Navigating the path of progress: The OMERACT 2023 emerging leaders program.

OBJECTIVES: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Emerging Leaders Program (ELP) aims to cultivate a cohort of skilled leaders within the OMERACT community empowering them with expertise and knowledge to help shape and steer the organization into the future. This publication highlights the significance of the ELP in driving leadership excellence, its impact on OMERACT's evolution, and the outcomes and learnings from the OMERACT 2023 ELP. METHODS: Insights from the 2018 ELP report informed 2023 program improvements. Engagement was measured by attendance and WhatsApp interactions. Positive program aspects, areas for improvement and ideas for enhancing future ELPs were captured via anonymous survey and participant focus groups. RESULTS: Engagement with the ELP was high with 9 participants, 96 % attendance at all workshops, 154 WhatsApp interactions. All program components were highly rated, with the highest being the 'Psychological Safety' and 'Methodology/Process/Politics' workshops. Future enhancements included creating further networking, connection and support activities, practical leadership and methodological skill development opportunities, and a new stream focussing on organisational advancement. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 OMERACT ELP was well received and successfully addressed areas previously identified as requiring improvement. New educational enhancements were valued, and the importance of fostering psychological safety at all levels was highlighted. The ELP fortifies OMERACT by nurturing a diverse array of skilled leaders who embody OMERACTs core values. Continuing to refine and evolve the ELP over time will help OMERACT sustain its global influence in patient-centered outcome research.

Evaluating Systemic Burnout in Medical Oncology Through a National Oncology Mentorship Program.

PURPOSE: Mentorship has a positive influence on trainee skills and well-being. A 2022 Pilot Mentorship Program in New South Wales involving 40 participants revealed high burnout rates in Medical Oncology trainees. As part of an Australia-wide inaugural National Oncology Mentorship Program in 2023 (NOMP23), a national survey was undertaken to assess the prevalence of burnout, anxiety, depression, professional fulfilment, and drivers of distress in the Australian medical oncology workforce. METHODS: NOMP23 is a 1-year prospective cohort study that recruited medical oncology trainees and consultants using e-mail correspondence between February and March 2023. Each participant completed a baseline survey which included the Maslach Burnout Index (MBI), Stanford Professional Fulfilment Index, and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 for anxiety and depression. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve participants (56 mentors, 56 mentees) were enrolled in NOMP23, of which 86 (77%) completed the baseline survey. MBI results at baseline demonstrated that 77% of consultants and 82% of trainees experienced burnout in the past 12 months. Professional fulfilment was noted to be <5% in our cohort. Screening rates of anxiety and depression in trainees were 32% and 16%, respectively, compared with 7% and 2% for consultants. When assessing reasons for workplace stress, two thirds stated that heavy patient load contributed to stress, while almost three quarters attributed a heavy administrative load. Lack of supervision was a key stressor for trainees (39%), as was lack of support from the training college (58%). CONCLUSION: Trainees and consultant medical oncologists demonstrate high rates of burnout and low professional fulfilment. The NOMP23 program has identified a number of key stress factors driving burnout and demonstrated concerning levels of anxiety and depression. Ongoing mentorship and other well-being initiatives are needed to address these issues.

Clinicians' Perspective on Implementing Virtual Hospital Care for Low Back Pain: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Alternate "hospital avoidance" models of care are required to manage the increasing demand for acute inpatient beds. There is currently a knowledge gap regarding the perspectives of hospital clinicians on barriers and facilitators to a transition to virtual care for low back pain. We plan to implement a virtual hospital model of care called "Back@Home" and use qualitative interviews with stakeholders to develop and refine the model. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore clinicians' perspectives on a virtual hospital model of care for back pain (Back@Home) and identify barriers to and enablers of successful implementation of this model of care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 purposively sampled clinicians involved in the delivery of acute back pain care at 3 metropolitan hospitals. Interview data were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: A total of 10 Theoretical Domains Framework domains were identified as important in understanding barriers and enablers to implementing virtual hospital care for musculoskeletal back pain. Key barriers to virtual hospital care included patient access to videoconferencing and reliable internet, language barriers, and difficulty building rapport. Barriers to avoiding admission included patient expectations, social isolation, comorbidities, and medicolegal concerns. Conversely, enablers of implementing a virtual hospital model of care included increased health care resource efficiency, clinician familiarity with telehealth, as well as a perceived reduction in overmedicalization and infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of Back@Home relies on key stakeholder buy-in. Addressing barriers to implementation and building on enablers is crucial to clinicians' adoption of this model of care. Based on clinicians' input, the Back@Home model of care will incorporate the loan of internet-enabled devices, health care interpreters, and written resources translated into community languages to facilitate more equitable access to care for marginalized groups.

