Background
The STarT MSK research programme
• WP1 – epidemiological study to test and validate the Keele STarT MSK tool to predict patients’ risk of persistent pain [12] |
• WP2 |
◦ Qualitative research with patients and clinicians to identify anticipated barriers and facilitators to the adoption of stratified care [4] |
◦ Evidence synthesis of effective treatments [13] |
◦ Consensus process with stakeholders and practitioners to agree recommended matched treatment options for patients at low, medium and high risk, for decision-making in general practice [14] |
◦ Integrated delivery platform within the electronic health record (EHR) |
◦ Development of clinician support package |
• WP4 – main cluster randomised controlled trial of stratified care in general practice [17] |
-
A computer template within the electronic health record (EHR), triggered automatically on entering a relevant MSK diagnosis or symptom into the patient’s EHR, asking the GP to complete the Keele STarT MSK Tool, based on patients’ responses to ten prognostic questions
-
Automatic calculation of the patient score as being of high, medium or low risk of persistent pain
-
Presentation to the GP of recommended matched treatment options for the patient, based on pain site (e.g. back, neck, knee, shoulder or multi-site) and risk subgroup
-
Integration of self-management information resources to be shared with the patient
-
To ensure that the GP engages with the EHR to trigger the stratified care template whilst the patient is still present
-
For the GP to use the risk stratification tool and to discuss the matched treatment options with the patient before agreeing a management plan
-
For the GP to feel confident in being able to integrate the stratified care intervention with their usual clinical history taking, examination, reasoning and diagnosis.
Methods
Designing the components of the clinician support package
Programme Phase | Programme activity | Clinician support package |
---|---|---|
WP1 | • Epidemiological study • Tool development and validation | • Information about what questions would be asked during the consultation |
WP2 Exploratory phase | • Focus groups with GPs and patients. • Analysis using Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) | • Perceptions of GPs and patients and identification of possible barriers and facilitators to the adoption of stratified care, mapped onto the TDF and onto specific behaviour change techniques |
WP2 developing the intervention | • Evidence synthesis and expert consensus groups to devise evidence-based matched treatments | • Identification of training/support issues relating to matched treatments and how they are presented in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) tool |
• Development of the interactive tool for the EHR | • Influencing tool design to address issues identified in qualitative work • Identification of training issues related to the IT and integration into consultations | |
• Refinement and testing of the electronic tool | • “Translation” of qualitative findings and experience of intervention design into educational paradigm to inform support package • Design and testing of educational input and support materials • User testing of the proposed EHR template with GPs • Planning training sessions |
Underpinning research
Further analysis: translation of theoretical domains into an educational paradigm
Affective domain
Cognitive domain
Psychomotor domain
-
interacting with a computer earlier in the consultation than is usual for most GPs, in order to launch the tool
-
explaining to patients the use of the tool and decision support element
-
integrating these elements into the consultation at appropriate stages
-
managing the consultation within allocated time slots
Reviewing clinician support in the pilot trial
Clinician support in pilot study |
---|
Overall scope and plan |
Total training time available to GPs is 4 h, provisionally to be in two 2 h sessions. Optionally, this can be supplemented by one “catch up” session with individual GPs at their request or in response to problems identified by the study team |
Two TAPS facilitators to attend each session, aiming at continuity of at least one for both sessions |
Training approach |
Training is for individual practices and based on all GPs attending both sessions and working as a small group with the Keele GP facilitators. There are some knowledge and skills components to be covered and the entire sessions should be interactive and collaborative, exploring and building on the GPs’ current practice. Particularly during the pilot phase, there will be lessons for the study team to learn and, possibly, some changes to be made to the intervention, so the facilitators will gather information for the team as well as delivering and documenting the training |
Key issues to address |
• Tool complements normal clinical practice and does not replace it |
• It is a prognostic tool to aid management, not a diagnostic tool |
• A key step in integrating the tool into the consultation – is the need to enter a provisional Read code during the consultation to trigger the template |
Requirements for delivering the training |
• Protected time for all GPs to attend |
