Variation in opinions on coercion use among mental healthcare professionals: a questionnaire study.

INTRODUCTION: Even if coercive measures are widely applied in psychiatry and have numerous well-known drawbacks, there is limited known on the agreement among mental healthcare professionals' opinions on their use. In a questionnaire study using standardized scenarios, we investigated variation in staff opinions on coercion. METHODS: In a web-based survey distributed to staff at three psychiatry hospitals, respondents were asked to consider if and what coercion to use by introducing two hypothetical scenarios involving involuntary psychiatric admission and in-hospital coercion. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two out of 601 invited staff members responded to the survey (Response Rate = 22%). There was large variation in participating staff members' opinions on how to best manage critical situations and what coercive measures were warranted. In the first scenario, 57% of respondents (n = 76) believed that the patient should be involuntarily admitted to hospital while the remaining respondents believed that the situation should be managed otherwise. Regarding the second scenario, 62% of respondents responded that some in-hospital coercion should be used. The majority of respondents believed that colleagues would behave similarly (60%) or with a tendency towards more coercion use (34%). Male gender, being nursing staff and having less coercion experience predicted being less inclined to choose involuntary hospital admission. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation in coercion use. This study suggests that this variation persists despite staff members being confronted with the same standardized situations. There is a need for evidence-based further guidance to minimize coercion in critical mental healthcare situations.

Danish translation and validation of the Parotidectomy Outcome Inventory 8.

INTRODUCTION: Complications and recurrence within benign salivary gland surgery are not systematically registered in Denmark. Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly included in clinical and health policy decision-making, and therefore it is crucial that this type of data is valid. A patient-reported questionnaire regarding outcome after benign parotid gland surgery has been developed and implemented in a national German database. We aimed to translate the Parotidectomy Outcome Inventory 8 (POI-8) into Danish and validate it. METHODS: The questionnaire was translated. The study population was recruited from a single centre from 6 December 2019 to 1 June 2022. Patients > 18 years of age who had undergone their first parotid salivary gland surgery for a benign tumour were included. The questionnaire underwent pilot-testing and test-retesting; it was sent to respondents twice at a 14-day interval. For the categorical variables, the reliability of the items was tested using the weighted kappa-coefficient. RESULTS: A weighted kappa coefficient of 0.74 and Cronbach's alpha of 0.78 were found. No significant difference was found between testing at day 0 and 14. CONCLUSIONS: We have translated and validated the Danish version of the POI-8, finding acceptable levels of the weighted kappa coefficient and Cronbach's alpha. We suggest the systematic use of PROMs in Danish healthcare and specifically in parotidectomy for benign neoplasms. FUNDING: No funding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not relevant.

Quality in care requires kindness and flexibility - a hermeneutic-phenomenological study of patients' experiences from pathways including transitions across healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: The number of people living with chronic conditions is increasing worldwide, and with that, the need for multiple long-term complex care across care settings. Undergoing transitions across healthcare settings is both challenging and perilous for patients. Nevertheless, knowledge of what facilitates quality during transitions in healthcare settings from the lifeworld perspective of patients is still lacking. Therefore, we aimed to explore the lived experience in healthcare quality for Danish adult patients during healthcare pathways including transitions across settings. METHODS: Within a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach, interviews were conducted with three women and five men with various diagnoses and care paths between 30 and 75 years of age. Data underwent a three phased thematic analysis leading to three themes. RESULTS: Patients with various illnesses' experiences of quality of care is described in the themes being powerless in the face of illness; burdensome access and navigation; and being in need of mercy and striving for kindness. This highlights that patients' experiences of quality in healthcare pathways across settings interweaves with an overall understanding of being powerless at the initial encounter. Access and navigation are burdensome, and system inflexibility adds to the burden and enhances powerlessness. However, caring care provided through the kindness of healthcare professionals supports patients in regaining control of their condition. CONCLUSIONS: This hermeneutical-phenomenological study sheds light on the lived experiences of people who are at various stages in their care paths with transitions across healthcare settings. Although our findings are based on the lived experiences of 8 people in a Danish context, in light of the discussion with nursing theory and other research, the results can be reflected in two main aspects: I) kind and merciful professional relationships and II) system flexibility including access and navigation, were essential for their experiences of care quality during healthcare transitions. This is important knowledge when striving to provide patients with a clear voice regarding quality in care pathways stretching across settings.

