A physiotherapy-led review of guideline-based care for community-dwelling older people presenting to a metropolitan hospital with accidental falls.

OBJECTIVE(S): Several guidelines exist to inform best-practice management of community-dwelling fallers. This study aimed to outline a pragmatic approach to developing an audit tool for guideline-based care of falls and provide an overview of current practice. METHODS: An audit tool to determine compliance with guideline-based care was developed with an allied health and physiotherapy focus, utilising the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health-Care Guidelines for Preventing Falls and Harm from Falls in Older People (2009) and Queensland State Government 'Stay on your Feet' guidelines. A retrospective audit of medical records was completed in July 2020 of community-dwelling people aged 65 years and over with a fall-related emergency department (ED) presentation in a medium-sized metropolitan hospital in Australia. Data were compared between patients admitted to hospital and those discharged home from the ED. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included: 68 were discharged home from ED and 25 were admitted to hospital. There was a significant difference in receiving an allied health review (p < .001) between admitted patients (96%) and those who discharged home from ED (68%). The Clinical Frailty Scale was only completed for 23% of patients. Physiotherapy quality-of-care (n = 46 patients) was variable, with poor completion of physical outcome measures (7%) and fall education (4%). However, assessment of mobility was routinely completed (94%), and most patients were referred to an appropriate community service (66%). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guideline-based care of community-dwelling fallers is inconsistent. Improvements are required in the consistency of risk stratification, comprehensive physical assessment and patient education.

A comparison of prospective observations and chart audits for measuring quality of care of musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and efficient data collection is crucial for effective evaluation of quality of care. The objective of this study is to compare two methods of data collection used to score quality indicators for musculoskeletal injury management in Emergency departments: prospective observation, and chart audit. METHODS: An analysis was undertaken of data collected from 633 patients who presented with a musculoskeletal injury to eight emergency departments in Queensland, Australia in 2016-17. Twenty-two quality indicators were scored using both prospective observation and chart audit data for each occasion of service. Quality indicators were included if they were originally published with both collection methods. Analyses were performed to compare firstly, the quality indicator denominators, and secondly, the quality indicator trigger rates, scored using each collection method. Chi Square statistics were used to identify significant differences. RESULTS: Prospectively collected data scored quality indicator denominators significantly (p value<0.05) more often than chart audit data for five (22.7 %) of the 22 quality indicators. The remaining 17 quality indicators (77.3 %) showed no statistical differences. When comparing quality indicator trigger rates, 16 (72.7 %) had significantly different results between methods with 12 (54.5 %) scoring higher using prospective data and four (18.2 %) with chart audit data. The remaining six quality indicators (27.3 %) in this comparison showed no significant difference between chart and prospective data. CONCLUSION: Quality indicators including aspects of care associated with patient safety, and those relying on clinician written orders or forms were adequately scored using either prospective observation or chart audit data. Whereas quality indicators relying on time-sensitive information, elements of a social history, general physical exams and patient education and advice scored higher using prospective observation data collection.

Higher quality of care in emergency departments with physiotherapy service models.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the quality of care provided by EDs with physiotherapy services compared to those without, using established musculoskeletal process and outcome quality indicators (QIs). METHODS: An analysis was undertaken of prospective observational and chart audit data collected from 628 patients who presented with a musculoskeletal injury in any of the eight participating EDs in Queensland in 2016-2017. The care provided was scored against 46 musculoskeletal QIs. Quality of care was first compared between EDs with physiotherapists to EDs with a limited physiotherapy service, and second between EDs with primary contact physiotherapists to EDs without. χ2 and Fisher's exact tests were used to identify significant results. RESULTS: In the first comparison, EDs with physiotherapists performed significantly higher on 15 QIs and EDs with only limited physiotherapy performed higher on two QIs. In the second comparison, EDs with primary contact physiotherapists performed significantly higher on 17 QIs when compared to EDs without and three QIs demonstrated significance in favour of EDs without primary contact physiotherapists. Performance differences occurred across both process and outcome QIs, including musculoskeletal assessment, diagnostics, pain assessment and management, fracture management, medication safety, mobility, patient information, referrals and follow-up, re-presentations and patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: EDs with physiotherapists provide at least equivalent or higher quality of care for patients with musculoskeletal injuries than those EDs with limited access to physiotherapists. This may be because of their specialised training in musculoskeletal diagnosis and treatment, as well as the impact of teaching and mentoring for other ED clinicians.

Musculoskeletal injury quality outcome indicators for the emergency department.

