The clinical impact of pain neuroscience continuing education on physical therapy outcomes for patients with low back and neck pain.

OBJECTIVES: Research suggests that attendance by physical therapists at continuing education (CE) targeting the management of low back pain (LBP) and neck pain does not result in positive impacts on clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if therapists attending a self-paced 3-hour online Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE) program was associated with any observed changes to patient outcomes and also clinical practice. METHODS: Participants were 25 different physical therapists who treated 3,705 patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain before and after they had completed an online PNE CE course. Change in outcomes measures of pain and disability at discharge were compared for the patients treated before and after the therapist training. Clinical practice patterns of the therapists, including total treatment visits, duration of care, total units billed, average units billed per visit, percentage of 'active' billing units and percentage of 'active and manual' billing units, were also compared for the patient care episodes before and after the therapist training. RESULTS: There was no significant difference for change in pain scores at discharge for patients treated after therapist CE training compared to those treated before regardless of the condition (LBP or neck pain). However, patients with LBP who were treated after therapist CE training did report greater improvement in their disability scores. Also after CE training, for each episode of care, therapists tended to use less total visits, billed fewer units per visit, and billed a greater percentage of more 'active' and 'active and manual' billing units. DISCUSSION: Attending an online 3-hour CE course on PNE resulted in improved disability scores for patients with LBP, but not for those with neck pain. Changes in clinical behavior by the therapists included using less visits, billing fewer total units, and shifting to more active and manual therapy interventions. Further prospective studies with control groups should investigate the effect of therapist CE on patient outcomes and clinical practice.

A comparison of treatment signatures of high and low performing physical therapists for patients with lower back pain: analysis of spine care from a physical therapy outcomes registry.

INTRODUCTION: Lower back pain (LBP) is the most common orthopedic complaint in the United States. Physical therapy is recommended as a conservative, non-pharmacological intervention for LBP. While it is thought that skill level and effectiveness of physical therapists differ, there is little understanding regarding characteristics that distinguish high and low performing physical therapists. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in care delivery, termed treatment signatures, between high and low performing physical therapists previously differentiated by a risk-adjusted performance measure. METHODS: Using previously published methodology, 1,240 physical therapists were classified as "outperforming", "meeting expectations", or "underperforming" relative to predicted change in Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) across patients receiving care for LBP. Patients were divided into quartiles of baseline disability per initial MDQ. Two-way analyses of variance were used to compare billed (1) active, exercise-based units per visit (UPV), (2) manual therapy UPV, (3) modality UPV, and (4) the combination of active and manual therapy UPV (broadly termed skilled UPV) by performance cohort and baseline patient disability quartile among physical therapists deemed "outperforming" and "underperforming". Tukey's post hoc tests established mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Physical therapists that "outperformed" (n=120; 17,404 patients) used more active UPV (mean difference (diff) = 0.1, p<.001), manual therapy UPV (mean diff = 0.2, p<.001), and skilled UPV (mean diff = 0.3, p<.001), and less modality UPV (mean diff = 0.1, P < 0.001) than those that "underperformed" (n=139; 21,800 patients). Tukey's post hoc tests showed that while differences in care were negligible in patients with low baseline disability, the highest performing PT cohort delivered skilled (0.4 UPV), active (0.2 UPV), and manual therapy (0.2 UPV) UPV at a significantly higher mean rate in patients with the highest baseline disability. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically effective physical therapists incorporated a treatment signature that included a consistent blend of skilled active and manual therapy interventions that was distinct from lower performing physical therapists. While group mean differences were relatively small, a consistent pattern emerged in which high performing physical therapists maintained a high level of skilled, one-on-one interventions across their entire caseload-while their lower performing counterparts significantly decreased use of the same interventions as baseline disability increased. These differences highlighted a treatment signature that was associated with clinically important improvements for patients with greater baseline disability. Future guideline recommendations should consider the importance of baseline disability and the consistent application of skilled active and manual therapy interventions.

