A Cluster Analysis of Initial Primary Care Orders for Patients with Acute Low Back Pain.

PURPOSE: Primary care physicians (PCPs) often face a complex intersection of patient expectations, evidence, and policy that influences their care recommendations for acute low back pain (aLBP). The purpose of this study was to elucidate patterns of PCP orders for patients with aLBP, identify the most common patterns, and describe patient clinical and demographic characteristics associated with patterns of aLBP care. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 9574 aLBP patients presenting to 1 of 77 primary care practices in 4 geographic locations in the United States. We performed a cluster analysis of PCP orders extracted from electronic health records within the first 21 days of an initial visit for aLBP. RESULTS: 1401 (15%) patients did not receive a PCP order related to back pain within the first 21 days of their initial visit. These patients predominantly had aLBP without leg pain, less back-related disability, and were at low-risk for persistent disability. Of the remaining 8146 patients, we found 4 distinct order patterns: combined nonpharmacologic and first-line medication (44%); second-line medication (39%); imaging (10%); and specialty referral (7%). Among all patients, 29% received solely 1 order from their PCP. PCPs more often combined different guideline concordant and discordant orders. Patients with higher self-reported disability and psychological distress were more likely to receive guideline discordant care. CONCLUSION: Guideline discordant orders such as steroids and NSAIDS are often combined with guideline recommended orders such as physical therapy. Further defining patient, clinician, and health care setting characteristics associated with discordant care would inform targeted efforts for deimplementation initiatives.

Significant Clinical Improvement Was Predicted in a Cohort of Patients With Low Back Pain Early in the Care Process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with low back pain who achieved clinical improvement in disability within 3 or 6 physical therapy visits, identify factors that predicted improvement, and predict the probability of improvement by the third and sixth visits. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study looked at patients (N = 6523) who completed a numeric pain scale and Modified Low Back Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) at every visit. Four prediction models were developed: 30% improvement by visit 3 and by visit 6 and 50% improvement by visit 3 and by visit 6. A logistic regression model was fit to predict patients' improvement in disability using the MDQ. Predictive models used age, disability scores, sex, symptom duration, and payer type as factors. Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve were computed for the models. Nomograms illustrate the relative impacts of the predictor variables. RESULTS: Disability improved 30% in 42.7% of patients by visit 3 and 49% by visit 6. Disability improved 50% in 26% of patients by visit 3 and 32.9% by visit 6. First visit score (MDQ1) was strongest factor to predict 30% improvement by visit 3. The visit 3 score (MDQ3) was strongest factor to predict a 30% or 50% improvement by visit 6. The combination of MDQ1 and MDQ3 scores was strongest overall predictive factor for visit 6. The area under the curve values for models using only the MDQ1 and MDQ3 scores to predict 30% or 50% improvement by the sixth visit were 0.84 and 0.85, respectively, representing excellent overall diagnostic accuracy of the prediction models. CONCLUSION: Excellent discrimination to predict patients' significant clinical improvement by visit 6 using 2 outcome scores was demonstrated. Gathering outcomes routinely enhances assessment of prognosis and clinical decision making. IMPACT: Understanding prognosis of clinical improvement supports physical therapists' contribution to value-based care.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Incidence of High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP). METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP. RESULTS: We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83-1.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02647658.

The primary spine practitioner as a new role in healthcare systems in North America.

BACKGROUND: In an article published in 2011, we discussed the need for a new role in health care systems, referred to as the Primary Spine Practitioner (PSP). The PSP model was proposed to help bring order to the chaotic nature of spine care. Over the past decade, several efforts have applied the concepts presented in that article. The purpose of the present article is to discuss the ongoing need for the PSP role in health care systems, present persistent barriers, report several examples of the model in action, and propose future strategies. MAIN BODY: The management of spine related disorders, defined here as various disorders related to the spine that produce axial pain, radiculopathy and other related symptoms, has received significant international attention due to the high costs and relatively poor outcomes in spine care. The PSP model seeks to bring increased efficiency, effectiveness and value. The barriers to the implementation of this model have been significant, and responses to these barriers are discussed. Several examples of PSP integration are presented, including clinic systems in primary care and hospital environments, underserved areas around the world and a program designed to reduce surgical waiting lists. Future strategies are proposed for overcoming the continuing barriers to PSP implementation in health care systems more broadly. CONCLUSION: Significant progress has been made toward integrating the PSP role into health care systems over the past 10 years. However, much work remains. This requires substantial effort on the part of those involved in the development and implementation of the PSP model, in addition to support from various stakeholders who will benefit from the proposed improvements in spine care.

