Back pain "red flags": which are most predictive of serious pathology in the Emergency Department?

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency of red flag signs and symptoms in patients presenting with back pain to the Emergency Department (ED) and association with serious pathologies and investigations performed. METHODS: This retrospective observational study evaluated consecutive patients presenting with back pain to a Melbourne ED over a 14-month period. Data regarding red flags, patient characteristics, ED-initiated investigations, and diagnoses were extracted from medical records. Prevalence of each red flag and sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for diagnosing serious spinal or non-spinal pathology were calculated. RESULTS: Analysis was undertaken on 1000 eligible participants with back pain. 69% had red flags. Participants were categorised into diagnostic groups: musculoskeletal (80.6%), serious spinal (3.3%), and serious non-spinal (14.6%) pathologies. A number of red flags had positive likelihood ratios (LR) > 5, indicating a higher probability of serious pathology (spinal/non-spinal) including fever (LR + 68.8), tuberculosis history (LR + 13.8), known nephrolithiasis/abdominal aortic aneurysm (LR + 10.2), unexplained weight-loss (LR + 9.2), writhing in pain (LR + 6.9), urinary symptoms (LR + 5.4), and flank pain (LR + 5.2). Red flags with positive LR > 5 indicating a higher probability of serious spinal pathology were saddle anaesthesia (LR + 11.0), tuberculosis history (LR + 9.8), intravenous drug-use (LR + 6.9), acute-onset urinary retention (LR + 6.4), and anal tone loss (LR + 6.3). CONCLUSION: The majority of this study cohort had back pain of benign cause. Some red flags were associated with greater risk of serious pathology, others were not. Further evidence regarding red flags and their association with serious pathology is required, to better inform clinical guidelines.

Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy: Barriers and enablers to multi-site implementation.

OBJECTIVES: Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy (AMP) services are a safe, effective model of care, but without broad-scale healthcare implementation to date. The aim of the present study was to identify the barriers and enablers to implementation of 12 AMP services from the perspective of clinical staff. METHODS: In a qualitative study, 12 participants (physiotherapists), from 12 different healthcare networks (seven metropolitan, three regional, two rural), were included. Their departments implemented AMP services (orthopaedic postoperative joint replacement review, n = 10; general orthopaedic, n = 1; emergency, n = 1; and neurosurgery n = 1) over a 12-month period. Participants completed a structured survey specifically designed for the study. Thematic analysis was used, with themes mapped to the validated Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Nine major themes emerged from the data regarding barriers and enablers to the implementation of the AMP services from the perspective of clinical staff. These were: demand/capacity; model of care; the organization; stakeholders; communication; planning and processes; evaluation; workforce; and learning and assessment framework. Important enablers included engagement and buy-in from key stakeholders and medical staff, and well-established AMP learning frameworks for training and operational frameworks. Barriers included competitive funding environment, and issues that hindered effective communication. The knowledge, skills, availability, motivation and experience of the advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapists had a large impact on the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified a number of factors that should be considered for successful implementation of AMP services across healthcare services or wider healthcare networks.

Management of patients brought in by ambulance to the emergency department: role of the Advanced Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist.

Objective The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of the Advanced Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist (AMP) in managing patients brought in by ambulance to the emergency department (ED). Methods This study was a dual-centre observational study. Patients brought in by ambulance to two Melbourne hospitals over a 12-month period and seen by an AMP were compared with a matched group seen by other ED staff. Primary outcome measures were wait time and length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Results Data from 1441 patients within the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS) Categories 3-5 with musculoskeletal complaints were included in the analysis. Subgroup analysis of 825 patients aged ≤65 years demonstrated that for Category 4 (semi-urgent) patients, the median wait time to see the AMP was 9.5min (interquartile range (IQR) 3.25-18.00min) compared with 25min (IQR 10.00-56.00min) to see other ED staff (P ≤ 0.05). LOS analysis was undertaken on patients discharged home and demonstrated that there was a 1.20 greater probability (95% confidence interval 1.07-1.35) that ATS Category 4 patients managed by the AMP were discharged within the 4-hour public hospital target compared with patients managed by other ED staff: 87.04% (94/108) of patients managed by the AMPs met this standard compared with 72.35% (123/170) of patients managed by other ED staff (P=0.002). Conclusions Patients aged ≤65 years with musculoskeletal complaints brought in by ambulance to the ED and triaged to ATS Category 4 are likely to wait less time to be seen and are discharged home more quickly when managed by an AMP. This study has added to the evidence that AMPs improve patient flow in the ED, freeing up time for other ED staff to see higher-acuity, more complex patients. What is known about the topic? There is a growing body of evidence establishing that AMPs improve the flow of patients presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to the ED through reduced wait times and LOS and, at the same time, providing good-quality care and enhanced patient satisfaction. What does this paper add? Within their primary contact capacity, AMPs also manage patients who are brought in by ambulance presenting with musculoskeletal conditions. To the authors' knowledge, there is currently no available literature documenting the performance of AMPs in the management of this cohort of patients. What are the implications for practitioners? This study has added to the body of evidence that AMPs improve patient flow in the ED and illustrates that AMPs, by seeing patients brought in by ambulance, are able to have a positive impact on the pressures increasingly facing the Victorian Ambulance Service and emergency hospital care.

Advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapists in post arthroplasty review clinics: a state wide implementation program evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes following a state-wide implementation of post arthroplasty review (PAR) clinics for patients following total hip and knee arthroplasty, led by advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapists in collaboration with orthopaedic specialists. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective observational study analysed data collected by 10 implementation sites (five metropolitan and five regional/rural centres) between September 2014 and June 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Victorian Innovation and Reform Impact Assessment Framework was used to assess efficiency, effectiveness (access to care, safety and quality, workforce capacity, utilisation of skill sets, patient and workforce satisfaction) and sustainability (stakeholder engagement, succession planning and availability of ongoing funding). RESULTS: 2362 planned occasions of service (OOS) were provided for 2057 patients. Reduced patient wait times from referral to appointment were recorded and no adverse events occurred. Average cost savings across 10 sites was AUD$38 per OOS (Baseline $63, PAR clinic $35), representing a reduced pathway cost of 44%. Average annual predicted total value of increased orthopaedic specialist capacity was $11,950 per PAR clinic (range $6149 to $23,400). The Australian Orthopaedic Association review guidelines were met (8/10 sites, 80%) and patient-reported outcome measures were introduced as routine clinical care. High workforce and patient satisfaction were expressed. Eighteen physiotherapists were trained creating a sustainable workforce. Eight sites secured ongoing funding. CONCLUSIONS: The PAR clinics delivered a safe, cost-efficient model of care that improved patient access and quality of care compared to traditional specialist-led workforce models.

A Model of Care for Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Knee: Development of a System-Wide Plan for the Health Sector in Victoria, Australia.

Osteoarthritis (OA) imposes a significant burden to the person, the health system and the community. Models of Care (MoCs) drive translation of evidence into policy and practice and provide a platform for health system reform. The Victorian MoC for OA of the hip and knee was developed following a best-practice framework, informed by best-evidence and iterative cross-sector consultation, including direct consumer consultation. Governance and external expert advisory committees consisting of local OA care champions facilitated the development and consultation processes. The MoC outlines key components of care, care that is not recommended, and suggests phased implementation strategies. This paper describes the MoC development process and lessons learned.