The effectiveness of allied health and nurse practitioner models-of-care in managing musculoskeletal conditions in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions are the most common health condition seen in emergency departments. Hence, the most effective approaches to managing these conditions is of interest. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal pain in ED. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for published randomised trials that compared the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in ED to usual ED care. Trials were eligible if they enrolled participants presenting to ED with a musculoskeletal condition including low back pain, neck pain, upper or lower limb pain and any soft tissue injury. Trials that included patients with serious pathology (e.g. malignancy, infection or cauda equina syndrome) were excluded. The primary outcome was patient-flow; other outcomes included pain intensity, disability, hospital admission and re-presentation rates, patient satisfaction, medication prescription and adverse events. Two reviewers performed search screening, data extraction, quality and certainty of evidence assessments. RESULTS: We identified 1746 records and included 5 randomised trials (n = 1512 patients). Only one trial (n = 260) reported on patient-flow. The study provides very-low certainty evidence that a greater proportion of patients were seen within 20 min when seen by a physician (98%) than when seen by a nurse (86%) or physiotherapist (77%). There was no difference in pain intensity and disability between patients managed by ED physicians and those managed by physiotherapists. Evidence was limited regarding patient satisfaction, inpatient admission and ED re-presentation rates, medication prescription and adverse events. The certainty of evidence for secondary outcomes ranged from very-low to low, but generally did not suggest a benefit of one model over another. CONCLUSION: There is limited research to judge the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Currently, it is unclear as to whether allied health and nurse practitioners are more effective than ED physicians at managing musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Further high-quality trials investigating the impact of models of care on service and health outcomes are needed.

A Virtual Hospital Model of Care for Low Back Pain, Back@Home: Protocol for a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Type-I Study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) was the fifth most common reason for an emergency department (ED) visit in 2020-2021 in Australia, with >145,000 presentations. A total of one-third of these patients were subsequently admitted to the hospital. The admitted patient care accounts for half of the total health care expenditure on LBP in Australia. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the Back@Home study is to assess the effectiveness of a virtual hospital model of care to reduce the length of admission in people presenting to ED with musculoskeletal LBP. A secondary aim is to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the virtual hospital and our implementation strategy. We will also investigate rates of traditional hospital admission from the ED, representations and readmissions to the traditional hospital, demonstrate noninferiority of patient-reported outcomes, and assess cost-effectiveness of the new model. METHODS: This is a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type-I study. To evaluate effectiveness, we plan to conduct an interrupted time-series study at 3 metropolitan hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Eligible patients will include those aged 16 years or older with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal LBP presenting to the ED. The implementation strategy includes clinician education using multimedia resources, staff champions, and an "audit and feedback" process. The implementation of "Back@Home" will be evaluated over 12 months and compared to a 48-month preimplementation period using monthly time-series trends in the average length of hospital stay as the primary outcome. We will construct a plot of the observed and expected lines of trend based on the preimplementation period. Linear segmented regression will identify changes in the level and slope of fitted lines, indicating immediate effects of the intervention, as well as effects over time. The data will be fully anonymized, with informed consent collected for patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: As of December 6, 2023, a total of 108 patients have been cared for through Back@Home. A total of 6 patients have completed semistructured interviews regarding their experience of virtual hospital care for nonserious back pain. All outcomes will be evaluated at 6 months (August 2023) and 12 months post implementation (February 2024). CONCLUSIONS: This study will serve to inform ongoing care delivery and implementation strategies of a novel model of care. If found to be effective, it may be adopted by other health districts, adapting the model to their unique local contexts. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50146.

Correction: A Virtual Hospital Model of Care for Low Back Pain, Back@Home: Protocol for a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Type-I Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/50146.].