General practitioners' decision-making process to prescribe pain medicines for low back pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Pain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP. DESIGN: Qualitative study with in-depth interviews. SETTING: Australian primary care. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes. DATA ANALYSIS: We summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making. RESULTS: GPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

Trajectories of self-reported pain-related health outcomes and longitudinal effects on medication use in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort analysis using the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD).

OBJECTIVE: To determine distinct trajectories of self-reported pain-related health status in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), their relationship with sociodemographic factors and medication use. METHODS: 988 Australian Rheumatology Association Database participants with RA (71% female, mean age 54 years, mean disease duration 2.3 years) were included. Distinct multi-trajectories over 15-year follow-up for five different self-reported pain-related health outcome measures (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, visual analogue scores for pain, arthritis, global health and the Assessment of Quality of Life utility index) were identified using latent variable discrete mixture modelling. Random effects models were used to determine associations with medication use and biologic therapy modification during follow-up. RESULTS: Four, approximately equally sized, pain/health status groups were identified, ranging from 'better' to 'poorer', within which changes over time were relatively small. Important determinants of those with poorer pain/health status included female gender, obesity, smoking, socioeconomic indicators and comorbidities. While biologic therapy use was similar between groups during follow-up, biologic therapy modifications (plinear<0.001) and greater tendency of non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor use (plinear<0.001) were observed in those with poorer pain/health status. Similarly, greater use of opioids, prednisolone and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was seen in those with poorer pain/health status. CONCLUSION: In the absence of disease activity information, distinct trajectories of varying pain/health status were seen from the outset and throughout the disease course in this RA cohort. More biologic therapy modifications and greater use in anti-inflammatories, opioids and prednisolone were seen in those with poorer pain/health status, reflecting undesirable lived experience of persistent pain in RA.

Process evaluation of the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in Australian emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial targeted ED clinicians and evaluated a multifaceted strategy to implement a new model of care. The objective of this study was to investigate attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians as well as barriers and facilitators for implementation of the model of care. DESIGN: A qualitative study. METHODS: The EDs of three urban and one rural hospital in New South Wales, Australia participated in the trial between August and November 2018. A sample of clinicians was invited to participate in qualitative interviews via telephone and face-to-face. The data collected from the interviews were coded and grouped in themes using thematic analysis methods. RESULTS: Non-opioid pain management strategies (i.e., patient education, simple analgesics, and heat wraps) were perceived to be the most helpful strategy for reducing opioid use by ED clinicians. However, time constraints and rotation of junior medical staff were seen as the main barriers for uptake of the model of care. Fear of missing a serious pathology and the clinicians' conviction of a need to provide something for the patient were seen as barriers to reducing lumbar imaging referrals. Other barriers to guideline endorsed care included patient's expectations and characteristics (e.g., older age and symptoms severity). CONCLUSIONS: Improving knowledge of non-opioid pain management strategies was seen as a helpful strategy for reducing opioid use. However, clinicians also raised barriers related to the ED environment, clinicians' behaviour, and cultural aspects, which should be addressed in future implementation efforts.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus. RESULTS: The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

