inferior to those of the EP group.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Background and rationale: Emergency departments (ED) in several countries integrated physiotherapists, which led, for patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD), to a reduction in wait times, length of stay, time waited before seeing a professional and the prescription of unnecessary consultations and diagnostic tests. Furthermore, early access to physiotherapy is associated with a decrease in pain and psychological symptoms and decreased risks of developing persistent pain. In Canada, such initiatives are still marginal and their effects have not been studied.

Objectives: Evaluate the effects of direct access physiotherapy management of patients with MSKD in the ED compared to the usual management by the emergency physician on clinical course of patients (pain, quality of life and disability) and use of services and resources at one and three months, and waiting time and length of stay in the ED.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial is currently in progress at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université Laval (CHUL). Two groups of 50 participants each are recruited over a six months period: one group with direct access to a physiotherapist (PT) in the ED and one control group with the usual access care to the emergency physician. Data is extracted from the patients' medical record, administrative data from the ED, self-administered forms given to the patients during their ED stay and either electronic or phone follow-ups (1 and 3 months). Data will be analysed using descriptive (demographic and clinical profiles) and inferential statistics (repeated ANOVA between groups across time points and Student T tests for independent samples).

Importance of potential findings for MSK health: ED overcrowding causes prolonged lengths of stay, increased rates of patient leaving without being seen, increased medical errors, increased mortality among ambulatory and non-ambulatory patients and decreased patient satisfaction. This project will measure the effects of integrating PTs into the ED in a Canadian hospital setting and help identify ways to improve the current services offered to patients with a MSKD presenting to the ED. Direct access to PT may improve musculoskeletal health outcomes and support positive patient experience.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

78

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Quebec
      • Québec, Quebec, Canada, G1V 4G2
        • Centre Hospitalier de l'Université Laval (CHUL)

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 80 years (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Triage category 3, 4 or 5
  • Discharged home with a minor MSKD after ED care
  • Able to consent
  • Able to understand French and to complete the questionnaire either verbally or in writing

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Major MSKD requiring urgent care
  • Presence of a red flag or an unstable clinical condition
  • Living in a long-term care facility

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
NO_INTERVENTION: Emergency Physician Group
Usual care by the EP without the intervention of the ED PT.
EXPERIMENTAL: Physical Therapist Group
Direct access to a PT in the ED immediately after triage and prior to physician assessment.
Direct access to a PT in the ED immediately after triage and prior to physician assessment.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Level of Pain: Numeric Pain Rating Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Scale ranging from 0 to 10 where 0 means no pain at all and 10 means the worst pain ever.
Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Pain Interference on Function: Brief Pain Inventory
Time Frame: Baseline, 1 and 3 months
List of 10 items (work, sleep, general activity, etc.) represented on a scale ranging from 0 to 10 where 0 means "Does Not Interfere" and 10 means "Completely Interferes". Subscales are averaged and the resulting score is out of 10. A higher score means a higher interference of pain on function.
Baseline, 1 and 3 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain Catastrophizing: Pain Catastrophizing Scale
Time Frame: Baseline
List of 13 items (thoughts and feelings about pain) represented on a scale ranging from 0 to 4 where 0 means "Not at all" and 4 means "All the time". Subscales are summed and the resulting score is out of 52. A higher score means a higher tendency to catastrophise pain.
Baseline
Interventions received by the participants : Standardized Form
Time Frame: Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Form were every intervention received by the patient was checked as a "Yes" or "No" answer. (Advice, medication, technical aids, referral to another health professional, etc.)
Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Diagnostic Tests : Standardized Form
Time Frame: Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Form were every diagnostic test received by the patient was checked as a "Yes" or "No" answer. (X-ray, MRI, CT Scan, ultrasound, etc.)
Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Consultations with Another Health Professional : Standardized Form
Time Frame: Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Form were every consultation being prescribed to the patient was checked as a "Yes" or "No" answer.
Baseline, 1 and 3 months
Satisfaction: Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument
Time Frame: Baseline
List of 7 items (Answers to your questions, Technical skills of the healthcare provider, etc.) represented on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 where 1 means "Excellent" and 5 means "Poor". Subscales are transformed in results out of 100 (1 = 100% and 5 = 0%), averaged and the resulting score is out of 100%. A higher score means higher satisfaction.
Baseline
Wait Time
Time Frame: Baseline
Difference between beginning of the intervention and time of arrival between groups during their ED visit
Baseline
Length of Stay
Time Frame: Baseline
Difference between departure time and time of arrival between groups during their ED visit
Baseline

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Rose Gagnon, MPT, MSc(c), Laval University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

September 10, 2018

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

June 27, 2019

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

June 27, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 2, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 3, 2019

First Posted (ACTUAL)

July 5, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

October 28, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 26, 2020

Last Verified

October 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Musculoskeletal Diseases

Clinical Trials on Direct access to a PT

Subscribe