Stratified care to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: The TARGET trial. A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with acute low back pain (LBP) first seek care from primary care physicians. Evidence is lacking for interventions to prevent transition to chronic LBP in this setting. We aimed to test if implementation of a risk-stratified approach to care would result in lower rates of chronic LBP and improved self-reported disability. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial using 77 primary care clinics in four health care systems across the United States. Practices were randomly assigned to a stratified approach to care (intervention) or usual care (control). Using the STarTBack screening tool, adults with acute LBP were screened low, medium, and high-risk. Patients screened as high-risk were eligible. The intervention included electronic best practice alerts triggering referrals for psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). PIPT education was targeted to community clinics geographically close to intervention primary care clinics. Primary outcomes were transition to chronic LBP and self-reported disability at six months. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02647658. FINDINGS: Between May 2016 and June 2018, 1207 patients from 38 intervention and 1093 from 37 control practices were followed. In the intervention arm, around 50% of patients were referred for physical therapy (36% for PIPT) compared to 30% in the control. At 6 months, 47% of patients reported transition to chronic LBP in the intervention arm (38 practices, n = 658) versus 51% of patients in the control arm (35 practices, n = 635; OR=0.83 95% CI 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.18). No differences in disability were detected (difference -2·1, 95% CI -4.9-0.6; p = 0.12). Opioids and imaging were prescribed in 22%-25% and 23%-26% of initial visits, for intervention and control, respectively. Twelve-month LBP utilization was similar in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: There were no differences detected in transition to chronic LBP among patients presenting with acute LBP using a stratified approach to care. Opioid and imaging prescribing rates were non-concordant with clinical guidelines. FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) contract # PCS-1402-10867.

Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care.

Importance: Acute low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, with a presumed favorable prognosis; however, once chronic, LBP becomes a disabling and expensive condition. Acute to chronic LBP transition rates vary widely owing to absence of standardized operational definitions, and it is unknown whether a standardized prognostic tool (ie, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back tool [SBT]) can estimate this transition or whether early non-guideline concordant treatment is associated with the transition to chronic LBP. Objective: To assess the associations between the transition from acute to chronic LBP with SBT risk strata; demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics; and guideline nonconcordant processes of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This inception cohort study was conducted alongside a multisite, pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Adult patients with acute LBP stratified by SBT risk were enrolled in 77 primary care practices in 4 regions across the United States between May 2016 and June 2018 and followed up for 6 months, with final follow-up completed by March 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January to March 2020. Exposures: SBT risk strata and early LBP guideline nonconcordant processes of care (eg, receipt of opioids, imaging, and subspecialty referral). Main Outcomes and Measures: Transition from acute to chronic LBP at 6 months using the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards consensus definition of chronic LBP. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and LBP process of care were obtained via electronic medical records. Results: Overall, 5233 patients with acute LBP (3029 [58%] women; 4353 [83%] White individuals; mean [SD] age 50.6 [16.9] years; 1788 [34%] low risk; 2152 [41%] medium risk; and 1293 [25%] high risk) were included. Overall transition rate to chronic LBP at six months was 32% (1666 patients). In a multivariable model, SBT risk stratum was positively associated with transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.00-2.98; P < .001). Patient and clinical characteristics associated with transition to chronic LBP included obesity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; P < .001); smoking (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89; P < .001); severe and very severe baseline disability (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.48-2.24; P < .001 and aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.60-2.68; P < .001, respectively) and diagnosed depression/anxiety (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28-2.15; P < .001). After controlling for all other variables, patients exposed to 1, 2, or 3 nonconcordant processes of care within the first 21 days were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), 1.88 (95% CI, 1.53-2.32), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.10-4.25) times more likely to develop chronic LBP compared with those with no exposure (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial and increased correspondingly with SBT stratum and early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care.

