Download PDF
physioscience 2019; 15(01): 28-36
DOI: 10.1055/a-0833-1759
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Keep/Refer-Decision-Making Abilities and Screening for Serious Pathologies as Integral Components of Physiotherapy Education and Profession

The Perspective of Austrian PhysiciansEntscheidungsfähigkeit von Physiotherapeuten betreffend physiotherapeutische Indikation und Screening auf schwerwiegende Pathologien als integrale Bestandteile der Physiotherapie-Ausbildung und des BerufszweigsDie Ansicht österreichischer Ärzte
Wolfgang Lackenbauer
1   Manchester Metropolitan University, Dept. of Health Professions, GB-Manchester
2   University of Applied Sciences Krems, Dept. of Health Sciences, A-Krems
,
Jessie Jansen
3   University of Central Lancashire, School of Health Sciences, GB-Preston
,
Hazel Roddam
3   University of Central Lancashire, School of Health Sciences, GB-Preston
,
James Selfe
1   Manchester Metropolitan University, Dept. of Health Professions, GB-Manchester
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

26 February 2017

20 April 2018

Publication Date:
04 February 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Several surveys over the last few years examined physiotherapists’ attitude towards direct access, increased practice autonomy and the necessity to detect the presence of serious pathologies.

Objective The aim of the questionnaire was identify the attitude of Austrian physicians towards physiotherapists’ taking more responsibility in the case of clinical decisions.

Method An online survey was distributed by e-mail among 1000 general practitioners and 395 orthopaedic surgeons working in private practice in Austria during autumn 2017.

Results The study included 76 general practitioners (7.6 %) and 40 orthopaedic surgeons (10 %). 90 % of the responding general practitioners and 68 % of the orthopaedic surgeons believed that Austrian physiotherapists should be able to decide whether physiotherapy is indicated or not.

Conclusion The majority of the study participants were in favour of Austrian physiotherapists taking more responsibility and that they independently decide about physiotherapeutic indication.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund In den letzten Jahren wurden mehrere Umfragen unter Physiotherapeuten zum Thema Direktzugang, erhöhter beruflicher Autonomie und Notwendigkeit des Erkennens schwerwiegender Pathologien durchgeführt.

Ziel Ziel des Fragebogens war es herauszufinden, wie Mediziner in Österreich dazu stehen, dass Physiotherapeuten mehr Eigenständigkeit bei klinischen Entscheidungen übernehmen.

Methode Im Herbst 2017 wurde eine Online-Umfrage per E-Mail an 1000 Hausärzte und 395 Orthopäden mit Privatordination in Österreich verschickt.

Ergebnisse An der Studie nahmen 76 Hausärzte (7,6 %) und 40 Orthopäden (10 %). Davon waren 90 % der Hausärzte und 68 % der Orthopäden der Meinung, Physiotherapeuten sollten eigenständig in der Lage sein zu beurteilen, ob Physiotherapie indiziert ist oder nicht.

Schlussfolgerung Die Studienteilnehmer sahen es mehrheitlich positiv, dass Physiotherapeuten in Österreich mehr Verantwortung übernehmen und eigenständig beurteilen, ob eine Indikation zur Physiotherapie besteht.