• Co-ordination with practice manager |
• Training room suitable for small group learning |
• Computer, linked to clinical system, with display visible to the group |
• TAPS templates installed and tested |
Support Materials |
• Slide sets for sessions 1 and 2 |
• Patient vignettes from TAPS |
• Laminated copy of STarT MSK tool and matched treatment options |
• Plan and record for training sessions to complete at each practice |
Timing | Topic | Detail | Methods & Resources |
---|---|---|---|
Session 1 | |||
10 Min | Introductions | ▪ Personal introductions, roles, etc. ▪ Brief outline of the practice and its population ▪ Special interests of GPs | Pre-trial background sheet completed by practice ▪ Informal chat to get people warmed up |
10 Min | Brief outline of study, its background and scope | ▪ Origins of research in STarT Back ▪ Explain prognostic risk ▪ Clinical conditions and sites involved ▪ What we are investigating, in general terms | Few slides – scant detail ▪ Interactive presentation and brief Q/A |
10 Min | GPs’ current management of these conditions | ▪ Diagnostic approaches – bio-mechanical/ bio-psycho-social – use shoulder pain as example ▪ Investigations routinely used – what and where? ▪ Advice generally given to these patients ▪ Sickness certification ▪ Medication preferences and usage ▪ Physiotherapy etc availability and usage ▪ Referral options and patterns for different pain sites – MSK, surgical etc ▪ Significant constraints they experience ▪ Patients’ expectations – e.g. Imaging, certificates, referral | Pre-trial background sheet ▪ General discussion to gauge GPs’ philosophy and general approaches – helps build relationship and aid to tailoring our approach to training ▪ Avoid detail on specific conditions within MSK Flip chart to explore treatment/referral options for the practice |
20 Min | GPs’ usual consultation habits | ▪ Map out their usual consultation process/flow ▪ Is computer used during or after consultations? ▪ Read coded diagnosis entered at provisional stage or not ▪ Any existing use of templates and decision aids? ▪ Use of interactive tool plus printed advice eg PILS | ▪ More informal discussion A4 sheet with a few prompt statements for GPs Pads of paper for GPs’ notes Sticky notes pads to capture notes and queries for later |
20 Min | Stratified care approach | ▪ What is stratified care and how does it differ? ▪ Why it may have advantages for patients and NHS ▪ Basis for prognostic stratification tool ▪ Expected proportion in each risk group ▪ The tool identifies potential treatment targets ▪ How this complements usual diagnostic clinical practice ▪ Matched treatment options and how we devised them ▪ No change in local pathways during the study – treatment options are pointers to be used with these pathways | ▪ Interactive presentation and Q/A Slides: Knowledge about stratified care Establish credibility of tool and matched treatments Emphasise “Risk” is of chronicity/complexity not pathology Explain complementarity with diagnostic process No new pathways at this stage |
45 Min | The STarT MSK tool in practice | ▪ Overview of questionnaire and matched treatments ▪ Key GP behaviours the tool tries to nudge/change ▪ Providing the tool score to onward treating clinicians ▪ Trying out the tool – paper exercise: ▪ GPs work in pairs, each with a vignette ▪ One asks questions and completes paper tool, other responds from vignette ▪ Swap roles for second vignette ▪ Compare scores and experience of using tool ▪ Demonstration of integrated template by facilitator ▪ All GPs trying it out with support | ▪ Discussion around slides: Pyramid slide for overview Questionnaire and matched treatments ▪ Giving patients score and recommended options Communicating score in referrals Paper copies of vignettes and risk tool Live EMIS system with template ▪ Demo of template use ▪ All GPs trying out template, using vignettes, with no attempt at consultation elements Vignettes needed: Low risk knee pain, Medium risk shoulder pain, High risk multisite pain with co-morbidity |
5 Min | Suggested preparation for Session 2 | ▪ Try template a few more times with dummy patients ▪ Look at treatment options and linked patient info | ▪ Replace this with a short break if running 2 sessions together – would need refreshments |
Session 2 | |||
10 Min | Reflections from Session 1 | ▪ Questions about stratified care concept ▪ Feedback from trying out tool ▪ Practical issues and any doubts | ▪ Reminder of key elements we covered in Session 1 ▪ Discussion of any issues ▪ Skip if running 2 sessions together |
60 Min | Simulated “consultations” using vignettes | ▪ GP or one of team gives outline from a TAPS vignette, as a patient might present ▪ What to say to the patient about the tool and risk groups ▪ GP uses template to get score and treatment options ▪ GP explains and negotiates options ▪ Facilitator might try asking/challenging for other options ▪ Each GP has at least one turn at simulation | ▪ Skills session ▪ Emphasise simulation and not role play ▪ Use selection of low/medium/high risk vignettes as basis Set up clinical computer in a consulting room if possible and run as a consultation, each taking a turn ▪ GP or facilitator gives outline story ▪ Facilitator can present challenges for consulting GP ▪ Group works together on suggestions – problem-solving approach Prompt sheet for consultations |