Management of patients with low back pain admitted to hospital: An observational study of usual care.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge gaps exist around diagnostic and treatment approaches for patients admitted to hospital with low back pain. METHODS: Medical record review of patients admitted to three Sydney teaching hospitals with a provisional emergency department diagnosis of non-serious low back pain, from 2016 to 2020. Data on demographic variables, hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), diagnostic imaging and analgesic administration were extracted. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of longer hospital stay, advanced imaging, and concomitant use of sedating medicines. RESULTS: Median inpatient LOS for non-specific low back pain was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7), and for radicular low back pain was 4 days (IQR 3-10). Older patients with non-serious low back pain were more likely to stay longer, as were arrivals by ambulance. Plain lumbar radiography was used in 8.3% of admissions, whereas 37.6% of patients received advanced lumbar imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging). Opioids were administered in ~80% of admissions; 49% of patients with radicular low back pain were given an antiepileptic in addition to an opioid. In all, 18.4% of admissions resulted in at least one hospital-acquired complication, such as an accidental fall (3.1%) or a medication-related adverse effect (13.3%). Physiotherapists saw 82.6% of low back pain admissions. Costs of inpatient care were estimated at a mean of AU$ 14 000 per admission. CONCLUSIONS: We noted relatively high rates of concomitant use of sedating pain medicines and referrals for advanced lumbar imaging and laboratory tests. Strategies to address these issues in inpatient care of low back pain are needed.

Hospital variation in admissions for low back pain following an emergency department presentation: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: One in 6 patients with low back pain (LBP) presenting to emergency departments (EDs) are subsequently admitted to hospital each year, making LBP the ninth most common reason for hospital admission in Australia. No studies have investigated and quantified the extent of clinical variation in hospital admission following an ED presentation for LBP. METHODS: We used routinely collected ED data from public hospitals within the state of New South Wales, Australia, to identify presentations of patients aged between 18 and 111 with a discharge diagnosis of LBP. We fitted a series of random effects multilevel logistic regression models adjusted by case-mix and hospital variables. The main outcome was the hospital-adjusted admission rate (HAAR). Data were presented as funnel plots with 95% and 99.8% confidence limits. Hospitals with a HAAR outside the 95% confidence limit were considered to have a HAAR significantly different to the state average. RESULTS: We identified 176,729 LBP presentations across 177 public hospital EDs and 44,549 hospital admissions (25.2%). The mean (SD) age was 51.8 (19.5) and 52% were female. Hospital factors explained 10% of the variation (ICC = 0.10), and the median odds ratio (MOR) was 2.03. We identified marked variation across hospitals, with HAAR ranging from 6.9 to 65.9%. After adjusting for hospital variables, there was still marked variation between hospitals with similar characteristics. CONCLUSION: We found substantial variation in hospital admissions following a presentation to the ED due to LBP even after controlling by case-mix and hospital characteristics. Given the substantial costs associated with these admissions, our findings indicate the need to investigate sources of variation and to determine instances where the observed variation is warranted or unwarranted.

Platelet-rich plasma injection for tennis elbow: did it ever work?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a commonly used treatment for tendinopathies such as tennis elbow despite the questionable evidence of its efficacy. A recent Cochrane review suggests that it likely does not provide clinically meaningful benefits in people with tennis elbow. In this viewpoint, we discuss how lack of regulation allowed aggressive marketing and clinical use without normal phases of drug development and approval process or rigorous evidence of benefits. Since several phases of development were bypassed, we still do not know the optimal preparation method and dosing of PRP for tendinopathies. Furthermore, several clinical trials compared PRP with other interventions although it was unclear if PRP was better than placebo and these comparisons created distraction rather than improved understanding of its effects.

Do Patients with Acute Low Back Pain in Emergency Departments Have More Severe Symptoms than Those in General Practice? ASystematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice vs those presenting to emergency departments. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0-100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings. RESULTS: We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice, with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0-100 scale). Similarly, there was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7; 95% confidence interval: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0-100 scale). CONCLUSION: Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

Design and implementation of flexible advanced training in rheumatology: report of a pilot programme.

