Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Effects of a team Quality Improvement method in a national clinical audit programme of four clinical specialties in Ministry of Health hospitals in Saudi Arabia.

In 2018, the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Saudi Arabia developed a clinical excellence strategy. An objective was to reduce variation in clinical practices in MoH hospitals, particularly for conditions with high mortality in Saudi Arabia, by applying best practice clinical standards and using the clinical audit process to measure clinical practice. The strategy included working with multiprofessional teams in hospitals to implement improvements needed in clinical practice. To test the feasibility of carrying out national clinical audits in MoH hospitals, audits were carried out in 16 MoH hospitals on four clinical subjects-acute myocardial infarction, major trauma, sepsis, and stroke. Clinical expert groups, including Saudi clinicians and an international clinical expert, developed clinical care standards for the four conditions from analyses of international and Saudi clinical guidelines. The audits were designed with the expert groups. Multiprofessional teams were appointed to carry out the audits in designated MoH hospitals. Data collectors in each hospital were trained to collect data. Workshops were held with the teams on the clinical care standards and how data would be collected for the audits, and later, on the findings of data collection and how to use the improvement process to implement changes to improve compliance with the standards. After 4 months, data collection was repeated to determine if compliance with the clinical care standards had improved. Data collected from each hospital for both cycles of data collection were independently reliably tested. All designated hospitals participated in the audits, collecting and submitting data for two rounds of data collection and implementing improvement plans after the first round of data collection. All hospitals made substantial improvements in clinical practices. Of a total of 84 measures used to assess compliance with a total of 52 clinical care standards for the four clinical conditions, improvements were made by hospital teams in 58 (69.1%) measures. Improvements were statistically significant for 34 (40.5%) measures. The project demonstrated that well-designed and executed audits using evidence-based clinical care standards can result in substantial improvements in clinical practices in MoH hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Keys to success were the improvement methodology built into the audit process and the requirement for hospitals to appoint multiprofessional teams to carry out the audits. The approach adds to evidence on the effectiveness of clinical audits in achieving improvements in clinical quality and can be replicated in national audit programmes.