Study protocol for targeted interventions to prevent chronic low back pain in high-risk patients: A multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (TARGET Trial).

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and potentially disabling conditions for which people seek health care. Patients, providers, and payers agree that greater effort is needed to prevent acute LBP from transitioning to chronic LBP. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: The TARGET (Targeted Interventions to Prevent Chronic Low Back Pain in High-Risk Patients) Trial is a primary care-based, multisite, cluster randomized, pragmatic trial comparing guideline-based care (GBC) to GBC + referral to Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy (PIPT) for patients presenting with acute LBP and identified as high risk for persistent disabling symptoms. Study sites include primary care clinics within each of five geographical regions in the United States, with clinics randomized to either GBC or GBC + PIPT. Acute LBP patients at all clinics are risk stratified (high, medium, low) using the STarT Back Tool. The primary outcomes are the presence of chronic LBP and LBP-related functional disability determined by the Oswestry Disability Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes are LBP-related processes of health care and utilization of services over 12 months, determined through electronic medical records. Study enrollment began in May 2016 and concluded in June 2018. The trial was powered to include at least 1860 high-risk patients in the randomized controlled trial cohort. A prospective observational cohort of approximately 6900 low and medium-risk acute LBP patients was enrolled concurrently. DISCUSSION: The TARGET pragmatic trial aims to establish the effectiveness of the stratified approach to acute LBP intervention targeting high-risk patients with GBC and PIPT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02647658 Registered Jan. 6, 2016.

Improving Physical Therapy Pain Care, Quality, and Cost Through Effectiveness-Implementation Research.

The variability and delay in utilizing evidence in clinical practice are barriers to improving care, quality, and cost in health care, as charged by the "triple aim" framework. Scientific research provides an avenue not only to further the field of pain research, but also to study and change the patterns and processes that drive systemic and individual clinical practices. Implementation science is an emerging field that can be integrated with more traditional effectiveness research to accomplish a combination of aims within the same study. This type of concurrent study of effectiveness and implementation is known as a hybrid design and can be used to improve behavioral or operational practice patterns as well as to collect evidence of clinical effectiveness. Recently, the National Pain Strategy put forth recommendations to improve the care of patients with pain through research and practice. Hybrid designs align well with recent efforts that emphasize value-based, patient-centered health care evolving and described in the National Pain Strategy. The purposes of this perspective are to describe implementation science and hybrid studies and to put forth opportunities to utilize this research to advance the care of patients with pain in the United States.