BACKGROUND: Training in medicine is highly demanding and coincides with critical life tasks including relationship development, childbearing and rearing. The rigid requirements of training programmes risk precluding successful achievement of these extracurricular roles, forcing choices between work and other life commitments. Flexible employment structures that facilitate the development of high-quality physicians are needed. AIM: To assess the outcomes of 2 novel flexible training positions in Rheumatology. METHODS: The clinical department, trainees and senior administration designed flexible, part-time advanced training positions in rheumatology. We sought to deliver excellent training, supervision and support while ensuring safe, efficient clinical service delivery within existing systems and cultures. Barriers to implementation were actively identified. We rejected job share arrangements in favour of independent part-time positions anchored to departmental education, clinical and trainee needs. The outcomes of these positions have been determined through regular trainee meetings, clinic activity and costs. RESULTS: Trainees achieved all training requirements, reported high levels of job satisfaction, strong professional development, improved work-life balance and reduction of stress. Outpatient events increased and waiting times have decreased. We estimate that increased rebatable outpatient services have rendered the positions cost neutral. CONCLUSION: Flexible training positions can enhance clinical departments while enabling high-quality training for junior doctors. Further work should consider longer term outcomes and application to different clinical and training settings.

How junior doctors perceive personalised yoga and group exercise in the management of occupational and traumatic stressors.

OBJECTIVES: Junior doctors are exposed to occupational and traumatic stressors, some of which are inherent to medicine. This can result in burnout, mental ill-health and suicide. Within a crossover pilot study comparing personalised, trauma-informed yoga to group-format exercise, qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the experience of junior doctors and whether such interventions were perceived to help manage these stressors. METHODS: Twenty-one doctors, 76% female, were order-randomised to consecutive 8-week yoga and exercise programmes. Fifty-two interviews were recorded before and after each programme. RESULTS: Many participants reported being time poor, sleep-affected, frequently stressed and occasionally in physical pain/distress. Major stressor themes were workplace incivility, death/human suffering and shift work with minimal support. Both interventions were acceptable for different reasons. Personalised yoga offered a therapeutic alliance, time to check-in and reduced anxiety/rumination. Group exercise provided energy and social connection. One participant found yoga beneficial following an acute workplace trauma: 'It was really eye opening how much I felt my body just needed to detox … I wouldn't have gone to a group fitness the next day … I just wanted to relax and breathe …We still had a big debrief which was great … (but) I almost felt like … I dealt with it physically and emotionally before going into it (P20).' CONCLUSION: Junior doctors found both interventions useful for stress management adjunctive to other organisational programmes though for different and complementary reasons, possibly related to delivery mode. Personalised, trauma-informed yoga provided a confidential therapeutic alliance whereas group exercise offered social connection.

Active Women over 50. Promoting Physical Activity in Women Over 50: A Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: This study aims to test the effect of an information and support intervention on physical activity (PA) in women aged 50+ years. DESIGN: Randomized wait-list controlled trial. SETTING: Sydney, Australia. SAMPLE: 126 female university and health service employees, aged 50+. INTERVENTION: Information session, activity tracker, regular motivational emails. MEASURES: Proportion achieving ≥ 10,000 steps/day (primary outcome), daily step count, proportion meeting 150 mins/week of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), self-reported PA. ANALYSIS: Odds-ratios and general linear regression models. RESULTS: At 3 months, the intervention group reported significantly more vigorous PA (1.04 hours, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.85, P = .01, measured by IPAQ), were more likely to achieve 300 mins/week of MVPA (OR = 1.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.36, P = .09, measured by Actigraph) than the control wait-list group, and reported adopting PA promotion strategies (technology = 31/58% or goal-setting = 39/74%). No significant between-group differences in the primary outcome were detected (1.39, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.18, P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: This low-dose intervention significantly increased self-reported vigorous PA time and non-significantly increased the proportion of people achieving 300 mins/week of MVPA but did not significantly increase the proportion of participants achieving 10,000 steps/day. Relatively small effects may be important at a population level given the minimal resources needed to deliver this intervention.