Predicting Recurrent Care Seeking of Physical Therapy for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal pain conditions are a leading cause of pain and disability internationally and a common reason to seek health care. Accurate prediction of recurrence of health care seeking due to musculoskeletal conditions could allow for better tailoring of treatment. The aim of this project was to characterize patterns of recurrent physical therapy seeking for musculoskeletal pain conditions and to develop a preliminary prediction model to identify those at increased risk of recurrent care seeking. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Ambulatory care. SUBJECTS: Patients (n = 578,461) seeking outpatient physical therapy (United States). METHODS: Potential predictor variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, and patients were placed into three different recurrent care categories. Logistic regression models were used to identify individual predictors of recurrent care seeking, and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was used to develop multivariate prediction models. RESULTS: The accuracy of models for different definitions of recurrent care ranged from 0.59 to 0.64 (c-statistic), and individual predictors were identified from multivariate models. Predictors of increased risk of recurrent care included receiving workers' compensation and Medicare insurance, having comorbid arthritis, being postoperative at the time of the first episode, age range of 44-64 years, and reporting night sweats or night pain. Predictors of decreased risk of recurrent care included lumbar pain, chronic injury, neck pain, pregnancy, age range of 25-44 years, and smoking. CONCLUSION: This analysis identified a preliminary predictive model for recurrence of care seeking of physical therapy, but model accuracy needs to improve to better guide clinical decision-making.

Risk Adjustment of the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and Neck Disability Index to Benchmark Physical Therapist Performance: Analysis From an Outcomes Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been touted as the ultimate assessment of quality medical care and have been proposed as performance measures after appropriate risk adjustment. Although spine conditions represent the most common orthopedic disorders, the most used PROs for disabilities related to the back and neck-the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI)-have not been evaluated as performance measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to benchmark physical therapists' performance in the management of spine conditions not involving surgery through the use of risk-adjusted MDQ and NDI outcomes. DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational study. METHODS: Data were accessed for patients seeking physical therapy with no history of related surgery for back or neck pain (315,274 treatment episodes) between January 2015 and June 2018. Patients with complete data, including initial and matched final MDQ or NDI, were considered for analysis (182,276 patients; 2799 physical therapists). Linear models controlling for baseline PRO and patient characteristics predicted PRO change for each patient. An aggregated performance ratio of actual PRO change to predicted PRO change was calculated for each physical therapist, and then empirical bootstrapping was used to develop the median performance ratio and its confidence intervals. Physical therapists who met a 40-patient threshold for either cohort (MDQ or NDI) were classified as "outperforming," "meeting expectations," or "underperforming" relative to predicted values using these 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Performance ratios indicated that 10% and 11% of physical therapists outperformed, 79% and 78% met expectations, and 11% and 11% underperformed relative to the risk-adjusted predicted change in the MDQ (1240 therapists; 97,908 patients) and NDI (461 therapists; 26,123 patients), respectively. To demonstrate the clinical importance of risk adjustment, clinical performance was evaluated in the seemingly homogeneous subset of 208 physical therapists within 0.5 SD of the median baseline MDQ and the median actual change in the MDQ. Following risk adjustment, 2 physical therapists were classified in each of the outperforming and underperforming cohorts. LIMITATIONS: The secondarily obtained observational data used were not collected for research purposes. Additionally, the analyses were limited by missing baseline information and follow-up PROs. CONCLUSIONS: The risk-adjusted performance ratios for the MDQ and NDI resulted in disparate conclusions regarding the quality of care compared with the raw, unadjusted change scores. According to the baseline and unadjusted change in the MDQ, even physical therapists in the most homogeneous sample were differentiated following appropriate risk adjustment. Clinically important improvements in actual PROs were observed in the outperforming but not in the underperforming physical therapists. Clinically meaningful differences in the performance ratio are unknown and are a limitation to clinical application and an opportunity for future research.