Arthritis Extended-Role Practitioners: Impact on Community Practice (An Exploratory Study)

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared practice of extended role practitioners and experienced therapists without extended practice training to determine differences in assessment and management of clients with inflammatory arthritis, in preparation for a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Retrospective review of randomly selected charts of extended-role trained occupational therapists or physiotherapists and from experienced therapists matched on therapist discipline, geographical location, and time of referral. Three trained reviewers used standardized forms to extract data independently. RESULTS: We reviewed 58 charts of adult clients with inflammatory arthritis. Compared with experienced therapists, extended-role practitioners were more likely to receive referrals specifically for assessments (52% vs. 14%); to treat clients with undifferentiated arthritis (48% vs. 10%); to document comorbidities (90% vs. 66%); to advocate on behalf of the client with the client's family, physician, or specialist (52% vs. 21%); to recommend or provide exercise or physical activity (86% vs. 62%); to educate clients about pain management (41% vs. 28%), energy conservation (24% vs. 14%), and posture (21% vs. 7%); to recommend splints (41% vs. 31%); and to refer for or recommend radiologic or laboratory assessments (14% vs. 3%). Experienced therapists were more likely to provide education about joint protection (41% vs. 31%), community resources (31% vs. 7%), and assistive devices (45% vs. 21%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified possible differences in practice between extended-role practitioners and experienced therapists without training for extended practice. Capturing these details in future studies evaluating the efficacy of extended role practitioner interventions will be important.