Healthcare costs due to low back pain in the emergency department and inpatient setting in Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a common presentation to emergency departments, often resulting in subsequent admissions to hospital. There have been several studies investigating the cost of low back pain to society, but few specific to the emergency department and inpatient setting, especially in Australia. The aim was to describe the cost of low back pain in Australian public hospital emergency departments, and inpatient settings, and explore healthcare costs associated with different care pathways. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we explored the costs associated with an episode of care for low back pain in adults that attended three emergency departments in Sydney between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms (SNOMED) diagnosis codes were used to identify episodes of care where the patients had been diagnosed with non-specific low back pain or lumbosacral radicular syndromes. Serious spinal pathologies were excluded. We determined the costs for different treatment pathways involving the ambulance service, emergency department and inpatient ward care. Hospital costs were adjusted for inflation to 2019 Australian dollars (AUD). FINDINGS: There were 12,399 non-serious low back pain episodes of care during the study period. 4006 (32%) arrived by ambulance and 2067 (17%) were admitted for inpatient care. The total costs of inpatient and emergency department care across the 5-year period were AUD$36.7 million, with a mean of AUD$2959 per episode of care. The mean cost for a patient who had a non-ambulance presentation to the emergency department and was discharged was AUD$584. Patients presenting to the emergency department via ambulance and were discharged had a mean cost of AUD$1022. Patients who presented without the need of an ambulance and were admitted had a mean cost of $13,137. The most expensive care pathway was for patients arriving by ambulance with subsequent admission, with a mean cost of AUD$14,949. INTERPRETATION: The common practice of admitting patients with non-serious low back pain for inpatient care comes at great cost to the healthcare system. In a resource constrained environment, our data highlights the economic need to implement innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce the inpatient management of these patients. FUNDING: Nil.

Effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve emergency department care of low back pain: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of lumbar imaging is common in the emergency department (ED). Few trials have examined interventions to address this. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. After a 13-month control phase of usual care, the EDs received a multifaceted intervention to support guideline-endorsed care in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, every 4 weeks over a 4-month period. All sites were followed up for at least 3 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of low back pain presentations receiving lumbar imaging. Secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes included prescriptions of opioid and non-opioid pain medicines, inpatient admissions, length of ED stay, specialist referrals and re-presentations. Clinician beliefs and knowledge about low back pain care were measured before and after the intervention. Patient-reported pain, disability, quality of life and satisfaction were measured at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post ED presentation. RESULTS: A total of 269 ED clinicians and 4625 episodes of care for low back pain (4491 patients) were included. The data did not provide clear evidence that the intervention reduced lumbar imaging (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.29). It did reduce opioid use (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; p=0.006) and improved clinicians' beliefs (mean difference (MD), 2.85; 95% CI 1.85 to 3.85; p<0.001; on a scale from 9 to 45) and knowledge about low back pain care (MD, 0.48; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.83; p<0.01; on a scale from 0 to 11). There was no difference in pain scores at 1-week follow-up (MD, 0.04; 95% CI -1.00 to 1.08; p=0.94; on a scale from 0 to 10). A similar trend was observed for all other patient-reported outcomes and time points. This study found no effect on the other secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes. CONCLUSION: It is uncertain if a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain care decreased lumbar imaging in the ED; however, it did reduce opioid prescriptions without adversely affecting patient outcomes. Trial registration number ACTRN12617001160325.

