BackgroundPhysical therapy-led orthopedic triage is a care model used to optimize pathways for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. However, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this model of care is still limited and only a few studies report patients’ perception of it. The aim of this study was to compare patients’ perceived quality of care after physical therapy-led triage with standard practice in a secondary care setting for patients with primary hip or knee osteoarthritis.MethodsIn this randomized study, patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis referred for an orthopedic consultation received either physical therapy-led triage (n = 344) or a standard care assessment by an orthopedic surgeon (n = 294). To evaluate the patients’ perceived quality of care, a short version of theQuality from the Patient’s Perspective(QPP) questionnaire was sent to the patients within a week after their assessment. The primary outcome was the statement“I received the best examination and treatment” on QPP.ResultsA total of 348 patients (70%, physical therapy-led triage: n = 249, standard care: n = 199) answered the questionnaire. No significant difference was found in the primary outcome between the groups (p= 0.6). Participants in the triage group perceived themselves to have received significantly better information about how to take care of their osteoarthritis (p= 0.017) compared with the standard care group. The standard care group reported that they participated in the decision-making process to a greater extent (p= 0.005), that their expectations were met to a greater degree (p= 0.013), and that their care depended more on their need for care rather than the caregivers’ routines (0.007).ConclusionBoth groups report high perceived quality of care. Significant differences were found in four of 14 questions, one in favor of the physical therapist and three in favor of the standard care group. The findings of this study are in line with previous research and support the use of this care model for patients with hip or knee OA in secondary care. However, due to the dropout size, the results should be interpreted with caution.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT04665908, registered 14/12/2020.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06659-5.