Provider perception of presentations with nonspecific back pain in the emergency department and primary care practices: a semi-structured interview study.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients treated in the emergency departments pose challenges to delivering timely and high-quality care. Particularly, the presentation of patients with low-urgency complaints consumes resources needed for patients with higher urgency. In this context, patients with non-specific back pain (NSBP) often present to emergency departments instead of primary care providers. While patient perspectives are well understood, this study aims to add a provider perspective on the diagnostic and therapeutic approach for NSBP in emergency and primary care settings. METHODS: In a qualitative content analysis, we interviewed seven Emergency Physicians (EP) and nine General Practitioners (GP) using a semi-structured interview to assess the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to patients with NSBP in emergency departments and primary care practices. A hypothetical case of NSBP was presented to the interviewees, followed by questions on their diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Recruitment was stopped after reaching saturation of the qualitative content analysis. Reporting this work follows the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. RESULTS: EPs applied two different strategies for the workup of NSBP. A subset pursued a guideline-compliant diagnostic approach, ruling out critical conditions and managing pain without extensive diagnostics. Another group of EPs applied a more extensive approach, including extensive diagnostic resources and specialist consultations. GPs emphasized physical examinations and stepwise treatment, including scheduled follow-ups and a better knowledge of the patient history to guide diagnostics and therapy. Both groups attribute ED visits for NSBP to patient related and healthcare system related factors: lack of understanding of healthcare structures, convenience, demand for immediate diagnostics, and fear of serious conditions. Furthermore, both groups reported an ill-suited healthcare infrastructure with insufficiently available primary care services as a contributing factor. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights a need for improving guideline adherence in younger EPs and better patient education on the healthcare infrastructure. Furthermore, improving access and availability of primary care services could reduce ED visits of patients with NSBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No trial registration needed.

Factors influencing the occurrence of ambulatory care sensitive conditions in the emergency department - a single-center cross-sectional study.

Background and importance: The differentiation between patients who require urgent care and those who could receive adequate care through ambulatory services remains a challenge in managing patient volumes in emergency departments (ED). Different approaches were pursued to characterize patients that could safely divert to ambulatory care. However, this characterization remains challenging as the urgency upon presentation is assessed based on immediately available characteristics of the patients rather than on subsequent diagnoses. This work employs a core set of Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions (core-ACSCs) in an ED to describe conditions that do not require inpatient care if treated adequately in the ambulatory care sector. It subsequently analyzes the corresponding triage levels and admission status to determine whether core-ACSCs relevantly contribute to patient volumes in an ED. Settings and participants: Single center cross-sectional analysis of routine data of a tertiary ED in 2019. Outcome measures and analysis: The proportion of core-ACSCs among all presentations was assessed. Triage levels were binarily classified as "urgent" and "non-urgent," and the distribution of core-ACSCs in both categories was studied. Additionally, the patients presenting with core-ACSCs requiring inpatient care were assessed based on adjusted residuals and logistic regression. The proportion being discharged home underwent further investigation. Main results: This study analyzed 43,382 cases of which 10.79% (n = 4,683) fell under the definition of core-ACSC categories. 65.2% of all core-ACSCs were urgent and received inpatient care in 62.8% of the urgent cases. 34.8% of the core-ACSCs were categorized as non-urgent, 92.4% of wich were discharged home. Age, triage level and sex significantly affected the odds of requiring hospital admission after presenting with core-ACSCs. The two core-ACSCs that mainly contributed to non-urgent cases discharged home after the presentation were "back pain" and "soft tissue disorders." Discussion: Core-ACSCs contribute relevantly to overall ED patient volume but cannot be considered the primary drivers of crowding. However, once patients presented to the ED with what was later confirmed as a core-ACSC, they required urgent care in 65.2%. This finding highlights the importance of effective ambulatory care to avoid emergency presentations. Additionally, the core-ACSC categories "back pain" and "soft tissue disorders" were often found to be non-urgent and discharged home. Although further research is required, these core-ACSCs could be considered potentially avoidable ED presentations. Clinical trial registration: The study was registered in the German trials register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00029751) on 2022-07-22.