What Types of Treatment Are Provided for Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome? A Retrospective Analysis of Commercial Insurance.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in commercially insured patients across the spectrum of provider types rarely has been described. OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of types of treatment for patients with CTS using a large commercial insurance database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort descriptive study. SETTING: Administrative health data from the Clinformatics Data Mart (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN). PATIENTS: Adults with a primary diagnosis of CTS seen from between January 2010 to December 2012 who had a total of 48 months of continuous data (12 months before diagnosis and 36 months after diagnosis) (n = 24,931). OUTCOMES: Frequency of types of treatment (heat, manual therapy, positioning, steroids, stretching, surgery) by number of treatments, number of visits, provider type, and characteristics. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of patients received no reported treatment, and 50.4% had no additional visits. Surgery (42.5%) and positioning (39.8%) were the most frequent single treatments. Patients who were seen by orthopedist for their first visit more frequently received some treatment (75.1%) and at least 1 additional visit (74.1%) compared with those seen by general practitioners (59.5%, 57.5%, respectively) or other providers (65.4%, 68.4, respectively). Orthopedists more frequently prescribed positioning devices (26.8%) and surgery (36.8%) than general practitioners (18.8%, 14.1%, respectively) or other providers (15.7%, 19.7%, respectively). Older adults more frequently had CTS surgery, as did people who lived in the Midwest. Overall, only 24% of patients with CTS had surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For more than one-half of patients with CTS no treatment was provided after an initial visit. Surgery rates were much lower than what has previously been reported in the literature. Generally, patients with CTS receive treatments that are supported by current treatment guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Association of Early Outpatient Rehabilitation With Health Service Utilization in Managing Medicare Beneficiaries With Nontraumatic Knee Pain: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Nontraumatic knee pain (NTKP) is highly prevalent in adults 65 years of age and older. Evidence-based guidelines recommend early use of rehabilitation; however, there is limited information comparing differences in health care utilization when rehabilitation is included in the management of NTKP. OBJECTIVES: To describe the overall health care utilization associated with the management of NTKP; estimate the proportion of people who receive outpatient rehabilitation services; and evaluate the timing of outpatient rehabilitation and its association with other health care utilization. DESIGN: Rretrospective cohort study was conducted using a random 10% sample of 2009-2010 Medicare claims. The sample included 52,504 beneficiaries presenting within the ambulatory setting for management of NTKP. METHODS: Exposure to outpatient rehabilitative services following the NTKP index ambulatory visit was defined as 1) no rehabilitation; 2) early rehabilitation (1-15 days); 3) intermediate rehabilitation (16-120 days); and 4) late rehabilitation (>120 days). Logistic regression models were fit to analyze the association of rehabilitation timing with narcotic analgesic use, utilization of nonsurgical invasive procedure, and knee surgery during a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Only 11.1% of beneficiaries were exposed to outpatient rehabilitation services. The likelihood of using narcotics, nonsurgical invasive procedures, or surgery was significantly less (adjusted odds ratios; 0.67, 0.50, 0.58, respectively) for those who received early rehabilitation when compared to no rehabilitation. The exposure-outcome relationships were reversed in the intermediate and late rehabilitation cohorts. LIMITATIONS: This was an observational study, and residual confounding could affect the observed relationships. Therefore, definitive conclusions regarding the causal effect of rehabilitation exposure and reduced utilization of more aggressive interventions cannot be determined at this time. CONCLUSIONS: Early referral for outpatient rehabilitation may reduce the utilization of health services that carry greater risks or costs in those with NTKP.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Headache in North Carolina, 2000-2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare patterns of utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MDs), doctors of chiropractic (DCs), and physical therapists (PTs) for the treatment of headache in North Carolina. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of claims data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the North Carolina State Health Plan using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnostic codes for headache. The claims were separated by individual provider type, combination of provider types, and referral patterns. RESULTS: The majority of patients and claims were in the MD-only or MD plus referral patterns. Chiropractic patterns represented less than 10% of patients. Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least charges on average for headache. When care did not include referral providers or services, MD with DC care was generally less expensive than MD care with PT. However, when combined with referral care, MD care with PT was generally less expensive. Compared with MD-only care, risk-adjusted charges (available 2006-2009) for patients in the middle risk quintile were significantly less for DC-only care. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization and expenditures for headache treatment increased from 2000 to 2009 across all provider groups. MD care represented the majority of total allowed charges in this study. MD care and DC care, alone or in combination, were overall the least expensive patterns of headache care. Risk-adjusted charges were significantly less for DC-only care.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Neck Pain in North Carolina, 2000 to 2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MD), doctors of chiropractic (DC) and physical therapists (PT) by provider patterns of care for the treatment of neck pain in North Carolina. METHODS: This was an analysis of neck-pain-related closed claim data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees (NCSHP) from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the NCSHP using ICD-9 diagnostic codes for uncomplicated neck pain (UNP) and complicated neck pain (CNP). RESULTS: Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least average charges for both UNP and CNP. When care did not include referral providers or services, for either UNP or CNP, MD care with PT was generally less expensive than MD care with DC care. However, when care involved referral providers or services, MD and PT care was on average more expensive than MD and DC care for either UNP or CNP. Risk-adjusted charges for patients in the middle quintile of risk (available 2006-2009) were lower for chiropractic patients with or without medical care or referral care to other providers. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care alone or DC with MD care incurred appreciably fewer charges for UNP or CNP compared to MD care with or without PT care, when care included referral providers or services. This finding was reversed when care did not include referral providers or services. Risk-adjusted charges for UNP and CNP patients were lower for DC care patterns.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Low Back Pain in North Carolina, 2000 to 2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MD), doctors of chiropractic (DC) and physical therapists (PT) by patterns of care for the treatment of low back pain in North Carolina. METHODS: This was an analysis of low-back-pain-related closed claim data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the North Carolina State Health Plan using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnostic codes for uncomplicated low back pain (ULBP) and complicated low back pain (CLBP). RESULTS: Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least charges on average for both ULBP and CLBP. When care did not include referral providers or services, for ULBP, MD and DC care was on average $465 less than MD and PT care. For CLBP, MD and DC care averaged $965 more than MD and PT care. However, when care involved referral providers or services, MD and DC care was on average $1600 less when compared to MD and PT care for ULBP and $1885 less for CLBP. Risk-adjusted charges (available 2006-2009) for patients in the middle quintile of risk were significantly less for DC care patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care alone or DC with MD care incurred appreciably fewer charges for ULBP than MD care with or without PT care. This finding was reversed for CLBP. Adjusted charges for both ULBP and CLBP patients were significantly lower for DC patients.

