"IT's too much to do alone": A mixed-methods exploration of patient experiences implementing emergency department management plans for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of socio-culturally diverse community members attempting to manage their chronic pain and enact evidence-based management plans following an index Emergency Department (ED) visit. METHODS: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design with qualitative interviews and descriptive analysis was undertaken in two public hospitals in a multicultural region in Sydney, Australia. Consecutive adults were recruited from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD: n = 45) or Australian-born (n = 45) backgrounds, who presented to the ED for a chronic neuromusculoskeletal pain condition. Consenting participants were prescribed an individualised chronic pain management plan following examination by a physiotherapist, who collected standardised measures of pain and health literacy. Six months later, participants underwent a structured phone survey regarding their pain status and whether they had actioned management plans. Participants were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. RESULTS: Six-month data were available for 82 of 90 participants who attended the ED and consented to the baseline assessment (40 CALD and 42 Australian-born). Participants were 52% females, predominately middle-aged (mean age 54.7 years), with an overall mean symptom duration of 10 years (SD 9.0). At 6 months, there were nine representations by six CALD participants and 23 by nine Australian-born participants. Overall, 52% reported unchanged pain, 24% were worse and 23% improved, with similar action plan progress for CALD (58%) and Australian-born (53%) participants. Pain features and health literacy were similar, irrespective of progress with pain management plans. From 41 participants who consented to phone interviews, three themes emerged to explain their progress with recommendations: 'illness model', 'urgency' and 'control orientation'. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to the ED with chronic pain might be more likely to action discharge recommendations if primary care providers identify patient-specific and contextual barriers to implementation.

Baduanjin Mind-Body Exercise for Cancer-Related Fatigue: Protocol for a Remotely Delivered Randomized Wait-List Controlled Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: People living with a cancer diagnosis often experience cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Between 9% and 45% of people report CRF as moderate to severe, negatively impacting their quality-of-life (QOL). The evidence-base for managing CRF recommends exercise-related therapies over pharmaceutical interventions. One such exercise-like therapy is Baduanjin mind-body exercise (MBE), which has additional benefits. A remotely delivered program may further benefit people with CRF. The primary objective of this pilot will test study feasibility of a remotely delivered Baduanjin MBE exercise program for people living with CRF. METHODS: This is a randomized wait-list controlled pilot study and will take place in Sydney, Australia. Subject to informed consent, 40 adults with moderate CRF levels and receiving or previously received adjuvant chemotherapy, will undertake a home-based 8-week Baduanjin MBE program supported by online resources and instructors. The primary feasibility outcomes are recruitment, enrollment, retention, and adherence rates; and safety as measured by tolerance and adverse-event frequency. Clinical outcomes (eg, changes in CRF, QOL, and participant perceptions) are assessed at pre-intervention, week 1, week 4, week 8, and post-intervention. Analyses follows the Intent-to-Treat (all participants as per randomization) and per-protocol (participants adhering to the protocol). Missing data will be imputed from previous data entries and regression models may be tested to predict missing outcomes. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the feasibility and effects of Baduanjin MBE on CRF using a remote delivery method. These feasibility data will inform a fully powered future trial investigating evidence of effect on CRF and QOL.Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR 12623000177651).Ringgold ID: 651498 Chinese Medicine Centre.

