| Loss to follow up |
Normal practice at SRFT was not to see patients routinely for physiotherapy and this may have implicitly contributed to the high losses to follow up and the 6 patients not attending for the physiotherapy/leaflet intervention to which they were allocated (only n = 1 for QEHB). |
|
Follow up reminders were different between sites (text versus telephone). SRFT with the high loss to follow up, used a text reminder system and it was hypothesised that this may be contributing to the losses. However, changing this to telephone reminders for the final third of SRFT follow ups did not make a difference. |
| Outcome assessment |
Telephone follow up of the primary outcome measure would be valuable as the physiotherapists perceptions of distance to travel and returning to work as key factors for loss to follow up are also reflected in the secondary outcome data; with 60% (physiotherapy/leaflet) and 74% (patient leaflet) back at work at 12 weeks, and 75% (physiotherapy/leaflet) and 86% (patient leaflet) back at work at 26 weeks. |
| Training |
The data suggest that there may have been a training issue at SRFT regarding assessor checking for missing data, although training was consistent across sites. This may therefore have been a reflection of demands on busy clinicians, as it was also true of the intervention data that in particular had not included any data in free text sections for SRFT. All submitted forms from QEHB included a detailed summary at discharge, whilst the discharge summary was briefly outlined on only 1 form from SRFT. It would be valuable to increase the monitoring at each site regarding the data completion of outcome measures and intervention record data across both sites. |
| Performance based outcomes |
The value of the performance based outcomes, the SLR and ROM lumbar spine, is unclear from this data considering the cost of physiotherapist time to collect data, and patient attendance for outcome assessment. |