Using complaints from obstetric care for improving women's birth experiences - a cross sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Staff shortages and quality in obstetric care is a concern in most healthcare systems and a hot topic in the public debate that has centred on complaints about deficient care. However there has been a lack of empirical data to back the debate. The aim of this study was to analyse and describe complaints in obstetric care. Further, to compare the obstetric complaint pattern to complaints from women about other hospital services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool to code, analyse and extract contents of obstetric complaint cases in a region of Denmark between 2016 and 2021. We compared the obstetric complaint pattern to all other hospital complaint cases in the same period regarding female patients at a large University Hospital in a cross-sectional study. RESULTS: Complaints regarding obstetric care differed from women's complaints regarding other healthcare services. Women from obstetric care raised more problems per complaint, and tended to complain more about relational issues indicated by odds for complaints about staff shortage four times higher in the obstetric care group. Women from obstetric care had a lower proportion of compensation claims. CONCLUSION: Systematic complaint analysis acknowledged women's experience in obstetric care and may point to areas that potentially need further attention. Complaints from obstetric care show that women experience deficiencies related to relational problems like recognition and individualized support compared to complaints from women receiving other hospital healthcare services.

Harnessing patient complaints to systematically monitoring healthcare concerns through disproportionality analysis.

Staff observations are the most common source of data for driving improvements in care. However, the patient perspective should also be considered, and healthcare complaints offer concrete details that health organizations might otherwise overlook and that can highlight areas for learning and improvement in the healthcare system. However, because of the diverse nature of patient complaints, systematic analyses can be challenging. This study aimed to identify and prioritize areas for improvement using a data-driven approach to analysing patient complaints. The Danish version of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool was used to categorize the content of complaint letters. All complaints managed by the national complaints authority, compensation claims to the Patient Compensation Association, and locally managed complaints that were filed directly at Odense University Hospital from 2017 to 2021 were included. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were used to measure and display the top five signals of disproportionality and rank them by excess complaints at the hospital level and when divided into department types. The study included 6366 complaints containing 13 156 problems (on average, 2.1 problems mentioned per complaint letter). Surgical departments had the highest number of complaints (3818), followed by medical (1059), service (439), and emergency departments (239). Signal 1 of disproportionality, relating to quality problems during ward procedures, had the highest excess reporting of 1043 complaints at the hospital level and a PRR of 1.61 and was present in all department types. Signal 2, relating to safety problems during the examination and diagnosis stage, had an excess reporting of 699 problems and a PRR of 1.86 and was also present in all department types. Signal 3, relating to institutional problems during admission, had the highest PRR of 3.54 and was found in most department types. Signals 4 and 5, relating to environmental problems during ward procedures and care on the ward, respectively, had PRRs of 1.5 and 1.84 and were present in most department types. The study found that analysing patient complaints can identify potential areas for hospital improvement. The study identified recurring issues in multiple departments, including quality problems during ward procedures, safety problems during the examination, institutional problems during admission, and environmental problems on the ward. The study highlights disproportionality analysis of complaints as a valuable tool to monitor patient concerns systematically.

Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the elements and composition of care provided by general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and chiropractors (DCs) to patients with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Primary care setting, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians (GPs, PTs and DCs) in the Region of Southern Denmark were invited to register consecutive adult patient visits with LBP as the primary complaint. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians reported care elements provided to patients with LBP. Elements varied due to professional differences (eg, prescriptive rights). Data were descriptively analysed, on group and individual levels, for frequency and combination of care elements, and practice patterns were explored with latent class analysis. RESULTS: The clinicians (33 GPs, 67 PTs and 43 DCs with a median experience of 15 years and 59% were females) registered 3500 patient visits. On average, the visits involved patients aged 51 years, and 51% were with females. The frequencies of common care elements across professions were information (42%-56% of visits between professions) and advice (56%-81%), while other common elements for GPs were pain medication (40%) and referrals to PTs (36%), for PTs, use of exercises (81%) and for DCs, use of manual therapy (96%). Substantial variation was observed within professions and distinct practice patterns, with different focuses of attention to information and advice versus exercise and manual therapy, were identified for PTs and DCs. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate substantial variation in the care elements provided by GPs, PTs and DCs to LBP patients. The compositions of care and practice patterns identified challenge the understanding of usual care as a uniform concept and professions as homogeneous groups. Strategic use of particular care elements in different parts of treatment courses is indicated. Longitudinal data and qualitative enquiry are needed to assess if or how care is tailored to individual patients.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with low back pain in primary and secondary care settings in Southern Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with acute or chronic low back pain across all health care settings treating this condition.Design and setting: Concurrent prospective survey registration of all consecutive consultations regarding low back pain at general practitioners, chiropractors, physiotherapists, and the secondary care spine centre in Southern Denmark. SUBJECTS: Patients ≥16 years of age with low back pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Demographic characteristics, symptoms, and clinical findings were registered and descriptively analysed. Pearson's chi-square tested differences between the populations in the four settings. Multiple logistic regression assessed the odds of consulting specific settings, and t-test assessed differences between patients attending for a first and later consultation. RESULTS: Thirty-six general practitioners, 44 chiropractors, 74 physiotherapists, and 35 secondary care Spine Centre personnel provided information on 5645 consultations, including 1462 first-visit consultations. The patients differed significantly across the settings. Patients at the Spine Centre had the most severe symptoms and signs and were most often on sick leave. Compared to the other populations, the chiropractor population was younger, whereas the physiotherapist population was older, more often females, and had prolonged symptoms. In general practice, first-time consultations were with milder cases while patients who attended for a second or later consultation had the worst symptoms, findings, and risk of sick leave compared to the other primary care settings. CONCLUSION: The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with low back pain differ considerably across the health care settings treating them.KEY POINTSThe study describes the symptoms and clinical findings of patients with low back pain consulting the Danish health care system in all its settings.Patients with chiropractors were youngest, while those with physiotherapists were the oldest and most frequently female.First consultations in general practice were generally with the least symptomatic patients while those returning for a subsequent consultation had more severe disease including more sick leave compared to patients in the other primary care settings.Our findings call for caution when generalizing between health care settings for patients with low back pain.

Centralization of emergency hospital care is not associated with increased in-hospital mortality; a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We describe changes in the distance travelled, the utilization of emergency services, and the inhospital mortality before and after the centralization of hospital emergency services in Denmark. METHODS: All unplanned non-psychiatric hospital contacts from adults (aged ≥18 years) in 2008 and 2016 are included. Analyses are age-standardized and conducted at a municipality level. The municipalities are divided into groups according to the presence of emergency hospital services. RESULTS: Municipalities where hospitals with emergency services have been closed differed by having the most significant increase in distance travelled from 2008 to 2016. All groups experienced a reduction in overall in-hospital mortality. The reduction in mortality was not present for acute myocardial infarct contacts from municipalities where hospitals with emergency services have been closed. CONCLUSION: Our data do not suggest that hospital closures, and thereby increased travel distance, have contributed significantly as a barrier to emergency-care access and changes to in-hospital mortality.

Does systematic analysis of patient complaints and compensation cases at hospitals provide useful information to guide quality improvement? Experience from Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Patient complaints and compensation cases are analysed individually and do not allow for organisational learning. Systematic information on complaint patterns needs evidence-based measures. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) can systematically code and analyse complaints and compensation claims, but whether this information is useful for quality improvement is underexplored. We aim to explore if and how HCAT information is perceived useful to inform healthcare quality gaps. METHODS: To explore the HCAT's usefulness for quality improvement purposes, we used an iterative process. We accessed all complaints relating to a large university hospital. Trained HCAT raters systematically coded all cases, using the Danish version of HCAT. INTERVENTION: The intervention had four phases: (1) coding of cases, (2) education, (3) selection of HCAT analyses for dissemination, (4) 'dashboard' development and delivery of targeted HCAT reports. To study the interventions and phases, we used quantitative and qualitative approaches. The coding patterns were descriptively displayed on department and hospital level. The educational programme was monitored using passing rates, coding reliability checks and rater feedback. Online interviews recorded dissemination feedback. We used a phenomenological approach with thematised quotations from the interviews to analyse the usefulness of the information from cases coded. RESULTS: We coded 5217 complaint cases (11 056 complaint points). The average case coding time was 8.5 min (95% CI 8.2 to 8.7). All four raters passed the online test with >80% correct answers. Using rater feedback, we handled 25 cases of doubt. None affected the HCAT structure or categories. Interviews verified the usefulness of analyses after expert group dissemination. Three themes were important: 'overview of complaints', 'learning from complaints' and 'listening to the patients'. Stakeholders perceived the 'dashboard' development as highly relevant. CONCLUSION: Through the development process with several adjustments, stakeholders found the systematic approach useful for quality improvement. The hospital management evaluated the approach as promising and decided to test the approach in clinical practice.