Exploratory Analysis of Clinical Predictors of Outcomes of Nonsurgical Treatment in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore potential baseline physical examination and demographic predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data obtained from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) Questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain. Multiple regression models were used to assess 2 different outcomes: SSS at completion of care and VAS at completion of care. Separate regression models were built for each of the 2 outcomes to identify the best subset of variables that predicted improvement. Predictors with a significant contribution were retained in a final "best" model. RESULTS: Three variables were identified as having an association with SSS score at completion of care: baseline SSS score, qualitative description of leg pain, and age (adjusted R(2) = 33.2). Four variables were identified as having an association with VAS score at completion of care: baseline VAS score, qualitative description of leg pain, body mass index, and age (adjusted R(2) = 38.3). CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence supporting an association between certain baseline characteristics and nonsurgical clinical outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Comparing Advanced Practice Providers and Physicians as Providers of e-Visits.

BACKGROUND: Although electronic delivery (electronic visits [e-visits]) of healthcare services by advanced practice providers (APPs) is growing, literature defining the roles of different providers and comparing outcomes is lacking. We analyzed two e-visit models at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) to compare their providers (physicians and APPs) and associated outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all e-visits for the UPMC AnywhereCare Continuity (physician providers for existing patients) and Convenience (physician and APP providers for Pennsylvania residents) services (n=2,184) using Epic Systems (Verona, WI) MyChart data (November 2013-August 2014). We compared e-visits by service and provider type for patient characteristics, volume, response time, primary diagnoses, and number of prescriptions. We used statistical tests to determine differences in patient characteristics and an ordinary least square linear regression, controlling for patient characteristics, to determine differences in prescribing. RESULTS: Of the completed e-visits (n=1,791), 72.5% were with APPs, and 27.5% were with physicians. APP patients were younger, higher income, and more likely to be unmarried. Sinusitis patients were more likely to use the Continuity service, whereas those with urinary tract or upper respiratory infections were more likely to use the Convenience service. Finally, provider type was significantly associated with prescribing, with APPs prescribing more. CONCLUSIONS: Some demographic variation exists between users of APP versus physician e-visits. Provider response time seems more driven by service policy than provider type. Finally, variation exists between provider types in quantities of prescriptions written. As health systems and policymakers develop protocols and reimbursement strategies for e-visits, these model considerations will be important.

