Imaging incidence and type in primary care patients with low back pain: a cross-sectional study on new referrals to an Australian specialist spinal surgical centre.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is common and a significant cause of morbidity. Many patients receive inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care. Aim To explore the incidence and type of spinal imaging conducted for LBP patients referred from general practice for specialist surgical opinion, and evaluate whether imaging conformed to clinical guidelines. Methods Audit of a sequential cohort (n = 100) of new LBP patients referred from primary care for specialist opinion at a suburban Australian capital city independent Spinal Centre. Results In the 6 months before referral, 90% (95% CI 83-95%) of patients underwent spinal imaging. Imaging was performed in 95% of those who did and 79% of those who did not meet guidelines for radiological investigation. 35% of patients were inappropriately imaged and 3% inappropriately not imaged. Spinal computed tomography (CT) imaging was used in 52% of patients, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 42% and image-guided lumbar spinal interventional procedures in 28%. Discussion Most patients with LBP referred for surgical opinion have diagnostic radiological investigations whether or not it is indicated by clinical guidelines. The more frequent use of spinal CT compared to MRI may be due to idiosyncrasies of the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) rebate system. The findings of this pilot study provide support for the changes recommended by the 2016 MBS Review Taskforce on LBP that permit GP access to subsidised lumbar MRI, while constraining access to lumbar CT, and provide novel data about spinal imaging and practice in this cohort of patients.

Using general practitioners with an extended role in spinal practice for the initial assessment of patients referred to spinal surgeons: preliminary experience and challenges.

AIM: To describe experience using general practitioners (GPs), with an extended role (GPwER) in spinal medicine, to expedite assessment, triage, and management of patients referred from primary care for specialist spinal surgical opinion. BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain are common conditions in primary care. Indiscriminate or inappropriate referral to a spinal surgeon contributes to long waiting times. Previous attempts at triaging patients who really require a surgical opinion have used practice nurses, physiotherapists, clinical algorithms, and interdisciplinary screening clinics. METHODS: Within the setting of an independent spinal care centre, we have used GPs specially trained in spinal practice to expedite the assessment and triage of new referrals between 2015 and 2021. We reviewed feedback from a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and the postgraduate backgrounds, training, practice with regard to triage of new referrals, and experiences of the GPs who were recruited. FINDINGS: Six GPwER had a mean of 26 years of postgraduate experience before appointment (range 10-44 years). The first four GPwER, appointed between 2015 and 2018, underwent an ad hoc in-house, interdisciplinary training programme and saw 2994 new patients between 2016 and 2020. After GPwER, assessment in only 18.9% (range 12.6 to 22.7%) of these patients was a spinal surgical opinion deemed necessary. Waiting times to see the spinal surgeon remained at 6-8 weeks despite a three-fold annual increase (from 340 to 1058) in new referrals. A Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire revealed high levels of satisfaction with the performances of the GPwER across seven dimensions. A dedicated training programme was designed in 2020, and the last two appointees underwent 20 h of clinical teaching prior to practice. Initial experience using GPwER, here termed 'Spinal Clinicians', suggests they are efficient at screening for patients needing spinal surgical referral. Establishing a recognised training programme, assessment, and certification for these practitioners are the next challenges.