10 Min | Discussion of simulated consultations | ▪ GPs’ belief and trust in score and recommendations ▪ Practicalities of negotiating recommendations with patients ▪ Dealing with inappropriate demands | ▪ Discussion to explore beliefs and confidence in approach and tools, having had the experience ▪ Anticipated challenges and how to handle them |
15 Min | Diagnostic issues and priorities vs stratification options | ▪ Discussion about complementarity of clinical diagnosis and prognostic stratification ▪ Examples of “clinical override” of risk stratification | ▪ Discussion Few clinical vignettes to illustrate situations where clinical diagnosis or situation might take precedence, eg: PH of breast/prostate cancer Chronic problem with many failed treatment attempts Frailty/multi-morbidity |
10 Min | GP management of low risk patients | ▪ Effective reassurance ▪ GPs’ confidence in managing low risk ▪ Resources available for low risk management ▪ Other primary care team members involved in low risk? | ▪ Discussion about how GPs will manage low risk ▪ How to provide effective reassurance ▪ Look at advice materials Printout of PILS + Leaflets |
10 Min | Management of medium and high risk patients | ▪ Addition of layers to complement low risk management ▪ Directed at specific pathology and wider issues e.g. co-morbidity, psycho-social, employment, etc | ▪ Discussion around recommended treatment options Paper copies of matched treatments to illustrate |
5 Min | Action plan | ▪ Dealing with queries ▪ Additional support if needed ▪ Who to contact etc |
Refinement of clinician support package
Problems identified in pilot | Action taken before main trial |
---|---|
• Cumbersome questionnaire wording and variable use of terms | • Design and validation of specific clinical version, with constructs stated for GPs |
• Sub-optimal treatment recommendations | • Rationalisation and refinement |
• Excessive length of clinician support sessions and requests to re-focus some parts | • Reduced to one 2 h session with less background information |
• Trainers reluctant to specify best fit of intervention within consultation | • Application of experience gained to be more directive, including production of video of simulated consultation for training |
• Some GPs missed clinician support sessions | • Training logs and prompt sheets introduced for each practice |
• Delays in detecting problems and taking remedial action with practices | • Early monitoring and re-visit to practice. • Monthly feedback and personal contact by same trainer |
• Poor engagement and performance by control practices | • Control and intervention practices to have training visit from GP and clinical researcher from study team • More focused clinician support sessions for control practices |
Results
Clinician support in the main trial
Clinician support for main trial |
---|
Overall scope and plan |
Members of the TAPS team will provide training sessions for all participating GPs. For control practices, this will be a 1 h session. For intervention practices, this will be about 2 h. Optionally, this can be supplemented by one “catch up” session with individual GPs at their request or in response to problems identified by the study team. |
Training for control practices will be by one team member. Ideally, two trainers will facilitate the more complex sessions for intervention practices. |
Training approach |
Training is for individual practices and based on all GPs attending and working as a small group with the Keele GP facilitators. There are some knowledge and skills components to be covered and the entire sessions should be interactive and collaborative |
Requirements for delivering the training |
• Protected time for all GPs to attend |
• Co-ordination with practice manager |
• Training room suitable for small group learning |
• Computer, linked to clinical system, with display visible to the group |
• TAPS templates installed and tested |
Key issues to address for intervention practices |
• Tool complements normal clinical practice and does not replace it |
• It is a prognostic tool to aid management, not a diagnostic tool |
• A key step in integrating the tool into the consultation – is the need to enter a provisional Read code during the consultation to trigger the template |
• Arrangements for physiotherapy referral and liaison |
Support Materials |
• Slide sets for sessions 1 and 2 and single session for controls |
• Patient vignettes from TAPS |
• Laminated copy of STarT MSK tool and matched treatment options |
• Plan and record for training sessions to complete at each practice |
• Laminated prompt sheets for both intervention and control practices |
Timing | Topic | Detail | Methods & Resources |
---|---|---|---|
Intervention Practice – 2 h in a single session | |||
10 Min | Introductions | ▪ Personal introductions, roles, etc. ▪ Brief outline of the practice and its population ▪ Special interests of GPs | Pre-trial background sheet completed by practice ▪ Informal chat to get people warmed up |
