Adoption and use of guidelines for whiplash: an audit of insurer and health professional practice in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the New South Wales (NSW) State Insurance Regulatory Authority has been continuously developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines to address the health and economic burden from whiplash associated disorders (WAD). Despite this, it is uncertain the extent to which the guidelines are followed. This study aimed to determine insurer and health professional compliance with recommendations of the 2014 NSW clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute WAD; and explore factors related to adherence. METHODS: This was an observational study involving an audit of 288 randomly-selected claimant files from 4 insurance providers in NSW, Australia between March and October 2016. Data extracted included demographic, claim and injury details, use of health services, and insurer and health professional practices related to the guidelines. Analyses involved descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. RESULTS: Median time for general practitioner medical consultation was 4 days post-injury and 25 days for physical treatment (e.g. physiotherapy). Rates of x-ray investigations were low (21.5%) and most patients (90%) were given active treatments in line with the guideline recommendations. The frequency of other practices recommended by the guidelines suggested lower guideline adherence in some areas such as; using the Quebec Task Force classification (19.9%); not using specialised imaging for WAD grades I and II (e.g. MRI, 45.8%); not using routine passive treatments (e.g. manual therapy, 94.0%); and assessing risk of non-recovery using relevant prognostic tools (e.g. Neck Disability Index, 12.8%). Over half of the claimants (59.0%) were referred to other professionals at 9-12 weeks post-injury, among which 31.2% were to psychologists and 68.8% to specialists (surgical specialists, 43.6%; WAD specialists, 20.5%). Legal representation and lodgment of full claim were associated with increased number of medical visits and imaging (ρ 0.23 to 0.3; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: There is evidence of positive uptake of some guideline recommendations by insurers and health professionals; however, there are practices that are not compliant and might lead to poor health outcomes and greater treatment cost. Organisational, regulatory and professional implementation strategies may be considered to change practice, improve scheme performance and ultimately improve outcomes for people with WAD.

Implementation of a risk-stratified, guideline-based clinical pathway of care to improve health outcomes following whiplash injury (Whiplash ImPaCT): a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Current pathways of care for whiplash follow a "stepped care model," result in modest treatment outcomes and fail to offer efficient management solutions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a risk-stratified clinical pathway of care (CPC) compared with usual care (UC) in people with acute whiplash. We conducted a multicentre, 2-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled trial in primary care in Australia. Participants with acute whiplash (n = 216) were stratified for risk of a poor outcome (low vs medium/high risk) and randomised using concealed allocation to either the CPC or UC. In the CPC group, low-risk participants received guideline-based advice and exercise supported by an online resource, and medium-risk/high-risk participants were referred to a whiplash specialist who assessed modifiable risk factors and then determined further care. The UC group received care from their primary healthcare provider who had no knowledge of risk status. Primary outcomes were neck disability index (NDI) and Global Rating of Change (GRC) at 3 months. Analysis blinded to group used intention-to-treat and linear mixed models. There was no difference between the groups for the NDI (mean difference [MD] [95% confidence interval (CI)] -2.34 [-7.44 to 2.76]) or GRC (MD 95% CI 0.08 [-0.55 to 0.70]) at 3 months. Baseline risk category did not modify the effect of treatment. No adverse events were reported. Risk-stratified care for acute whiplash did not improve patient outcomes, and implementation of this CPC in its current form is not recommended.

An Interactive Website for Whiplash Management (My Whiplash Navigator): Process Evaluation of Design and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Whiplash is a health and economic burden worldwide. Contributing to this burden is poor guideline adherence and variable management by health care professionals (HCPs). Web-based tools that facilitate clinical pathways of care are an innovative solution to improve management. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a Web-based tool to support whiplash management following a robust process. METHODS: This study followed the first 3 processes of a research translation framework (idea generation, feasibility, and efficacy) to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of a website that supports HCPs in whiplash management. Development followed the idea generation and feasibility processes to inform the content, design, features, and functionality of the website. This involved stakeholder (eg, industry partners, website developers, and HCPs) consultations through face-to-face meetings, surveys, and focus group discussions. Implementation followed the feasibility process to determine the practicality of the website for clinical use and the most effective strategy to promote wider uptake. Implementation strategies included classroom education, educational meetings, educational outreach, reminders, and direct phone contact. The analysis of website use and practicality of implementation involved collection of website metrics. Evaluation followed the feasibility and efficacy processes to investigate the acceptability and extent to which the website assisted HCPs in gaining knowledge about whiplash management. Surveys were conducted among student, primary, and specialist HCPs to explore ease of access, use, and satisfaction with the website, as well as self-rated improvements in knowledge of risk assessment, management, and communication between HCPs. Website logs of specialist management decisions (eg, shared care, specialist care, and referred care) were also obtained to determine actual practice. RESULTS: The development process delivered an interactive, user-friendly, and acceptable website, My Whiplash Navigator, tailored to the needs of HCPs. A total of 260 registrations were recorded from June 2016 to March 2018, including 175 student, 65 primary, and 20 specialist HCPs. The most effective implementation strategies were classroom education for students (81% uptake, 175/215) and educational meetings for primary HCPs (43% uptake, 47/110). Popular pages visited included advice and exercises and risk assessment. Most HCPs agreed that their knowledge about risk management (79/97, 81%) and exercises (85/97, 88%) improved. The specialists' most common management decision was shared care, an improvement from a previous cohort. Areas to improve were navigation and access to outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: A robust process resulted in an innovative, interactive, user-friendly, and acceptable website, the My Whiplash Navigator. Implementation with HCPs was best achieved through classroom education and educational meetings. Evaluation of the website showed improved knowledge and practice to be more consistent with a risk-based clinical care pathway for whiplash. The positive results provide sufficient evidence to scale implementation nationally and involve other target markets such as people with whiplash, insurers, and insurance regulators.