Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40515757›Full record

ArticleMusculoskeletal care2025

Primary Care Reattendance Following an FCPP Appointment: A National Retrospective Service Evaluation.

Ben Bradford, Thomas Samuel Collier, Michael Freeman, Rob Goodwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Musculoskeletal care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ben BradfordPure Unity Health, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8370-5887
Thomas Samuel CollierPure Unity Health, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6801-2193
Michael FreemanPure Unity Health, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0009-0006-1020-8309
Rob GoodwinSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7825-6071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMusculoskeletal (MSK) conditions equate to one third of a general practitioners (GP's) caseload. First contact practitioner physiotherapists (FCPPs) have been shown to be a clinically and cost-effective alternative to GPs for managing MSK conditions. However, their impact on primary care workload(s) requires further evaluation.

aimTo determine the percentage of patients who, having seen an FCPP for a musculoskeletal disorder, then reattend with a GP, nurse practitioner (NP), or paramedic practitioner (PP) within 12 weeks, and the reasons for reattendance. DESIGN AND

settingNational, retrospective service evaluation from 70 primary care networks (PCNs) across England.

methodData on the rate of and reasons for reattendance following an FCPP appointment were collected retrospectively between 01 January 2024 and 30 April 2024. Consent was obtained from each PCN/practice site. Extracted data consisted of patient demographics, and whether the patient reattended with a GP/NP/PP at three predetermined timepoints within 12 weeks. Reasons for reattendance at each time point were recorded against 8 predetermined criteria.

resultsTwo thousand one hundred forty out of 2725 patients (78.5%) did not reattend within 12 weeks of an FCPP appointment. Medication/analgesia prescribed was the most common reason for reattendance < 8 weeks and onward referral was the most common reason for reattendance between 8 and 12 weeks.

conclusionFCPPs do have a significant impact on reducing the burden of MSK conditions in primary care. Medication was the most common reason for reattendance, supporting the advanced practice component of the FCPP role.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesPrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAppointments and SchedulesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesYoung Adultdelivery of health carefirst contact physiotherapy practitionergeneral practicemusculoskeletal conditionsprimary careservice evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40515757
PMCPMC12198934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.