15 Min | Brief outline of study, stratified care approach and pilot study results | ▪ Background to study ▪ Explain prognostic risk ▪ Clinical conditions and sites involved ▪ Summary of pilot results ▪ Proportion in each risk group | Few slides – scant detail ▪ Interactive ▪ Emphasise “Risk” is of chronicity/complexity not pathology ▪ Explain complementarity with diagnostic process presentation and brief Q/A |
30 Min | The STarT MSK tool in practice | ▪ Overview of questionnaire and matched treatments ▪ GP actions we hope to foster ▪ Providing the tool score to onward treating clinicians ▪ Trying out the tool – paper exercise: ➢ GPs work in pairs, each with a vignette ➢ One asks questions and completes paper tool, other responds from vignette ➢ Swap roles for second vignette ➢ Compare scores and experience of using tool ▪ Use of the tool in consultations - video | ▪ Discussion around slides: Pyramid slide for overview Questionnaire and matched treatments ▪ Giving patients score and recommended options Communicating score in referrals Paper copies of vignettes and risk tool Live EMIS system with template ▪ Demo of template use ▪ All GPs trying out template, using vignettes, with no attempt at consultation elements Video of mock TAPS consultation |
30 Min | Simulated “consultations” using vignettes | ▪ Facilitator gives outline from a TAPS vignette, as a patient might present ▪ GP uses template to get score and treatment options ▪ GP explains and negotiates options ▪ Facilitator might try asking/challenging for other options | ▪ Skills session ▪ Emphasise simulation and not role play ▪ Use selection of low/medium/high risk vignettes as basis Set up clinical computer in a consulting room if possible ▪ GP or facilitator gives outline story ▪ Group works together on suggestions – problem-solving approach Prompt sheet for consultations |
10 Min | GP management of low risk patients | ▪ Effective reassurance ▪ GPs’ confidence in managing low risk ▪ Resources available for low risk management ▪ Other primary care team members involved in low risk? | ▪ Discussion about how GPs will manage low risk ▪ How to provide effective reassurance ▪ Look at advice materials Printout of PILS + Leaflets |
20 Min | Management of medium and high risk patients | ▪ Addition of layers to complement low risk management ▪ Directed at specific pathology and wider issues e.g. co-morbidity, psycho-social, employment, etc ▪ Physio hubs and provision we have negotiated ▪ Detail of physio referral process – how would GPs like us to set it up? ▪ Liaison with physio in high risk patients if needed – Email arrangements | ▪ Discussion around recommended treatment options ▪ Emphasise MSK rehab for high risk ▪ Hub physios to attend if possible to build personal relationship and clarify arrangements Paper copies of matched treatments to illustrate |
5 Min | Action plan and lead GP actions | ▪ Lead GP role: ➢ Keep a training record ➢ Cascade training to locums, etc ➢ Respond to monthly feedback email ➢ Liaise with team over any issues or problems ➢ Dealing with queries ▪ Additional support if needed ▪ Who to contact etc | Training record for practice Sample monthly feedback report Prompt sheet for GPs |
Training session for control practices – 1 h or less | |||
10 Min | Introductions | ▪ Personal introductions, roles, etc. ▪ Brief outline of the practice and its population ▪ Special interests of GPs | Pre-trial background sheet completed by practice ▪ Informal chat to get people warmed up |
10 Min | Brief outline of study its background and scope | ▪ Clinical conditions and sites involved ▪ What we are investigating, in general terms ▪ Questionnaires to patients ▪ Medical record review | Few slides – scant detail ▪ Interactive presentation and brief Q/A |
10 Min | What we ask of GPs | ▪ Patient verbal consent for study and record of this ▪ Pain score and pain site recorded in >50% ▪ Usual care of patients | One slide |
15 Min | EMIS template | ▪ Demonstration of real template and practice with it | |
5 Min | Additional support | ▪ Coping with GPs absent from training or joining later Briefing session by Practice Manager | Laminated prompt sheets for all GPs |
Monitoring and feedback
Discussion
Strengths and limitations
Recommendations for future interventions in general practice
Educational component | Detail |
---|---|
Educational needs assessment | ▪ Focus groups, TDF, feedback from GPs on pilot training |
Task analysis | ▪ Components identified as Cognitive (knowledge), Affective (attitudinal) or Psychomotor (skills) domains |
Constructive alignment | ▪ Selection of appropriate methods, tools and content to address domains, particularly clinical and IT skills |
Session planning | ▪ Length of training, balance of components, methods and resources. Selection and preparation of trainers |
Delivery of training | ▪ Sessions booked and delivered at practices |
Records and “safety net” | ▪ Training log and plan to train any who miss session |
Monitoring of performance | ▪ Regular data extraction and analysis |
Feedback | ▪ Early intervention if problems identified ▪ Monthly email feedback with performance data and encouragement |
Evaluation | ▪ Qualitative interviews with a sample of GPs |