Global prevalence of hospital admissions for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of low back pain presentations that are admitted to hospital from the emergency department (ED), the proportion of hospital admissions due to a primary diagnosis of low back pain and the mean hospital length of stay (LOS), globally. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to July 2022. Secondary data were retrieved from publicly available government agency publications and international databases. Studies investigating admitted patients aged >18 years with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal low back pain and/or lumbosacral radicular pain were included. RESULTS: There was high heterogeneity in admission rates for low back pain from the ED, with a median of 9.6% (IQR 3.3-25.2; 9 countries). The median percentage of all hospital admissions that were due to low back pain was 0.9% (IQR 0.6-1.5; 30 countries). The median hospital LOS across 39 countries was 6.2 days for 'dorsalgia' (IQR 4.4-8.6) and 5.4 days for 'intervertebral disc disorders' (IQR 4.1-8.4). Low back pain admissions per 100 000 population had a median of 159.1 (IQR 82.6-313.8). The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis summarising the global prevalence of hospital admissions and hospital LOS for low back pain. There was relatively sparse data from rural and regional regions and low-income countries, as well as high heterogeneity in the results.

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.

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.

Many people admitted to hospital with a provisional diagnosis of nonserious back pain are subsequently found to have serious pathology as the underlying cause.

To determine the proportion of patients admitted to the hospital for back pain who have nonserious back pain, serious spinal, or serious other pathology as their final diagnosis. The proportion of nonserious back pain admissions will be used to plan for future 'virtual hospital' admissions. Electronic medical record data between January 2016 and September 2020 from three emergency departments (ED) in Sydney, Australia were used to identify inpatient admissions. SNOMED-CT-AU diagnostic codes were used to select ED patients aged 18 and older with an admitting diagnosis related to nonserious back pain. The inpatient discharge diagnosis was determined from the primary ICD-10-AM codes by two independent clinician-researchers. Inpatient admissions were then analysed by sociodemographic and hospital admission variables. A total of 38.1% of patients admitted with a provisional diagnosis of nonserious back pain were subsequently diagnosed with a specific pathology likely unsuitable for virtual care; 14.2% with a serious spinal pathology (e.g., fracture and infection) and 23.9% a serious pathology beyond the lumbar spine (e.g., pathological fracture and neoplasm). A total of 57% of admissions were identified as nonserious back pain, likely suitable for virtual care. A challenge for implementing virtual care in this setting is screening for patients with serious pathology. Protocols need to be developed to reduce the risk of patients being admitted to virtual hospitals with serious pathology as the cause of their back pain. Key Points • Among admitted patients provisionally diagnosed in ED with non-serious back pain, 38.1% were found to have 'serious spinal pathologies' or 'serious pathologies beyond the lumbar spine' at discharge. • Spinal fractures were the most common serious spinal pathology, accounting for 9% of all provisional 'non-serious back pain' admissions from ED. • 57% of back pain admissions were confirmed to be non-serious back pain and may be suitable to virtual hospital care; the challenge is discriminating these patients from those with serious pathology.

Tackling the language barrier to implementing research into practice: A survey of usage of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database.

BACKGROUND: Language is a barrier to implementing research evidence into practice. Whilst the majority of the world's population speak languages other than English, English has become the dominant language of publication for research in healthcare. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify the usage of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) web-site (www.pedro.org.au) and training videos by language, including the use of online translation, and to calculate relative usage of the different sections of the web-site. METHODS: Google Analytics was used to track usage of the PEDro web-site for July 2017 to June 2018. The number of views of each of the PEDro training videos was downloaded from YouTube for January 2015 to August 2018. The pageviews and videos were categorized by language and, for pageviews, web-site section. RESULTS: 2,828,422 pageviews were included in the analyses. The English-language sections had the largest number of pageviews (58.61%), followed by Portuguese (15.57%), and Spanish (12.02%). Users applied online translation tools to translate selected content of the PEDro web-site into 41 languages. The PEDro training videos had been viewed 78,150 times. The three most commonly viewed languages were English (58.80%), Portuguese (19.83%), and Spanish (6.13%). CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial use of some of the translated versions of the resources offered by PEDro. Future efforts could focus on region-specific promotion of the language resources that are underutilized in PEDro. The developers of PEDro and PEDro users can work collaboratively to facilitate uptake and translate resources into languages other than English to reduce the language barrier in using research to guide practice.