A Systems Approach for Assessing Low Back Pain Care Quality in Veterans Health Administration Chiropractic Visits: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore a systemwide process for assessing components of low back pain (LBP) care quality in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) chiropractic visits using electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional quality improvement project. We randomly sampled 1000 on-station VHA chiropractic initial visits occurring from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, for patients with no such visits within the prior 12 months. Characteristics of LBP visits were extracted from VHA national EHR data via structured data queries and manual chart review. We developed quality indicators for history and/or examination and treatment procedures using previously published literature and calculated frequencies of visits meeting these indicators. Visits meeting our history and/or examination and treatment indicators were classified as "high-quality" visits. We performed a regression analysis to assess associations between demographic/clinical characteristics and visits meeting our quality criteria. RESULTS: There were 592 LBP visits identified. Medical history, physical examination, and neurologic examination were documented in 76%, 77%, and 63% of all LBP visits, respectively. Recommended treatments, such as any manipulation, disease-specific education/advice, and therapeutic exercise, occurred in 75%, 69%, and 40% of chronic visits (n = 383), respectively. In acute/subacute visits (n = 37), any manipulation (92%), manual soft tissue therapy (57%), and disease-specific advice/education (54%) occurred most frequently. Female patients and those with a neck pain comorbid diagnosis were significantly less likely to have a "high-quality" visit, while other regression associations were non-significant. CONCLUSION: This study explored a systemwide process for assessing components of care quality in VHA chiropractic visits for LBP. These results produced a potential framework for uniform assessment of care quality in VHA chiropractic visits for LBP and highlight potential areas for improvements in LBP care quality assessments.

Relationship of pain relief with catastrophizing following interventional pain procedures for low back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Catastrophizing is associated with worse pain outcomes after various procedures suggesting its utility in predicting response. However, the stability of pain catastrophizing as a static predictor has been challenged. We assess, among patients undergoing steroid injections for chronic low back pain (cLBP), whether catastrophizing changes with the clinical response to pain interventions. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled patients undergoing fluoroscopic-guided injections for cLBP. Patients filled out Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) at baseline and 1-month follow-up. We assessed the change in PCS scores from pre-injection to post-injection and examined its predictors. We also examined the correlation of various domains of BPI, such as pain severity and effect on Relationships, Enjoyment, and Mood (REM), with PCS scores at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 128 patients were enrolled. Mean (SD) PCS and pain severity scores at baseline were 22.38 (±13.58) and 5.56 (±1.82), respectively. Follow-up PCS and pain severity scores were 19.76 (±15.25) and 4.42 (±2.38), respectively. The change in PCS pre-injection to post-injection was not significant (p=0.12). Multiple regression models revealed baseline PCS and REM domain of BPI as the most important predictors of change in PCS after injection. Pain severity, activity-related pain, age, sex, insurance status, depression, prior surgery, opioid use, or prior interventions did not predict change in PCS score. In correlation analysis, change in PCS was moderately correlated with change in pain (r=0.38), but weakly correlated with baseline pain in all pain domains. CONCLUSIONS: PCS showed non-significant improvement following steroid injections; the study was not powered for this outcome. Follow-up PCS scores were predicted by the REM domain of BPI, rather than pain severity. Larger studies are needed to evaluate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful change in catastrophizing scores following pain interventions.

A Prospective Cohort Study to Evaluate Needle Passes Using a Portable Ultrasound Device versus Traditional Landmark Approach for Epidural Anesthesia in a Busy Obstetric Tertiary Care Center.

Despite its many cited benefits, ultrasound guidance for neuraxial procedures is not widespread in anesthesiology. Some cited limitations include device cost and accessibility. We test the hypothesis that a handheld and relatively inexpensive ultrasound can improve neuraxial proficiency (e.g., decreased needle manipulations and block time). This prospective study compared the number of needle passes, redirections, and procedural time between epidural placed with a handheld ultrasound versus landmarks. Needle passes and attempts were defined as the number of times the Tuhoy needle was redirected, and the times skin was punctured (re-insertion). Procedural time was defined as the time from local anesthetic infiltration until loss of resistance was obtained. The impact of level of training and accuracy of the device were also analyzed. 302 patients receiving labor epidural were included in the study. No difference in body mass index (BMI) nor distribution of level of training was noted between the groups. Regression analysis adjusted for BMI demonstrated a decrease in needle passes (-1.75 (95% CI -2.62, -0.89), p < 0.001), needle attempts (-0.51 (95% CI -0.97, -0.04), p = 0.032) and procedural time (-154.67s 95% CI -303.49s, -5.85s), p = 0.042) when a handheld ultrasound was utilized. The mean (95% Confidence interval) difference between needle depth and ultrasound depth was 0.39 cm (0.32, 0.46), p < 0.001. The use of a handheld device resulted in statistically significant decrease of needle manipulations and block time. More research is needed to evaluate the impact of and increase in accessibility of ultrasound technology.