High standards of care for musculoskeletal injuries presenting to emergency departments (ED) must be maintained despite financial constraints, the model of care in place, or the pressure to reach time-based performance measures. Outcome quality indicators (QIs) provide a tangible way of assessing and improving the outcomes of health-care delivery. This study aimed to develop a set of outcome QIs for musculoskeletal injuries in the ED that are meaningful, valid, feasible to collect, simple to use for clinical quality improvement and chosen by experts in the field. The study used a multi-phase mixed methods design, commencing with a systematic review of available outcome QIs. An expert panel then developed a set of preliminary QIs based on the available scientific evidence. Prospective observational data collection was undertaken across eight EDs with subsequent retrospective chart audits, follow-up phone calls and audit of administrative databases. After statistical analysis, validated results were presented to the expert panel who discussed, refined and formally voted on a final outcome QI set. A total of 41 preliminary outcome QIs were field tested in EDs, with data collected on 633 patients. Using the field study results, the expert panel voted 11 outcome QIs into the final set. These covered effectiveness of pain management, timeliness to discharge, re-presentations to the ED and unplanned visits to health professionals in the community, missed injuries, opioids side effects and the patient experience. An evidence-based set of outcome quality indicators is now available to support clinical quality improvement of musculoskeletal injury care in the ED setting.

Process quality indicators for musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Measuring quality of care for musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED is important given their prevalence, variations in care, the associated morbidity and financial impacts and pressure to achieve time-based performance measures. Process quality indicators (QIs) provide a quantitative method to measure the actions taken during healthcare delivery. This study aimed to develop a set of process QIs to measure the quality of care for musculoskeletal injuries in the ED. METHODS: A multiphase mixed-methods study was undertaken from 2015 to 2018, commencing with a systematic review to identify existing musculoskeletal QIs. This review, along with current evidence regarding musculoskeletal injury management in the ED, informed an expert panel who developed a preliminary set of process QIs. The preliminary set was field tested at eight EDs in Queensland, Australia, to determine the validity, reliability, feasibility and usefulness of each QI. Prospective observational data collection and retrospective chart audits were used to score the process QIs. These results were presented to the expert panel who determined a final QI set. RESULTS: A total of 633 patients were recruited and 36 process QIs included in the final set. The QIs covered important domains of pain assessment and management, history taking and physical examination, appropriateness and timeliness of imaging, fracture management, mobility, patient information and discharge considerations including safety and referrals. The best performing QIs included the use of opioid sparing analgesics and avoiding prescription of 'just in case' opioids at discharge. The poorest performing QIs included the completion of spinal red flag questioning and referrals for fragility fractures. CONCLUSION: An evidence and best practice-based set of QIs has been developed to allow EDs to assess and quantify the quality of care for musculoskeletal presentations. This will allow EDs to compare and benchmark, leading to the optimisation of care for patients.

Comparison of emergency physiotherapy practitioner prescribers versus existing emergency department prescribers for musculoskeletal injuries.

OBJECTIVE: The scope of selected emergency physiotherapy practitioners (EPP) in this Australian non-tertiary ED has recently extended to include the prescription of a limited drug formulary, including paracetamol, some NSAIDs and opioids, an anti-emetic, a benzodiazepine and nitrous oxide. Although there are large-scale studies investigating prescription errors made by doctors, there is a lack of data on prescribing practices of physiotherapists in the ED setting. The aim of present study is to compare the prescribing practices of EPP to their medical and nursing colleagues within the setting of treating musculoskeletal injuries in the ED. METHODS: One hundred retrospective National Inpatient Medication Chart (NIMC) audits of adult patients presenting primarily with musculoskeletal complaints were undertaken using the standardised NIMC audit tool, with patient demographics, and NIMC audit results compared between groups. RESULTS: Fifty medication charts were audited for each group, with a total of 212 drug orders. EPP demonstrated higher completion rates for patient identification, patient weight and medication history compared to medical and nursing staff. Legibility of drug names and route of administration appeared equivalent, whereas EPP had higher completion rates for legible drug doses and signatures compared to medical and nursing staff. CONCLUSION: In the management of ED patients with musculoskeletal complaints, prescription-trained EPP appear to perform similarly if not better than their medical and nursing colleagues with regards to NIMC audit tool results.

Review article: Best practice management of neck pain in the emergency department (part 6 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Neck pain and whiplash injuries are a common presentation to the ED, and a frequent cause of disability globally. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of musculoskeletal neck pain in the ED. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites, were searched in 2017. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines were considered for inclusion. English-language articles published in the past 12 years addressing acute neck pain assessment, management or prognosis in the ED were included. Data extraction was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate levels of evidence where possible. The search revealed 2080 articles, of which 51 were included (n = 22 primary articles, n = 13 systematic reviews and n = 16 guidelines). Consistent evidence was found to support the use of 'red flags' to screen for serious pathologies, judicious use of imaging through clinical decision rule application and promotion of functional exercise coupled with advice and reassurance. Clinicians may also consider applying risk-stratification methods, such as using a clinical prediction rule, to guide patient discharge and referral plans; however, the evidence is still emerging in this population. This rapid review provides clinicians managing neck pain in the ED a summary of the best available evidence to enhance quality of care and optimise patient outcomes.