Key words

clinical decisions - survey - physiotherapy - physicians

Schlüsselwörter

klinische Entscheidungen - Umfrage - Physiotherapie - Ärzte
 

  • References

  • 1 Ojha HA, Snyder RS, Davenport TE. Direct access compared with referred physical therapy episodes of care: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2014; 94: 14-30 . doi:10.2522/ptj.20130096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Murphy BP, Greathouse D, Matsui I. Primary Care Physical Therapy Practice Models. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005; 35: 699-707 . doi:10.2519/jospt.2005.35.11.699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Leemrijse CJ, Swinkels ICS, Veenhof C. Direct Access to Physical Therapy in the Netherlands: Results from the First Year in Community-Based Physical Therapy. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 936-946 . doi:10.2522/ptj.20070308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Desmeules F, Roy JS, MacDermid JC. et al. Advanced practice physiotherapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 1-21 . doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Deyle GD. Direct Access Physical Therapy and Diagnostic Responsibility: The Risk-to-Benefit Ratio. Phys Ther 2006; 36: 632-634 . doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.0110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Davenport TE, Watts HG, Kulig K. et al. Current Status and Correlates of Physicians’s Referral Diagnoses for Physical Therapy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005; 35: 572-579 . doi:10.2519/jospt.2005.35.9.572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Liu H, Fletcher JP. Analysis of Physicians’ Referrals: Is Further Diagnosis Needed?. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2006; 1: 10-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Boissonnault WG, Ross MD. Physical therapists referring patients to physicians: a review of case reports and series. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42: 446-454 . doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Boissonnault WG. Primary Care for the Physical Therapists: Examination and Triage. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Donato EB, DuVall RE, Godges JJ. et al. Practice Analysis: Defining the Clinical Practice of Primary Contact Physical Therapy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2004; 34: 284-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Jones MA. Clinical Reasoning in Manual Therapy. Phys Ther 1992; 72: 875-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT). Standards of Physical Therapy Practice. www.wcpt.org/policy/ps-descriptionPT (15.04.2018)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Clark DE. Screening for Medical Referral: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors of Physical Therapists with Greater than 10 Years’ Experience [Thesis]. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama; 2007
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Knipp R. First Contact Practice fürPhysiotherapeutinnen. Eine weitere berufspolitische Entwicklung und ein Muss für die Zukunft? Eine Online-Umfrage und Analyse unter Physiotherapeutinnen in Österreich [Dissertation]. Krems: Universität Krems; 2008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Scheermesser M, Allet L, Bürge E. et al. Direktzugang zur Physiotherapie in der Schweiz: Kulturelle Validierung eines Fragebogens und Untersuchung der Einstellung von Physiotherapeuten. physioscience 2011; 7: 143-149
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Physio Austria. Positionspapier: PhysiotherapeutInnen in Primary Health Care: best point of service. 2014 www.physioaustria.at/system/files/general/positionspapier_physiotherapeutinnen_in_phc_062014.pdf (15.04.2018)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Eckler U, Gödl-Purrer B, Hurkmans E. et al. Die Physiotherapeutin/der Physiotherapeut: Kompetentzprofil. 2017 www.physioaustria.at/system/files/general/phy_kompetenzprofil_deutsch_fin_072017.pdf (15.04.2018)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sorge M. Ihre Meinung und weitere Schritte zum Direktzugang. Physioinform 2017; 5: e8-e9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Grimshaw J. SURGE (The Survey Reporting GuidelinE). In: Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF. et al. Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User’s Manual. Oxford: Wiley; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Portney JG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. New Jersey: Pearson; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Physio Austria. Berufsprofil der/des Diplomierten Physiotherapeutin/Physiotherapeuten. 2004 www.physioaustria.at/system/files/general/berufsprofil.pdf (15.04.2018)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kanuk L, Berenson C. Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review. JMKR 1975; 12: 440-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 VanGeest JG, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for Improving Response Rates in Survey of Physicians: A Systematic Review. Eval Health Prof 2007; 30: 303-321 . doi:10.1177/0163278707307899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Flanigan T, McFarlane ES, Cook S. Conducting Survey Research among Physicians and Other Medical Professionals: A Review of Current Literature. 2008 www.ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2008/Files/flanigan.pdf (15.04.2018)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Standard definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates of Surveys. 2016 www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf (15.04.2018)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM. et al. Prevalence of and Screening for Serious Spinal Pathology in Patients Presenting to Primary Spine Settings With Acute Low Back Pain. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 60: 3072-3080 . doi:10.1002/art.24853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Enthoven WTM, Geuze J, Scheele J. et al. Prevalence and “Red Flags” Regarding Specific Causes of Back Pain in Older Adults Presenting in General Practice. Phys Ther 2016; 96: 305-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 De Schepper EIT, Koes BW, Veldhuizen EFH. et al. Prevalence of spinal pathology in patients presenting for lumbar MRI as referred from general practice. Fam Pract 2016; 33: 51-56 . doi:10.1093/fampra/cmv097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bundesministerium für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaftsstandort. Verordnung der Bundesministerin für Gesundheit und Frauen über Fachhochschul-Bakkalaureatsstudiengänge für die Ausbildung in den gehobenen medizinisch-technischen Diensten (FH-MTD-Ausbildungsverordnung – FH-MTD-AV). 2018 www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20004516 (15.04.2018)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 McFarlane E, Olmsted MG. et al. Nonresponse Bias in a Mail Survey of Physicians. Eval Health Prof 2007; 30: 170-185 . doi:10.1177/0163278707300632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yusuf TE, Baron TH. Endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: results of a national and an international survey of ASGE members. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 223-227 . doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.09.034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Dykema J, Stevenson J, Day B. et al. Effects of Incentives and Prenotifications on Response Rates and Costs in a National Web Survey of Physicians. Eval Health Prof 2011; 34: 434-447 . doi:10.1177/0163278711406113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 James KM, Ziegenfuss JY, Tilburt JC. et al. Getting Physicians to Respond: The Impact of Incentive Type and Timing on Physician Survey Response Rates. Health Serv Res 2011; 46: 232-242 . doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01181.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Berk ML. Interviewing Physicians: The Effect of Improved Response Rate. Am J Public Health 1985; 75: 1338-1340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bjertnaes OA, Garratt A, Botten G. Nonresponse Bias and Cost-Effectiveness in a Norwegian Survey of Family Physicians. Eval Health Prof 2008; 31: 65-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar