Best practice care for acute low back pain: A new clinical standard to assist general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common presentations in general practice. Although there is excellent evidence regarding best management of the condition, in primary care there is often overuse of less effective and expensive options, whereas effective, inexpensive options are underused. After broad consultation and evidence review, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has developed a clinical care standard in response to this identified gap between best and actual practice. A clinical care standard focuses only on key areas of care where the need for quality improvement is greatest. OBJECTIVE: We explore the new standard using a typical patient scenario in primary care to highlight evidence-based approaches for challenging aspects of management, such as imaging and pain management. DISCUSSION: General practitioners (GPs) might find the practical GP 'quick guide' resource from the standard useful to support their care of patients with low back pain.

Process and implementation evaluation of a virtual hospital model of care for low back pain (Back@Home).

OBJECTIVES: Low back pain was the sixth most common reason for an ED visit in 2022-2023 in Australia, one-third of these patients were subsequently admitted to hospital. Therefore, we have assessed whether some patients could be diverted to alternate clinical pathways, via admission to a virtual hospital (rpavirtual), and be cared for remotely in their own homes. METHODS: Ethics approval was granted for protocols X21-0278 & 2021/ETH10967 and X21-0094 & 2021/ETH00591. We conducted a mixed-method process evaluation, using the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance) to answer key questions regarding the Back@Home model of care. RESULTS: This preliminary evaluation describes a cohort of the first 50 patients who received care between 13 February and 31 July 2023. The service had high levels of reach and adoption, very low levels of ED representation, and no AEs. Virtual care cost a median of AU$2215 (interquartile range = AU$1724-AU$2855) per admission. Patients admitted virtually had the same high satisfaction with care as traditionally admitted patients and reported less pain and better physical function. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that this model of care is a safe, acceptable, and feasible alternative to hospitalisation for non-serious low back pain, in a select cohort of patients meeting inclusion criteria. Further data collection will inform whether Back@Home has had an impact on length of stay or traditional admission rates.

Primary care seeking among adults with chronic neck and low back pain in Norway: A prospective study from the HUNT study linked to Norwegian primary healthcare registry.

BACKGROUND: To describe the frequency of primary care seeking for neck or back-related conditions among people with chronic neck and low back pain and to develop prediction models of primary care seeking and frequent visits. METHODS: We included participants of the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4, 2017-19) in Norway who self-reported chronic neck and/or low back pain in the preceding year, and extracted data of primary care visits from the Norwegian primary healthcare registry. We investigated a total of 23 potential predictors and used multivariable logistic regression models to predict primary care seeking for neck or back-related conditions and frequent visits by healthcare provider (i.e., the highest quartile of number of visits). RESULTS: Among the 15,352 HUNT4 participants with chronic neck and/or low back pain, 6231 participants (40.6%) sought primary care for neck or back-related conditions (median = 5 visits, IQR 2-15) within 2 years after the study. Participants who consulted physical therapists sought care the most frequently (median = 10 visits, IQR 3-26). Discrimination of the best-fit prediction model of primary care seeking and frequent visits by healthcare provider, assessed by C-statistic, ranged from 0.66-0.76. Participants who made frequent primary care visits in the preceding year were highly likely to continue frequent care seeking in the following 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Around 40% of people seek primary care for chronic neck and low back pain, and frequent care seeking may continue for years. Future studies should investigate strategies to reduce recurrent primary care visits, especially seeking physical therapist care, and promote self-management of chronic pain. SIGNIFICANCE: People with chronic neck and low back pain who seek physical therapist care had the highest frequency of care seeking, underscoring the significant burden on healthcare systems. The high frequency of visits and associated healthcare expenditures highlight the critical need for effective and valuable primary care for chronic pain management. To mitigate recurrent visits and reduce costs, it is essential to provide patients with evidence-based treatments and self-management interventions.

Emergency department length of stay and re-presentation rates in patients with low back pain: A medical record review study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is ranked in the top 10 conditions presenting to emergency departments (ED) in Australia. We aimed to investigate ED re-presentation rates and length of stay (LOS) of patients with LBP, including associated factors. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of three EDs in Sydney, Australia from January 2016 to October 2021. The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes of non-serious LBP with at least one re-presentation within 12 months. Secondary outcomes were re-presentation rates within 3-days, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months, 6-months, and mean LOS. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associated factors with re-presentation and prolonged stay (>4 h) and reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 8289 episodes of non-serious LBP, 7.7% included at least one re-presentation within 12 months. There were only 14 re-presentations (0.2%) where the diagnosis changed from non-serious LBP at the index visit to serious spinal pathology at the repeat visit. The overall mean LOS was 4.1 h, and 26.9% of patients stayed in the ED for >4 h. Those who received opioids (aOR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.08-1.59) were more likely to re-present. In contrast, patients receiving imaging were less likely to re-present (aOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). Receiving imaging (aOR: 2.83; 95% CI: 2.56-3.13) and opioids (aOR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.47-1.82) increased the odds of prolonged stay. CONCLUSION: A re-presentation within 12 months occurs in 7.7% of episodes of LBP in ED. Over one-quarter of patients stayed longer than 4 h.