Review article: Best practice management of closed hand and wrist injuries in the emergency department (part 5 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Acute hand and wrist injuries are a common presentation to the ED and are associated with large individual and societal costs. Appropriate management of these injuries in the ED is crucial given that optimal hand function is essential for daily activities and quality of life. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of common closed hand and wrist injuries in the ED. Databases were searched in 2017, including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines published in English language in the past 12 years that addressed the acute assessment, management, follow-up plan or prognosis were considered for inclusion. Data extraction of included articles was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate the level of evidence. The search revealed 2454 articles, of which 55 were included in the review (n = 23 primary articles, n = 26 systematic reviews and n = 6 guidelines). This rapid review provides clinicians who manage common closed fractures and soft tissue injuries of the hand and wrist in the ED, a summary of the best available evidence to enhance the quality of care for optimal patient outcomes. There is evidence to support taking a thorough history and physical examination with consideration of occupational and functional factors, restoring alignment and immobilising when necessary and referring onwards. Key points regarding the diagnosis and management of these injuries are provided.

Review article: Best practice management of common shoulder injuries and conditions in the emergency department (part 4 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Shoulder injuries are a commonly presenting complaint to the ED. In the absence of an obvious deformity, they can be difficult to assess and definitively diagnose because of the multiple structures that cause shoulder pain, the acuity and severity of pain and the lack of range of motion in the ED setting. The quality of ED care provided to patients with musculoskeletal shoulder pain is crucial to ensure the best possible outcomes for the patient. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of common shoulder injuries and conditions in the ED. Databases were searched in 2017, including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines published in English-language in the past 12 years that addressed the acute assessment, management, follow-up plan or prognosis were considered for inclusion. Data extraction of included articles was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate the level of evidence. The search revealed 1902 articles, of which 73 were included in the review (n = 12 primary articles, n = 49 systematic reviews and n = 12 guidelines). This rapid review provides clinicians who manage shoulder dislocations, fractures and soft tissue injuries in the ED a summary of the best available evidence to enhance the quality of care for optimal patient outcomes. There is strong evidence to support taking a thorough history and physical examination, with cautious use of special tests because of their poor diagnostic accuracy. Key points regarding the diagnosis and management of these injuries are provided.

Review article: Best practice management of low back pain in the emergency department (part 1 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Low back pain (LBP) is a common presentation to the ED, and a frequent cause of disability globally. The ED management is often associated with high rates of imaging, misuse and overuse of pharmacology and subsequent financial implications. Given this, improved quality of care for patients with LBP in ED is essential. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of LBP in the ED. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites, were searched in 2015. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines were considered for inclusion. English-language articles published in the past 10 years that addressed acute LBP assessment, management or prognosis in the ED or acute setting were included. Data extraction of included articles was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate the level of evidence where possible. The search revealed 1538 articles, of which 38 were included in the review (n = 8 primary articles, n = 13 systematic reviews and n = 17 guidelines). This rapid review provides clinicians managing LBP in the ED a summary of the best available evidence to risk stratify and enhance the quality of care, optimising patient outcomes. Consistent evidence was found to support the use of 'red flags' to screen for serious pathologies, diagnostic tests being reserved for use only in the presence of red flags, the judicious prescribing of opioids, identification of psychosocial risk factors as predictors of poorer outcome and promotion of early return to work and function.

Review article: Methodology for the 'rapid review' series on musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department.

Musculoskeletal injuries are a common presentation to the ED, with significant costs involved in the management of these injuries, variances in care within the ED and associated morbidity. A series of rapid review papers were completed to guide best practice for the assessment and management of common musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED. This paper presents the methodology used across the rapid reviews. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites, were searched in 2015. The search was repeated consistently for each topic area (injuries of the foot and ankle, knee, hand and wrist, elbow, shoulder, lumbar spine and cervical spine). English-language primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines that were published in the last 10 years and addressed acute musculoskeletal injury management were considered for inclusion. Data extraction of each included article was conducted, followed by a quality appraisal. The extracted data from each article was synthesised to group similar evidence together. For each rapid review, the evidence has been organised in a way that a clinician can direct their attention to a specific component of the clinical cycle of care in the ED, such as the assessment, diagnostic tests, management and follow-up considerations from ED. The series of rapid reviews are designed to foster evidence-based practice within the ED, targeting the injuries most commonly presenting. The reviews provide clinicians in EDs with rapid access to the best current evidence, which has been synthesised and organised to assist decision-making.