Text Messaging and Web-Based Survey System to Recruit Patients With Low Back Pain and Collect Outcomes in the Emergency Department: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a frequent reason for emergency department (ED) presentations, with a global prevalence of 4.4%. Despite being common, the number of clinical trials investigating LBP in the ED is low. Recruitment of patients in EDs can be challenging because of the fast-paced and demanding ED environment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the recruitment and response rates using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls to recruit patients with LBP and collect health outcomes in the ED. METHODS: An automated SMS text messaging system was integrated into Research Electronic Data Capture and used to collect patient-reported outcomes for an implementation trial in Sydney, Australia. We invited patients with nonserious LBP who presented to participating EDs at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after ED discharge. Patients who did not respond to the initial SMS text message invitation were sent a reminder SMS text message or contacted via telephone. The recruitment rate was measured as the proportion of patients who agreed to participate, and the response rate was measured as the proportion of participants completing the follow-up surveys at weeks 2 and 4. Regression analyses were used to explore factors associated with response rates. RESULTS: In total, 807 patients with nonserious LBP were invited to participate and 425 (53.0%) agreed to participate. The week 1 survey was completed by 51.5% (416/807) of participants. At week 2, the response rate was 86.5% (360/416), and at week 4, it was 84.4% (351/416). Overall, 60% of the surveys were completed via SMS text messaging and on the web and 40% were completed via telephone. Younger participants and those from less socioeconomically disadvantaged areas were more likely to respond to the survey via the SMS text messaging and web-based system. CONCLUSIONS: Using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls is a viable method for recruiting patients with LBP and collecting health outcomes in the ED. This hybrid system could potentially reduce the costs of using traditional recruitment and data collection methods (eg, face-to-face, telephone calls only). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019052.

Low back pain presentations to New South Wales emergency departments: Trends over time and geographical variation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rates of ED presentations because of low back pain (LBP) have increased from 2016 to 2019 in New South Wales and map the geographical distribution of ED presentations because of LBP across New South Wales. METHODS: We sourced data from the New South Wales Emergency Department Records for Epidemiology. We included all ED presentations aged 15 years and older with a diagnosis of LBP to the 178 public EDs across New South Wales from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2019. We calculated the ratio (95% confidence interval) between the 2016 and 2019 age-standardised rates to determine whether an increase in the rate of ED LBP presentations has occurred. To assess geographical variation, we aggregated presentations by their home postcode. We calculated age-standardised rates per 100 000 person year for each of those areas using data from 2016 to 2019. RESULTS: We included 188 275 LBP presentations for patients aged 15 years or older. Their mean (standard deviation) age was 51.3 (20.0) years. From 2016 to 2019, we observed a 5.3% increase in the age-adjusted LBP ED presentation rates (age-standardised ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.06). We found a 20-fold variation in LBP ED age-standardised presentation rates across the different local government areas of New South Wales. Higher rates were mostly observed in rural and regional areas. CONCLUSIONS: The demand for ED services because of LBP has increased in New South Wales over time, and we observed a 20-fold variation in presentation rates across different regions.

Emergency department interventions for adult patients with low back pain: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Most low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) -15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.0 to -9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD -15.7, 95% CI -19.8 to -11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD -11.4, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI -0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD -6.8, 95% CI -24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Ketoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.

Clinical course of patients with low back pain following an emergency department presentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain, and especially non-specific low back pain, is a common cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Although these patients typically report relatively high pain intensity, the clinical course of their pain and disability remains unclear. Our objective was to review the literature and describe the clinical course of non-specific low back pain after an ED visit. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. We screened for cohort studies or randomised trials investigating pain or disability in patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to EDs. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with minimal pain or disability scores at baseline. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Estimates of pain and disability were converted to a common 0-100 scale. We estimated pooled means and 95% CIs of pain and disability as a function of time since ED presentation. RESULTS: Eight studies (nine publications) with a total of 1994 patients provided moderate overall quality evidence of the expected clinical course of low back pain after an ED visit. Seven of the eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. At the time of the ED presentation, the pooled estimate of the mean pain score on a 0-100 scale was 71.0 (95% CI 64.2-77.9). This reduced to 46.1 (95% CI 37.2-55.0) after 1 day, 41.8 (95% CI 34.7 to 49.0) after 1 week and 13.5 (95% CI 5.8-21.3) after 26 weeks. The course of disability followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to EDs with non-specific low back pain experience rapid reductions in pain intensity, but on average symptoms persisted 6 months later. This review can be used to educate patients so they can have realistic expectations of their recovery.