How is postoperative pain after hip and knee replacement managed? An analysis of two large hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia regimens are recommended for the postoperative period after hip and knee replacement surgeries. However, there are no data on practice patterns for analgesic use in the immediate postoperative period after hip and knee replacements in Australia. OBJECTIVES: To describe analgesic prescribing patterns in the inpatient postoperative phase for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. METHODS: Retrospective study of electronic medical record data from two major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We identified analgesic medication prescriptions for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent hip or knee replacement surgery in 2019. We extracted data on pain medications prescribed while in the ward up until discharge. These were grouped into distinct categories based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification. We described the frequency (%) of pain medications used by category and computed the average oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD) during hospitalisation. RESULTS: We identified 1282 surgeries in 1225 patients. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 69 (11.8) years; most (57.1%) were female. Over 99% of patients were prescribed opioid analgesics and paracetamol during their hospital stay. Most patients (61.4%) were managed with paracetamol and opioids only. The most common prescribed opioid was oxycodone (87.3% of patients). Only 19% of patients were prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs). The median (IQR) average daily OMEDD was 50.2 mg (30.3-77.9). CONCLUSION: We identified high use of opioids analgesics as the main strategies for pain control after hip and knee replacement in hospital. Other analgesics were much less frequently used, such as NSAIDs, and always in combination with opioids and paracetamol.

Correction: A Virtual Hospital Model of Care for Low Back Pain, Back@Home: Protocol for a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Type-I Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/50146.].

Clinical indicators to monitor health care in low back pain: a scoping review.

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.

Opioids for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h). DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023. DATA SYNTHESIS: Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed. RESULTS: We located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%). DISCUSSION: Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021249346.

Behavioural 'nudging' interventions to reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department (NUDG-ED): protocol for a 2×2 factorial, before-after, cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids and imaging are considered low-value care for most people with low back pain. Yet around one in three people presenting to the emergency department (ED) will receive imaging, and two in three will receive an opioid. NUDG-ED aims to determine the effectiveness of two different behavioural 'nudge' interventions on low-value care for ED patients with low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUDG-ED is a 2×2 factorial, open-label, before-after, cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial includes 8 ED sites in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be ED clinicians who manage back pain, and patients who are 18 years or over presenting to ED with musculoskeletal back pain. EDs will be randomly assigned to receive (i) patient nudges, (ii) clinician nudges, (iii) both interventions or (iv) no nudge control. The primary outcome will be the proportion of encounters in ED for musculoskeletal back pain where a person received a non-indicated lumbar imaging test, an opioid at discharge or both. We will require 2416 encounters over a 9-month study period (3-month before period and 6-month after period) to detect an absolute difference of 10% in use of low-value care due to either nudge, with 80% power, alpha set at 0.05 and assuming an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.10, and an intraperiod correlation of 0.09. Patient-reported outcome measures will be collected in a subsample of patients (n≥456) 1 week after their initial ED visit. To estimate effects, we will use a multilevel regression model, with a random effect for cluster and patient, a fixed effect indicating the group assignment of each cluster and a fixed effect of time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from Southwestern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00472). We will disseminate the results of this trial via media, presenting at conferences and scientific publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623001000695.

Prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents vary considerably and the impact of pain on children's life is often not considered. OBJECTIVE: To determine the one-month prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. The secondary aims are to: 1) determine the body region with the highest prevalence; 2) understand the characteristics of the children with disabling musculoskeletal pain; and 3) describe the parents' perception of the prevalence. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in public and private schools in the states of São Paulo and Ceará, Brazil. Children self-reported presence and impact of pain, pain intensity, psychosomatic symptoms, and quality of life. Parents completed parent-proxy versions and perception of the child's sleep quality. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data. RESULTS: A total of 2,688 children and adolescents were included in this study. The prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in the previous month was 27.1%. The back was the region most often affected (51.8%). Children with disabling musculoskeletal pain were older, heavier, had worse relationships with their family, perceived their backpacks as heavy, carried their backpacks more with one shoulder, had more negative psychosomatic symptoms, had poorer quality of life, and had higher pain intensity. Parents tended to underestimate the presence of pain in their children. CONCLUSION: The one-month prevalence of activity limiting musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents was 27.1% with the back being the most often affected body region. Parents tended to underestimate the presence of pain in their children.

A content analysis of the interventions for low back pain promoted on the websites of Australian pain clinics.