Review article: Best practice management of common ankle and foot injuries in the emergency department (part 2 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Ankle and foot injuries are the most common musculoskeletal injuries presenting to Australian EDs and are associated with a large societal and economic impact. The quality of ED care provided to patients with ankle and foot fractures or soft tissue injuries is critical to ensure the best possible outcomes for the patient. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of common ankle and foot injuries in the ED. Databases including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites, were searched in 2017. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines were considered for inclusion. English language articles published in the last 12 years that addressed the acute assessment, management or prognosis in the ED were included. Data extraction of included articles was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate the level of evidence where possible. The search revealed 1242 articles, of which 71 were included in the review (n = 22 primary articles, n = 35 systematic reviews and n = 14 guidelines). This rapid review provides clinicians managing fractures and soft tissue injuries of the ankle and foot in the ED a summary of the best available evidence to enhance the quality of care for optimal patient outcomes. Following a thorough history and physical examination, including the application of the Ottawa ankle rules, ED clinicians should not only provide a diagnosis, but rate the severity of soft tissue injuries, or stability of fractures and dislocations, which are the pivotal decision points in guiding ED treatment, specialist referral and the follow-up plan.

Review article: Best practice management of common knee injuries in the emergency department (part 3 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series).

Knee injuries are a common presentation to the ED and are often difficult to assess and definitively diagnose due to the patient's acute pain, effusion and guarding. The quality of ED care provided to patients with fractures or soft tissue injuries of the knee is critical to ensure the best possible outcomes for the patient. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of common knee injuries in the ED. Databases were searched in 2017, including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines were considered for inclusion. English-language articles published in the past 12 years that addressed the acute assessment, management, follow-up plan or prognosis were included. Data extraction of included articles was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate the level of evidence where possible. The search revealed 2250 articles, of which 54 were included in the review (n = 8 primary articles, n = 28 systematic reviews, n = 18 guidelines). This rapid review provides clinicians managing fractures and soft tissue injuries of the knee in the ED, a summary of the best available evidence to enhance the quality of care for optimal patient outcomes. There is consistent evidence to support undertaking a thorough history and physical examination, including the application of special tests and clinical decision rules for imaging. In the undifferentiated knee injury, expedited follow up and further imaging is recommended to improve patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Developing quality indicators for the care of patients with musculoskeletal injuries in the Emergency Department: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal injuries are a common presentation to the Emergency Department (ED). The quality of care provided is important to the patients, clinicians, organisations and purchasers of care. In the context of the increasing burden of musculoskeletal disease, quality of care needs to occur despite financial impacts, variations in care, and pressure to reach time-based performance measures. This study aims to develop a suite of evidence-based quality indicators (QI) which will provide a measure of the quality of care for patients with musculoskeletal injuries in the ED. METHODS: This study will utilise a multi-phase mixed methods protocol, commencing with a systematic review of the literature to identify and critically appraise existing QIs for musculoskeletal injuries in the ED. The study will then build on the gaps identified in the review to develop a suite of preliminary QIs, in accordance with established research methodology under the governance of an expert panel. The developed QI set will then be field-tested for feasibility and validity in selected EDs. After field-testing, the suite will be refined in consultation with the expert panel and finalised using a formal voting process. DISCUSSION: The assessment of performance against QIs provides a quantitative measure for the quality of care provided to patients, to identify and target quality improvement activities. The QIs developed through this study will be evidence-based and balanced across the areas of structures, processes and outcomes. The rigorous methodology used to develop and test the QIs will result in QIs that are meaningful, valid, feasible to collect and efficiently measurable, amenable to improvement, and selected by experts in the emergency medicine field. The final QI suite will have applications across EDs that affords comparison, benchmarking and optimisation of emergency care for patients.

Quality indicators for musculoskeletal injury management in the emergency department: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: There is increasing importance placed on quality of health care for musculoskeletal injuries in emergency departments (EDs). This systematic review aimed to identify existing musculoskeletal quality indicators (QIs) developed for ED use and to critically evaluate their methodological quality. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the gray literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched in 2013. English-language articles were included that described the development of at least one QI related to the ED care of musculoskeletal injuries. Data extraction of each included article was conducted. A quality assessment was then performed by rating each relevant QI against the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) Instrument. QIs with similar definitions were grouped together and categorized according to the health care quality frameworks of Donabedian and the Institute of Medicine. RESULTS: The search revealed 1,805 potentially relevant articles, of which 15 were finally included in the review. The number of relevant QIs per article ranged from one to 11, resulting in a total of 71 QIs overall. Pain (n = 17) and fracture management (n = 13) QIs were predominant. Ten QIs scored at least 50% across all AIRE Instrument domains, and these related to pain management and appropriate imaging of the spine. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of the development of most QIs is poor. Recommendations for a core set of QIs that address the complete spectrum of musculoskeletal injury management in emergency medicine is not possible, and more work is needed. Currently, QIs with highest methodological quality are in the areas of pain management and medical imaging.