Providing information at the initial consultation to patients with low back pain across general practice, chiropractic and physiotherapy - a cross-sectorial study of Danish primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines for managing low back pain (LBP) emphasise patient information, patient education and physical activity as key components. Little is known about who actually receives information. This study investigates to what extent information at the first consultation with general practitioner (GP), chiropractor (DC) and physiotherapist (PT) in Danish primary care is provided to patients with LBP. DESIGN AND SETTING: This cross-sectorial study was conducted as a prospective survey registration of LBP consultations at the three primary health care professions in Denmark. INTERVENTION: Clinicians ticked off a paper survey chart during or after consultations with patients who visited the clinic for LBP (Approval number: ID # 11.220). SUBJECTS: 33 GPs, 43 DCs and 61 PTs registered first-time consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was provision of information, overall and across care settings. RESULTS: The overall proportion of patients provided with information was 72%, but this varied among professions (GP, 44%; DC, 76%; and PT, 74%). Provision of information increased to 78% if patients had increased emotional distress or back-related leg pain below the knee. The strongest association with provision of information was having two or three signs of elevated distress (OR 2.58 and 5.05, respectively, p= 0.00) or physical disability (OR 2.55, p= 0.00). CONCLUSION: In more than a quarter of first-time consultations, patient information was not provided. Large variation in providing information was found across the settings. The proportion provided with information increased for sub-populations having elevated distress or back-related leg pain below the knee.Key Points Clinical guidelines recommend patient information, patient education and physical activity for managing low back pain (LBP) • Information is not provided in more than a quarter of first-time consultations in Danish primary care settings that manage these patients. • Information increased for the sub-populations having elevated distress and back-related leg pain below the knee. • The conducted primary care surveys monitored clinical activity and illustrated variations in provision of information.

Compensation Claims in Danish Emergency Care: Identifying Hot Spots and Blind Spots in the Quality of Care.

BACKGROUND: The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) offers a validated way of systematically extracting content from patient complaints for further analysis of complaint hot spots with harm or near misses, and blind spots with, for example, systemic problems or quality problems arising during discharge. This study analyzed a Danish national sample of compensations claims about emergency care using the HCAT. METHODS: Through use of the HCAT, compensation claims about Danish emergency care from 2013 to 2017 (N = 712) were coded and then grouped to identify and highlight hot spot problem areas (harm and near misses) and blind spot problem areas (admission/discharge, systemic problems, errors of omission). Two assessors coded the compensation claims by entering data into a database. RESULTS: The HCAT analyses of the sample resulted in coding of 1,305 problems. Most problems concerned quality and safety issues at the examination/diagnosis stage of care (63.9%). In 91.2% of the cases, the level of harm was moderate or major. Harm hot spots most often involved diagnostic errors (189 problems). Eighty-nine problems related to errors of omission, all causing moderate or major harm. For systemic blind spots, patient harm significantly increased in cases of multiple problem types in the compensation claim (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.3-2.0). CONCLUSION: Systematic coding and analytic approach to the HCAT can highlight potential quality problems in emergency care and point to areas for further consideration. From the perspective of future health care harm prevention, there seems to be a strong incentive for further analysis of the amount, nature, and prevention of diagnostic errors in emergency care.

Development of a supervised exercise programme for immigrant women: Feasibility study of a practical intervention in a physiotherapy setting.

