No description available.

No description available.

Les temps d’attente pour une prise en charge en orthopédie et en neurochirurgie ont considérablement augmenté au Québec et au Canada engendrant d’important problèmes d’accès aux soins. Face à ces délais déraisonnables, les modèles de pratiques avancées en physiothérapie (PAP), qui confèrent une plus grande autonomie et responsabilité aux physiothérapeutes, représentent une alternative prometteuse. Cette thèse vise à évaluer l'efficacité de ces modèles de soins dans la prise en charge des troubles musculosquelettiques (TMS). À cette fin, trois revues systématiques avec méta-analyses ont été conduites afin d’évaluer l’état des connaissances sur les modèles de PAP pour les TMS. De plus, trois études ont été menées au Québec avec le modèle de CareAxis, où des physiothérapeutes en pratiques avancées (PPA) effectuent l'évaluation, le diagnostic et le triage chirurgical de patients référés pour une consultation en chirurgie de la colonne. Celles-ci incluent une étude d’observations rétrospective évaluant l’efficacité du modèle, un essai contrôlé randomisé (ECR) pragmatique sur l’efficacité d’une prise en charge à séance unique comparée à une prise en charge à séances multiples, ainsi qu’une étude qualitative visant à explorer les perceptions des patients et des PPA envers ce nouveau modèle de soins. Les trois revues systématiques ont montré que les modèles de PAP améliorent l’accès aux soins, que le diagnostic et le triage des candidats potentiellement chirurgicaux émis par les PPA sont valides et concordants avec ceux des médecins spécialistes et que l’efficacité clinique, en termes de douleur et d’incapacité, des modèles de PAP est au moins comparable aux soins médicaux standard, tout en réduisant les coûts par patient pour le système de santé. Par ailleurs, les patients ont rapporté des niveaux de satisfaction plus élevés envers les modèles PAP qu’envers les modèles standards. Pour ce qui est du modèle de CareAxis, l’étude d’observations démontre que le modèle a le potentiel d’améliorer l’accès aux soins en réduisant les temps d’attente. De plus, les diagnostics et les décisions de triage chirurgical des PPA sont comparables à ceux des chirurgiens de la colonne. Des améliorations significatives en termes de réduction de la douleur et des incapacités ont été rapportées, tant dans l’étude d’observations que dans l’ECR. Ce dernier a permis de conclure que l’ajout de cinq séances de suivis incluant de la physiothérapie multimodale n’apporte pas de bénéfices significatifs lorsque comparé à l’approche d’une seule séance, et ce, malgré une préférence des patients pour l’approche à séances multiples. Cette préférence a également été observée dans l’étude qualitative, où les patients et PPA ont souligné les bénéfices du modèle de CareAxis en comparaison au modèle standard, tout en soulignant que le modèle présente certaines limites. En conclusion, les modèles de PAP, dont le modèle de CareAxis, ont le potentiel d’améliorer l’accès aux soins tout en offrant une qualité de soins en termes de diagnostic, de triage chirurgical et d’évolution des patients au moins comparable au modèle médical standard. L’efficacité clinique des approches à séance unique ou multiples est comparable. Les patients ont rapporté des taux élevés de satisfaction envers le modèle de CareAxis. / Waiting times for orthopedic and neurosurgery care have significantly increased in Quebec and Canada, leading to significant health care access problems. Faced with these unreasonable delays, advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) models, which included increased autonomy and responsibilities for physiotherapists, represent a promising alternative. The aim of this thesis is to evaluate the effectiveness of these models of care in managing musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Three systematic reviews with meta-analyses were conducted to assess the state of knowledge on APP models of care for MSKDs. In addition, three studies were carried out in Quebec using the CareAxis model, in which advanced practice physiotherapists (APPT) perform the assessment, diagnosis, and surgical triage of patients referred for a spinal surgery consultation. These included a retrospective observational study evaluating the APP model effectiveness, a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of a single session versus multiple sessions of care, and a qualitative study aimed at exploring the perceptions of patients and APPTs towards this new model of care. The three systematic reviews showed that APP models improve health care access, the diagnosis and triage of potential surgical candidates performed by the APPTs are valid and concordant with those of medical specialists. The clinical effectiveness, in terms of pain and disability, of APP models is at least comparable to standard medical care, while reducing health care cost per patient. Furthermore, patients reported higher levels of satisfaction with the APP models than with standard medical models. As for the CareAxis model, the observational study demonstrates that the model has the potential to improve health care access by reducing waiting times. Moreover, the diagnoses and surgical triage decisions of the APPTs are comparable to those of spine surgeons. Significant improvements in terms of pain and disability reduction were reported, both in the observational study and in the RCT. The RCT concluded that adding five follow-up sessions including multimodal physiotherapy does not provide significant benefits compared to the single-session approach, despite patients' preference for the multiple-session approach. This preference was also observed in the qualitative study, where patients and APPTs highlighted the benefits of the CareAxis model compared to the standard model, while noting that the model has certain limitations. In conclusion, APP models, including the CareAxis model, have the potential to improve health care access while offering a quality of care in terms of diagnosis, surgical triage, and patient outcomes that is at least comparable to the standard medical model. The clinical effectiveness of single or multiple session approaches is comparable. Patients reported high satisfaction rates with the CareAxis model.

The exponential growth in medical pharmaceuticals and related clinical trials have created a need to better understand the decision-making factors in the processes for developing hospital medication formularies. The purpose of the study was to identify, rank, and compare major factors impacting hospital formulary decision-making among three prescriber groups serving on a hospital's pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee. Prescribers were selected from the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center which is a large, multi-facility, academic oncology hospital. Specifically, the prescriber groups studied were comprised of physicians, midlevel providers, and pharmacists. A self-administered online survey was disseminated to participants. Seven major hospital formulary decision-making factors were identified in the scientific literature. Study participants were asked to respond to questions about each of the hospital formulary decision-making factors and to rank the various formulary decision-making factors from the factor deemed most important to the factor deemed least important. There are five major conclusions drawn from the study including three similarities and two significant differences among the prescriber groups and factors. Similarities include: (1) the factor "pharmacy staff's evaluation of medical evidence including formulary recommendations" was ranked highest for all three prescriber groups; (2) "evaluation of medications by expert physicians" was ranked second for physicians and midlevel providers while pharmacists ranked it third; and (3) the factor, "financial impact of the treatment to the patient" was fifth in terms of hospital formulary decision-making statement and ranking by all three prescriber groups. Two significant differences include: (1) for the hospital-formulary decision making statement, "I consider the number of patients affected by adding, removing, or modifying a drug on the formulary when making hospital medication formulary decisions," midlevel providers considered this factor of significantly greater importance than did physicians; and (2) for the ranked hospital formulary decision-making factor, "financial impact of treatment to the institution," pharmacists ranked this factor significantly higher than did physicians. This study contributes to a greater understanding of the three prescriber groups serving on a P&T committee. Also, the study contributes to the body of literature regarding decision-making processes in medicine and specifically factors impacting hospital formulary decision-making. Furthermore, this study has the potential to impact the operational guidelines for the P&T committee at the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center as well as other hospitals.