Effect of a waiting room communication strategy on imaging rates and awareness of public health messages for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the effects of waiting room communication strategies on health-care behavior. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effect of a waiting room communication strategy, designed to raise awareness of potential harms of unnecessary imaging, on lumbar imaging rates in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a controlled experimental study with a replicated time series design. The design included a 6-week run-in time. Following this there were alternating 1-week intervention and control periods. The intervention group received a communication strategy describing the potential harms of unnecessary imaging for low back pain, shown on a 55" LCD screen positioned in the ED waiting room. The communication strategy was designed by a creative innovation agency and included five digital posters and a patient leaflet. The control group received standard messaging for the waiting room at the time, shown on the same 55" LCD screen, and access to the patient leaflet. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of people presenting to ED with low back pain who received at least one lumbar imaging test, measured using routinely collected ED data. Secondary patient-reported outcomes (patient satisfaction and awareness of campaign messages) were collected from a sample of people presenting for any condition who responded to a text-message-based survey. RESULTS: For the imaging outcome, 337 people presenting to ED with low back pain were included over a 4-month period (intervention n = 99; control n = 238). All had available data on lumbar imaging. Use of lumbar imaging was 25% in those exposed to the communication strategy [95% confidence interval (CI) = 18% to 35%] compared with 29% in those exposed to the standard waiting room messaging [95% CI = 23% to 35%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.41]. For the patient-reported outcomes, 349 patients presenting to ED for any condition responded to the survey (intervention n = 170; control n = 179; response rate = 33%). There was uncertain evidence that the intervention increased awareness of the communication strategy leaflet (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 0.90 to 4.47). Other measures did not suggest between-group differences in patient satisfaction or awareness of the campaign messages. CONCLUSION: A communication strategy displayed in the ED waiting room may slightly reduce the proportion of patients with low back pain who receive lumbar imaging, although there is uncertainty due to imprecision. The campaign did not appear to increase awareness of campaign messages or affect patient satisfaction in a sample of patients presenting to the ED for any reason. Larger studies should investigate whether simple, low-cost waiting room communication strategies can raise awareness of unnecessary healthcare and influence health-care quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000300976, 05/03/2020.

Appropriateness of imaging decisions for low back pain presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective chart review study.

BACKGROUND: Imaging for low back pain is widely regarded as a target for efforts to reduce low-value care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the prevalence of the overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging in patients presenting with low back pain to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study of five public hospital EDs in Sydney, Australia, in 2019-20. We reviewed the clinical charts of consecutive adult patients who presented with a complaint of low back pain and extracted clinical features relevant to a decision to request lumbar imaging. We estimated the proportion of encounters where a decision to request lumbar imaging was inappropriate (overuse) or where a clinician did not request an appropriate and informative lumbar imaging test when indicated (underuse). RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-nine patients presented with a complaint of low back pain, of which 158 (24.3%) were referred for imaging. Seventy-nine (12.2%) had a combination of features suggesting that lumbar imaging was indicated according to clinical guidelines. The prevalence of overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging was 8.8% (57 of 649 cases, 95% CI 6.8-11.2%) and 4.3% (28 of 649 cases, 95% CI 3.0-6.1%), respectively. Thirteen cases were classified as underuse because the patients were referred for uninformative imaging modalities (e.g. referred for radiography for suspected cauda equina syndrome). CONCLUSION: In this study of emergency care, there was evidence of not only overuse of lumbar imaging but also underuse through failure to request lumbar imaging when indicated or referral for an uninformative imaging modality. These three issues seem more important targets for quality improvement than solely focusing on overuse.

Understanding overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department is a well-recognised healthcare challenge. Studies to date have not provided robust evidence that available interventions can reduce overuse. For an intervention aimed at reducing imaging to be effective, insight into how both patients and clinicians view lumbar imaging tests is essential. AIM: To explore factors that might influence overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department. METHODS: Participants were recruited from three hospitals in Sydney, Australia between April and August 2019. We conducted focus groups and/or interviews with 14 patients and 12 clinicians. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using framework analysis by a team of four researchers with diverse backgrounds. RESULTS: Patients described feeling that the decision about lumbar imaging was made by their Emergency Department clinician and reported little involvement in the decision-making process. Other potential drivers of lumbar imaging overuse from the patients' perspective were strong expectations for lumbar imaging, a reluctance to delay receiving a diagnosis, and requirements from third parties (eg, insurance companies) to have imaging. Emergency Department clinicians suggested that the absence of an ongoing therapeutic relationship, and the inability to manage perceived patient pressure could drive overuse of lumbar imaging. Suggested protective factors included: involving patients in the decision, ensuring clinicians have the ability to explain the reasons to avoid imaging and collaborative approaches to care both within the Emergency Department and with primary care. CONCLUSION AND KEY FINDINGS: We found several factors that could contribute to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department. Solutions to overuse of lumbar imaging in the Emergency Department could include: (1) strategies to involve patients in decisions about imaging; (2) training and support to provide thorough and well explained clinical assessment for low back pain; and (3) systems that support collaborative approaches to care.

