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.

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.

What Constitutes "Appropriate Care" for Low Back Pain?: Point-of-Care Clinical Indicators From Guideline Evidence and Experts (the STANDING Collaboration Project).

STUDY DESIGN: Multiround wiki-based Delphi expert panel survey. OBJECTIVE: To provide proof of concept for an alternative method for creating sets of nationally-agreed point-of-care clinical indicators, and obtain consensus among end-user groups on "appropriate care" for the assessment, diagnosis, acute, and ongoing care of people with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The provision of inappropri ate and low value care for LBP is a significant healthcare and societal burden. Vague clinical practice guideline (CPG) recom mendations can be difficult to apply and measure in real world clinical practice, and a likely barrier to "appropriate care." METHODS: Draft "appropriate care" clinical indicators for LBP were derived from CPG recommendations published between 2011 and 2017. Included CPGs were independently appraised by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument. Headed by a Clinical Champion, a 20-member Expert Panel reviewed and commented on the draft indicators over a three-round modified e-Delphi process using a collaborative online wiki. At the conclusion of each review round, the research team and the Clinical Champion synthesized and responded to experts' comments and incorporated feedback into the next iteration of the draft indicators. RESULTS: From seven CPGs and six qualitative meta-syntheses, 299 recommendations and themes were used to draft 42 "appropriateness" indicators. In total, 17 experts reviewed these indicators over 18 months. A final set of 27 indicators compris ing screening and diagnostic processes (n = 8), assessment (n = 3), acute (n = 5), and ongoing care (n = 9), and two which crossed the acute-ongoing care continuum. Most indicators were geared toward recommended care (n = 21, 78%), with the remainder focused on care to be avoided. CONCLUSION: These 27 LBP clinical indicators can be used by healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers/ funders, and insurers to guide and monitor the provision of "appropriate care" for LBP.Level of Evidence: 4.

Effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve emergency department care of low back pain: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of lumbar imaging is common in the emergency department (ED). Few trials have examined interventions to address this. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. After a 13-month control phase of usual care, the EDs received a multifaceted intervention to support guideline-endorsed care in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, every 4 weeks over a 4-month period. All sites were followed up for at least 3 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of low back pain presentations receiving lumbar imaging. Secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes included prescriptions of opioid and non-opioid pain medicines, inpatient admissions, length of ED stay, specialist referrals and re-presentations. Clinician beliefs and knowledge about low back pain care were measured before and after the intervention. Patient-reported pain, disability, quality of life and satisfaction were measured at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post ED presentation. RESULTS: A total of 269 ED clinicians and 4625 episodes of care for low back pain (4491 patients) were included. The data did not provide clear evidence that the intervention reduced lumbar imaging (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.29). It did reduce opioid use (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; p=0.006) and improved clinicians' beliefs (mean difference (MD), 2.85; 95% CI 1.85 to 3.85; p<0.001; on a scale from 9 to 45) and knowledge about low back pain care (MD, 0.48; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.83; p<0.01; on a scale from 0 to 11). There was no difference in pain scores at 1-week follow-up (MD, 0.04; 95% CI -1.00 to 1.08; p=0.94; on a scale from 0 to 10). A similar trend was observed for all other patient-reported outcomes and time points. This study found no effect on the other secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes. CONCLUSION: It is uncertain if a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain care decreased lumbar imaging in the ED; however, it did reduce opioid prescriptions without adversely affecting patient outcomes. Trial registration number ACTRN12617001160325.

Management of low back pain in Australian emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: To describe the diagnoses of people who present to the emergency department (ED) with low back pain (LBP), the proportion of people with a lumbar spine condition who arrived by ambulance, received imaging, opioids and were admitted to hospital; and to explore factors associated with these four outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analysed electronic medical records for all adults presenting with LBP at three Australian EDs from January 2016 to June 2018. Outcomes included discharge diagnoses and key aspects of care (ambulance transport, lumbar spine imaging, provision of opioids, admission). We explored factors associated with these care outcomes using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models and reported data as ORs. RESULTS: There were 14 024 presentations with a 'visit reason' for low back pain, of which 6393 (45.6%) had a diagnosis of a lumbar spine condition. Of these, 31.4% arrived by ambulance, 23.6% received lumbar imaging, 69.6% received opioids and 17.6% were admitted to hospital. Older patients (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.04) were more likely to be imaged. Opioids were less used during working hours (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) and in patients with non-serious LBP compared with patients with serious spinal pathology (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.55). Hospital admission was more likely to occur during working hours (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.05) and for those who arrived by ambulance (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.53 to 3.51). CONCLUSION: Many ED presentations of LBP were not due to a lumbar spine condition. Of those that were, we noted relatively high rates of lumbar imaging, opioid use and hospital admission.

Implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in emergency departments: protocol for the Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with low back pain often seek care in emergency departments, but the problem is that many patients receive unnecessary or ineffective interventions and at the same time miss out on the basics of care, such as advice on self-management. This pattern of care has important consequences for the healthcare system (expensive and inefficient) and for patients (poor health outcomes). We hypothesised that the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain will improve emergency care by reducing inappropriate overuse of tests and treatments and improving patient outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to implement and evaluate the use of the Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI) model of care for acute low back pain at four emergency departments in New South Wales, Australia. Clinician participants will be emergency physicians, nurses and physiotherapists. Codes from the Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms-Australian version will be used to identify low back pain presentations. The intervention, targeting emergency clinicians, will comprise educational materials and seminars and an audit and feedback approach. Health service delivery outcomes are routinely collected measures of imaging (primary outcome), opioid use and inpatient admission. A random subsample of 200 patient participants from each trial period will be included to measure patient outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life and experience with emergency service). The effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed by comparing the postintervention period with the retrospective baseline control period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval from the Sydney Local Health District (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital zone) Ethics Committee (X17-0043). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12617001160325.