Objectives: To evaluate the effect of introducing an extended scope physiotherapy (ESP) service on patient satisfaction, and to measure the functional outcome of patients with soft tissue injuries attending an adult emergency department (ED), comparing management by ESPs, emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs), and all grades of ED doctor. Methods: The ESP service operated on four days out of every seven in a week in an urban adult ED. A satisfaction questionnaire was sent to all patients with a peripheral soft tissue injury and fractures (not related to the ankle) within one week of attending the ED. Patients with a unilateral soft tissue ankle injury were sent the acute Short Form 36 (SF-36) functional outcome questionnaire, with additional visual analogue scales for pain, at 4 and 16 weeks after their ED attendance. Waiting times and time spent with individual practitioners was also measured. Results: The ESP service achieved patient satisfaction that was superior to either ENPs or doctors. Overall 55% of patients seen by the ESP service strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the treatment they received, compared with 39% for ENPs and 36% for doctors (p = 0.048). Assessment of long-term outcome from ankle injury was undermined by poor questionnaire return rates. There was a trend towards improved outcomes at four weeks in those patients treated by an ESP, but this did not achieve statistical significance. Conclusion: Adding an ESP service to the interdisciplinary team achieves higher levels of patient satisfaction than for either doctors or ENPs. Further outcomes research, conducted in a wider range of emergency departments and integrated with an economic analysis, is recommended.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared to the routine care provided by doctors in a UK emergency department (ED).DesignRandomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.SettingOne adult ED in England.Participants372 patients were randomised; 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (older than 16 years) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups. Patients were excluded if they had any of the following: injury greater than 72 hours old; systemic disease; dislocated joints; recent surgery; unable to give informed consent (eg, dementia), open wounds; major deformities; opiate analgesia required; concurrent chest/rib injury; neurovascular deficits and associated fracture.InterventionsPatients were randomised to treatment by ESPs, ENPs or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades).Main outcome measuresUpper-limb and lower-limb functional scores, quality of life, physical well-being, preference-based health measures and the number of days off work.ResultsThe clinical outcomes of soft tissue injury treated by ESPs and ENPs in the ED were equivalent to routine care provided by doctors.ConclusionsAs all groups were clinically equivalent it is other factors such as cost, workforce sustainability, service provision and skill mix that become important. This result validates the role of the ENP, which is becoming established as an integral part of minor injuries care, and demonstrates that the ESP should be considered as part of the clinical skill mix without detriment to outcomes.ISRCTN-ISRCTN trials register number70891354.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED).DesignRandomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.SettingA single ED in England.Participants372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups.InterventionsPatients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades).Main outcome measuresEconomic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings.ResultsFrom a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care.ConclusionsThese results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.

No abstract