A Mixed-Methods Investigation into Patients' Decisions to Attend an Emergency Department for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored factors that underpin decisions to seek emergency department (ED) care for chronic noncancer pain in patients identifying as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) or Australian born. DESIGN AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study was underpinned by the Behavioral Model of Health Services Use conceptual framework. Consenting consecutive patients attending the ED for a chronic pain condition were recruited to a CALD (n = 45) or Australian-born (n = 45) cohort. Statistical comparisons compared the demographic, pain, health literacy, and episode of care profiles of both cohorts. Twenty-three CALD and 16 Australian-born participants consented to an audio-recorded semi-structured interview (n = 24) or focus group (n = 5 focus groups) conducted in their preferred language. Interviews were translated and transcribed into English for analysis using applied thematic analysis, guided by the conceptual framework. Data were triangulated to investigate the patterns of ED utilization and contributing factors for both cohorts. RESULTS: ED attendance was a product of escalating distress, influenced by the degree to which participants' perceived needs outweighed their capacity to manage their pain. This interaction was amplified by the presence of predisposing factors, including constrained social positions, trauma exposure, and biomedical health beliefs. Importantly, experiences varied between the two cohorts with higher degrees of pain catastrophizing, lower health literacy, and greater social challenges present for the CALD cohort. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the role contextual factors play in amplifying pain-related distress for CALD and Australian-born patients with chronic pain. The findings support a need for health care providers to recognize features of higher vulnerability and consider streamlining access to available support services.

"I would not go to him": Focus groups exploring community responses to a public health campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary diagnostic imaging of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Community awareness of the harms of overdiagnosis remains low. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate community responses to a public health campaign designed for health service waiting rooms that focuses on the harms of unnecessary diagnostic imaging for low back pain. METHODS: We conducted two focus groups of 19 community members with or without low back pain in Sydney, Australia. This study formed the fourth and final stage of the development process of a public health campaign: (a) initial design, (b) expert review and revision, (c) online experiment and (d) community views & revision. We evaluated reactions to components of the campaign that included digital posters and an information leaflet using strong imagery and messaging about the risk of overdiagnosis. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to identify main themes. RESULTS: Community members reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful. With further reflection and discussion, and after reading longer format information about overdiagnosis, the participants found some of the messages informative and useful. Participants appeared to gain a better understanding of the concept of overdiagnosis and the importance of not rushing to imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Public health campaigns including posters and leaflets displayed in waiting rooms could raise awareness about overuse of diagnostic imaging and the harms of overdiagnosis more broadly. However, negative reactions are possible and must be managed carefully. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We involved a community participation manager who provided advice on the focus group discussion guide, participant recruitment and manuscript presentation.

Patient and general practitioner views of tools to delay diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Delayed prescribing is a promising strategy to manage patient requests for unnecessary tests and treatments. The purpose of this study was to explore general practitioner (GP) and patient views of three communication tools (Overdiagnosis Leaflet, Dialogue Sheet and 'Wait-and-see' Note) to support delayed prescribing of diagnostic imaging. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Primary and emergency care in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 16 GPs and 14 patients with recent episode of low back pain. OUTCOME: Views on the tools to delay diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Data were collected using a combination of focus groups and individual interviews. ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently performed a thematic analysis, and the author team reviewed and refined the analysis. RESULTS: GP participants responded positively to the Overdiagnosis Leaflet. The Dialogue Sheet and 'Wait-and-see' Note raised several concerns about patient pushback, adding to time pressure and being overwhelmed with hard-to-find paper resources. GPs preferred to communicate verbally the reasons to delay an imaging test. For patients, the reactions to the tools were more positive. Patients valued written information and a signed agreement to delay the test. However, patients expressed that a strong desire for diagnostic imaging would likely over-ride any effect of written advice to delay the test. The term 'false alarm' to describe overdiagnosis was poorly understood by patients. CONCLUSIONS: GPs and patients agreed that a leaflet about overdiagnosis could support a delayed prescribing approach to imaging for low back pain. The Dialogue Sheet and 'Wait-and-see' Note were acceptable to patients but not to GPs.