Evidence-based practice implementation: case report of the evolution of a quality improvement program in a multicenter physical therapy organization.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our nation's suboptimal health care quality and unsustainable costs can be linked to the failure to implement evidence-based interventions. Implementation is the bridge between the decision to adopt a strategy and its sustained use in practice. The purpose of this case report is threefold: (1) to outline the historical implementation of an evidence-based quality improvement project, (2) to describe the program's future direction using a systems perspective to identify implementation barriers, and (3) to provide implications for the profession as it works toward closing the evidence-to-practice gap. CASE DESCRIPTION: The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Centers for Rehab Services is a large, multicenter physical therapy organization. In 2005, they implemented a Low Back Initiative utilizing evidence-based protocols to guide clinical decision making. OUTCOMES: The initial implementation strategy used a multifaceted approach. Formative evaluations were used repeatedly to identify barriers to implementation. Barriers may exist outside the organization, they can be created internally, they may result from personnel, or they may be a direct function of the research evidence. Since the program launch, 3 distinct improvement cycles have been utilized to address identified implementation barriers. DISCUSSION: Implementation is an iterative process requiring evaluation, measurement, and refinement. During this period, behavior change is actualized as clinicians become increasingly proficient and committed to their use of new evidence. Successfully incorporating evidence into routine practice requires a systems perspective to account for the complexity of the clinical setting. The value the profession provides can be enhanced by improving the implementation of evidence-based strategies. Achieving this outcome will require a concerted effort in all areas of the profession. New skills will be needed by leaders, researchers, managers, and clinicians.

The 2008 prevalence of chiropractic use in the US adult population.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to produce prevalence estimates and identify determinants of variability in chiropractic use in the US adult population. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was used to estimate prevalence for the adult population and subpopulations according to several sociodemographic, geographic, and health characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the effects of the independent predictors on chiropractic use. RESULTS: The 2008 chiropractic prevalence of use was estimated to be 5.2% (95% confidence interval, 4.7-5.6). The adjusted odds of using chiropractic services were approximately 46% less for Asians, 63% less for Hispanics, and 73% less for blacks compared with whites; 21% less for men than women; and 68% higher for those with arthritis compared with those without. Persons from high-income families have greater odds of using chiropractic services compared with those from middle-income (42%) and low-income (67%) families. There was a significant interaction between Census region and urban-rural location. The results showed the prevalence of chiropractic use to be highest in small metro areas in the Midwest (10.5%) and Northeast (10.4%) as well as micropolitan/noncore areas in the West (10.8%) and Midwest (10.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates previous findings showing the prevalence of use is higher for whites, women, and persons with higher family income or reported arthritis. The results of this study also indicate that chiropractic use varies across the urban-rural landscape depending on the region of the country, suggesting that the effect of geographic location may be more complex than previously reported.

Clinical, demographic, and geographic determinants of variation in chiropractic episodes of care for adults using the 2005-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to report nationally representative estimates of the visit utilization, per visit expenditures, and total expenditures for chiropractic episodes of care in the US adult population. The secondary aim was to identify clinical, demographic, geographic, and payment factors associated with variation in the levels of utilization and expenditures. METHODS: Data from the 2005-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were used to construct complete episodes of chiropractic care (n = 1639) for the civilian, noninstitutionalized adult population. Bivariate descriptive statistics were calculated for visit utilization, per visit expenditures, and total expenditures per episode of care by several clinical, demographic, geographic, and payment variables. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate the effects of the independent variables on each of the 3 dependent variables. RESULTS: The unadjusted mean number of visits per episode was 5.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3-6.4] and varied significantly by race/ethnicity, perceived mental health, urban-rural location, and source of payment. The mean total expenditures per visit per episode were estimated to be $69 (95% CI, $65-$73). There was variation associated with the census region, urban-rural location, and source of payment variables. Total expenditures for an episode of care were estimated to be $424 (95% CI, $371-$477] with variation according to urban-rural location and source of payment. During 29% of the episodes all expenditures were paid with out-of-pocket funds. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the utilization and expenditures during chiropractic episodes of care is primarily associated with payment source and geographic factors.