BACKGROUND: While Denmark is facing growing inequality between Danish women and immigrant women in relation to exercise and health, research on interventions and targeted exercise programmes is limited. This study aimed to test the feasibility of a physiotherapeutic supervised exercise programme for immigrant women. METHODS: Inspired by improvement research a programme was developed in cooperation with the immigrant women. The intervention was modified continuously according to the women's wishes and needs. INTERVENTION: Baseline focus-group interviews, completion of questionnaire and physical-strength tests, was followed by a 12-week supervised training period. After completion of the training the participants were re-interviewed and re-tested. RESULTS: Twenty-nine women were recruited to the training programme, and 10 attended follow-up. Mean body mass index was 34 kg/m2. Attendance rate among follow-up tested participants was 70%. The women gained knowledge about their bodies, a healthier lifestyle, and awareness of the importance of active living. CONCLUSION: It was possible to recruit and maintain immigrant women in the exercise programme. This study demonstrated the importance of involving the women in the process, and revealed important factors, such as privacy, a local setting and trust in the physiotherapists.

Effectiveness of stratified treatment for back pain in Danish primary care: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of stratified care demonstrated superior clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for low back pain (LBP) patients in UK primary care. This is the first study in Europe, outside of the original UK study, to investigate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of stratified care compared with current practice for patients with non-specific LBP. METHODS: The study was a two-armed RCT. Danish primary care patients with LBP were randomized to stratified care (n = 169) or current practice (n = 164). Primary outcomes at 3- and 12-months' follow-up were Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDMQ), patient-reported global change and time off work. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, patient satisfaction, healthcare resource utilization and quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses found no between-group difference in RMDQ scores at 3 months (0.5, 95% CI -1.8 to 0.9) or 12 months (0.4, -2.1 to 1.3). No overall differences were found between the arms at 3 and 12 months with respect to time off work or secondary outcomes. Stratified care intervention resulted in significantly fewer treatment sessions (3.5 [SD 3.1] vs. 4.5 [3.5]) and significantly lower total healthcare costs (€) (13.4 [529] vs. 228 [830], p = .002). There was no difference in cost-effectiveness (0.09, 0.05 to 0.13 vs. 0.10, 0.07-0.14, p = .70). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between patients with non-specific LBP receiving stratified care and those receiving current practice. However, stratified care may reduce total healthcare costs if implemented in Danish primary care. SIGNIFICANCE: Stratified care for low back pain based on risk profile is recommended by recent evidence based clinical guidelines. This study is the first broad replication of the STarT Back Trial in Europe. Therefore, the study adds to the body of knowledge evaluating the effectiveness of stratified care for low back pain in primary care, and provides insight into the effects of stratification on clinical practice.

Mind the gap - Evaluation of the promotion initiatives for implementation of the GLA:D® back clinician courses.

BACKGROUND: Translation of research into practice is a methodological challenge. The GLA:D® Back program was initiated to implement evidence-based care for people with low back pain inspired by GLA:D® (Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark) that has succeeded in implementing evidence-based care for knee and hip osteoarthritis. This study evaluates the spread and reach of promotion initiatives for GLA:D® Back clinician courses, and the adoption of the GLA:D® Back intervention in clinical practice. METHODS: Pre-defined success criteria addressed; i) spread; achievement of intended promotion activities (e.g. social media), ii) reach; recruitment of clinicians with certain profiles (e.g. gender balance). Adoption was defined as patient enrollment in the GLA:D® Back registry by course participants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate associations between adoption and clinician characteristics. RESULTS: Most clinicians signed up based on information from colleagues (22%). Pre-defined goals for reach, except one, was obtained. 23% (140) of clinicians initiated the GLA:D® Back program in clinical practice within <90 days of course participation; mainly physiotherapists (p < 0.001). The odds ratio for starting GLA:D® Back patient care in a chiropractic setting was 7.4 [2.5; 21.4], indicating that physiotherapists employed by chiropractors mostly handled the intervention. CONCLUSION: Future promotion strategies should recognize the influence of colleagues and professional networks. Converting clinician courses into patient care was mostly adopted physiotherapists. Although, evaluation processes were less useful in this study, future evaluation of health care processes has potential to inform the implementation of new models in future studies.