BACKGROUND: The Internet is a widely used source of health information, yet the accuracy of online information can be low. This is the case for low back pain (LBP), where much of the information about LBP treatment is poor. METHODS: This research conducted a content analysis to explore what pain treatments for LBP are presented to the public on websites of Australian pain clinics listed in the PainAustralia National Pain Services Directory. Websites providing information relevant to the treatment of LBP were included. Details of the treatments for LBP offered by each pain service were extracted. RESULTS: In total, 173 pain services were included, with these services linking to 100 unique websites. Services were predominantly under private ownership and located in urban areas, with limited services in non-urban locations. Websites provided detail on a median of six (IQR 3-8) treatments, with detail on a higher number of treatments provided by services in the private sector. Physical, psychological and educational treatments were offered by the majority of pain services, whereas surgical and workplace-focused treatments were offered by relatively few services. Most services provided details on multidisciplinary care; however, interdisciplinary, coordinated care characterised by case-conferencing was infrequently mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Most websites provided details on treatments that were largely in-line with recommended care for LBP, but some were not, especially in private clinics. However, whether the information provided online is a true reflection of the services offered in clinics remains to be investigated.

Development of low back pain curriculum content standards for entry-level clinical training.

BACKGROUND: The management of low back pain (LBP) is highly variable and patients often receive management that is not recommended and/or miss out on recommended care. Clinician knowledge and behaviours are strongly influenced by entry-level clinical training and are commonly cited as barriers to implementing evidence-based management. Currently there are no internationally recognised curriculum standards for the teaching of LBP content to ensure graduating clinicians have the appropriate knowledge and competencies to assess and manage LBP. We formed an international interdisciplinary working group to develop curriculum content standards for the teaching of LBP in entry-level clinical training programs. METHODS: The working group included representatives from 11 countries: 18 academics and clinicians from healthcare professions who deal with the management of LBP (medicine, physiotherapy, chiropractic, osteopathy, pharmacology, and psychology), seven professional organisation representatives (medicine, physiotherapy, chiropractic, spine societies), and one healthcare consumer. A literature review was performed, including database and hand searches of guidelines and accreditation, curricula, and other policy documents, to identify gaps in current LBP teaching and recommended entry-level knowledge and competencies. The steering group (authors) drafted the initial LBP Curriculum Content Standards (LBP-CCS), which were discussed and modified through two review rounds with the working group. RESULTS: Sixty-two documents informed the draft standards. The final LBP-CCS consisted of four broad topics covering the epidemiology, biopsychosocial contributors, assessment, and management of LBP. For each topic, key knowledge and competencies to be achieved by the end of entry-level clinical training were described. CONCLUSION: We have developed the LBP-CCS in consultation with an interdisciplinary, international working group. These standards can be used to inform or benchmark the content of curricula related to LBP in new or existing entry-level clinical training programs.

A Virtual Hospital Model of Care for Low Back Pain, Back@Home: Protocol for a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Type-I Study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) was the fifth most common reason for an emergency department (ED) visit in 2020-2021 in Australia, with >145,000 presentations. A total of one-third of these patients were subsequently admitted to the hospital. The admitted patient care accounts for half of the total health care expenditure on LBP in Australia. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the Back@Home study is to assess the effectiveness of a virtual hospital model of care to reduce the length of admission in people presenting to ED with musculoskeletal LBP. A secondary aim is to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the virtual hospital and our implementation strategy. We will also investigate rates of traditional hospital admission from the ED, representations and readmissions to the traditional hospital, demonstrate noninferiority of patient-reported outcomes, and assess cost-effectiveness of the new model. METHODS: This is a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type-I study. To evaluate effectiveness, we plan to conduct an interrupted time-series study at 3 metropolitan hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Eligible patients will include those aged 16 years or older with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal LBP presenting to the ED. The implementation strategy includes clinician education using multimedia resources, staff champions, and an "audit and feedback" process. The implementation of "Back@Home" will be evaluated over 12 months and compared to a 48-month preimplementation period using monthly time-series trends in the average length of hospital stay as the primary outcome. We will construct a plot of the observed and expected lines of trend based on the preimplementation period. Linear segmented regression will identify changes in the level and slope of fitted lines, indicating immediate effects of the intervention, as well as effects over time. The data will be fully anonymized, with informed consent collected for patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: As of December 6, 2023, a total of 108 patients have been cared for through Back@Home. A total of 6 patients have completed semistructured interviews regarding their experience of virtual hospital care for nonserious back pain. All outcomes will be evaluated at 6 months (August 2023) and 12 months post implementation (February 2024). CONCLUSIONS: This study will serve to inform ongoing care delivery and implementation strategies of a novel model of care. If found to be effective, it may be adopted by other health districts, adapting the model to their unique local contexts. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50146.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.