First point of contact physiotherapy; a qualitative study.
Rob Goodwin, Fiona Moffatt, Paul Hendrick and 3 others
PMID 32693240WHAT IT FOUND
Participants said the public knew physiotherapy generally but not first point of contact physiotherapy, and expected patients to default to GP appointments.
Reception signposting was described as critical, while traditional advertising was seen as ineffective.
Key findings
01Most participants said the public knew physiotherapy generally but not first point of contact physiotherapy, and expected patients to default to GP appointments.
02Traditional advertising was described as unsuccessful, while reception staff signposting was described as critical.
03Poor understanding of physiotherapy, including confusion with osteopaths and chiropractors, was reported to lessen access.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a qualitative study of perceptions, not a test of whether first point of contact physiotherapy works or reduces GP workload. It was conducted in one service in Nottingham, so the findings may not transfer to other areas. Only ten patient participants were interviewed, and staff participant numbers are not stated. Patient recruitment involved cancellation and non-attendance, and staff recruitment was partly by convenience. The study did not evaluate which information or signposting methods were most effective.
Declared interests
The research was part of a PhD and funded by NIHR CLAHRC East Midlands and Nottingham CityCare CIC. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that first point of contact physiotherapy reduces GP workload or improves patient outcomes. It reports stakeholder perceptions and barriers, not tested effects.