Griffiths et al UK Questionnaire Primary care 99 Review surgery Secondary care 74% surgery 2013 survey ESP conversion for onward conversion rate conversion rate referrals Hattam 2004 UK Cross section ESP ortho 170 Review of decision to Surgeon 70.6% appropriate survey triage refer to orthopaedics agreement on referral Heywood 2005 UK Prospective Military spinal 235 ESP assess/management ODI ESP managed 184 cases cohort clinic (78%) without further intervention Kennedy et al Canada Cross section Ortho 123 ESP review post VSQ-9 High ESP satisfaction 2010 knee/hip replacement Mackay et al 2012 Canada Prospective Ortho non 87 Baseline and 6 week Self efficacy All self efficacy scales cohort surgical hip and follow up after ESP Exercise improved. knees behaviour 83% still exercising Mackay et al 2009 Canada Cross section Ortho hip and 62 Seen by ESP and Diagnostic 69% diagnostic cohort knee orthopaedic surgeon. accuracy agreement Compare decisions. Surgical decision K=0.70 for surgery McClellan et al UK RCT ED 126 ESP ESP v Dr v ENP care of ESP / ENP equivalent DASH / LEFS / 2012 123 ENP soft tissue injury outcome to Dr care. SF12v2 / SF6D 123 Dr McClellan et al UK Prospective ED 351 ESP v Dr v ENP care Patient Higher satisfaction with 2006 cohort satisfaction ESP care. SF36 Ankle cases had very VAS poor study FU rate Moloney 2009 Ireland Clinic evaluation Fracture clinic 60 Satisfaction ESP care satisfaction 98% very good/good Oldmeadow et al Australia Prospective MSK screening 52 ESP review then Diagnostic / mgt 74% ESP surgeon 2007 observational consultant review and agreement agreement comparison Satisfaction High ESP satisfaction from patients and medics Parfitt et al 2012 UK Retrospective ESP primary 130 Is surgery listing by ESP Surgeon review 127 of 130 had surgery review care correct of decision Razmjou et al Canada Prospective ESP shoulder 100 Diagnosis/mgt VSQ-9 Diagnosis k=0.63-0.86 2013 cohort clinic 194 agreement Surgery k=0.75
Griffiths et al 2013 UK Questionnaire survey Primary care ESP 99 Review surgery conversion for onward referrals Secondary care conversion rate 74% surgery conversion rate Hattam 2004 UK Cross section survey ESP ortho triage 170 Review of decision to refer to orthopaedics Surgeon agreement on referral 70.6% appropriate Heywood 2005 UK Prospective cohort Military spinal clinic 235 ESP assess/management ODI ESP managed 184 cases (78%) without further intervention Kennedy et al 2010 Canada Cross section Ortho 123 ESP review post knee/hip replacement VSQ-9 High ESP satisfaction Mackay et al 2012 Canada Prospective cohort Ortho non surgical hip and knees 87 Baseline and 6 week follow up after ESP Self efficacy Exercise behaviour All self efficacy scales improved. 83% still exercising Mackay et al 2009 Canada Cross section cohort Ortho hip and knee 62 Seen by ESP and orthopaedic surgeon. Compare decisions. Diagnostic accuracy Surgical decision 69% diagnostic agreement K=0.70 for surgery McClellan et al 2012 UK RCT ED 126 ESP 123 ENP 123 Dr ESP v Dr v ENP care of soft tissue injury DASH / LEFS / SF12v2 / SF6D ESP / ENP equivalent outcome to Dr care. McClellan et al 2006 UK Prospective cohort ED 351 ESP v Dr v ENP care Patient satisfaction SF36 VAS Higher satisfaction with ESP care. Ankle cases had very poor study FU rate Moloney 2009 Ireland Clinic evaluation Fracture clinic 60 Satisfaction ESP care satisfaction 98% very good/good Oldmeadow et al 2007 Australia Prospective observational MSK screening 52 ESP review then consultant review and comparison Diagnostic / mgt agreement Satisfaction 74% ESP surgeon agreement High ESP satisfaction from patients and medics Parfitt et al 2012 UK Retrospective review ESP primary care 130 Is surgery listing by ESP correct Surgeon review of decision 127 of 130 had surgery Razmjou et al 2013 Canada Prospective cohort ESP shoulder clinic 100 194 Diagnosis/mgt agreement VSQ-9 Diagnosis k=0.63-0.86 Surgery k=0.75