Quantification of Complaint and Compensation Cases by Introducing a Danish Translated and Cross-Cultural Adapted Edition of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the English version of the HCAT to produce a Danish HCAT version and to test the Danish version's reliability. METHODS: We used best-practice guidelines for linguistic translations and cultural adaptations. For cross-cultural adaptation, we conducted forward and back translation followed by expert committee review. Subsequently, two researchers assessed 140 complaint cases to test intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Danish HCAT version. We used descriptive statistics for distributions and tested for differences between English and Danish editions Intra- and inter-rater reliability used Gwet's AC1 statistics, applying quadratic weights to assign more weight to large discrepancies. RESULTS: The back translations showed both semantic and conceptual differences, and the expert committee thus discussed the meaning of the wording in the HCAT guide and coding form to ensure that the Danish version would be conceptually similar to the English version but also culturally appropriate for Danish settings. There was discussion about how to use the coding form to graduate problem severity, and this led to some altered wording. Pilot testing revealed the need for two new categories of "hospital-acquired infection" and "involvement of patients' relatives". The problem categories of the HCAT-DK showed "substantial" intra- and inter-rater reliability (0.79, and 0.79 to 0.85). In addition, there was a "substantial" agreement (0.70 to 0.73) between the original HCAT and the HCAT-DK version. CONCLUSION: The study translated and cross-culturally adapted the English HCAT version to produce a Danish HCAT version. Cultural and conceptual differences led to adjustments and to addition of two extra items in the HCAT-DK. The Danish version showed "substantial" intra- and inter-rater reliability and is considered suitable for coding complaint and compensation cases in Danish health care.

How to Ensure Referral and Uptake for COPD Rehabilitation-Part 1: Disentangling Factors in the Cross-Sectorial Workflow of Patients with COPD to Understand why Most Patients are not Referred to Rehabilitation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is one of the most serious and common chronic conditions. Patients having COPD can greatly benefit from rehabilitation initiatives. However, not all patients having COPD are referred to rehabilitation. Literature does not clearly explain why only some patients with COPD are referred to rehabilitation, and only very few successful solutions to address the complexity of cross-sectorial organisations are described. The overall objective of this research project is to ensure referral and uptake for COPD rehabilitation. We focus on detangling the processes in the cross-sectorial workflow of patients with COPD to understand why most patients are not referred to rehabilitation. METHODS: Based on semi structured interviews and observations a FRAM analysis was conducted to map the referring routines from hospital to municipality. RESULTS: We found that the hospital and the municipality have different understandings of what rehabilitation is, they use different words and hospital staff lack knowledge of offers at the municipality. CONCLUSION: The FRAM analysis was useful to detangle factors important to cross-sectorial collaboration and resulted in a series of focus areas that were disseminated at a workshop. The municipality and the hospital agreed to initiate activities to develop and coordinate the cross-sectorial relations.

How to Ensure Referral and Uptake for COPD Rehabilitation - Part 2: A Case of Integrated Care on How to Translate Findings of Cross-Sectorial Workflow to Improve Cross-Sectorial Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can greatly benefit from rehabilitation initiatives, but referral to rehabilitation is sparse. Before we initiated activities to ensure hospital referrals for prevention initiatives at the municipality, we investigated referral patterns and relevant factors in the cross-sectorial workflow. OBJECTIVE: To ensure referral to municipality COPD rehabilitation, by simplifying the referral procedures, and by facilitating relational coordination across the two health care settings. METHODS: We simplified the referral procedure by initiating all referrals to contain standard wording, all send to the same electronic location, and assuring that all patients were referred to the same initial interview. We facilitated cross-sectorial relational coordination by establishing local- and cross-sectional network groups. We monitored the network groups, and send questionnaires to obtain knowledge of network activities. We used indicators to measure the cross-sectorial quality and questionnaires to measure the patient experienced quality. RESULTS: We detected flaws in the referral system that meant that several referrals were neglected. Based on knowledge and experiences the networks called for adjustments. This led to adjustments in patient inclusion and data collection. CONCLUSION: We succeeded in simplifying referral procedures and facilitated cross-sectorial relational coordination. We had to make ongoing adjustments of procedures, information, content, population and data infrastructure.in simplifying referral procedures and facilitated cross-sectorial relational coordination. We had to make ongoing adjustments of procedures, information, content, population and data infrastructure.

Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: A systematic review of guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. RESULTS: Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups-work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. SIGNIFICANCE: Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.