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

Hospitalisations for non-specific low back pain in people presenting to South Australian public hospital emergency departments

OBJECTIVE

The present study sought to investigate predictors of hospitalisation in adults diagnosed with non-specific low back pain (LBP) and/or sciatica from an ED.

METHODS

A 5-year, multicentre retrospective observational study was conducted across six public hospitals (metropolitan and regional) using data from electronic medical records. Patient presentations were identified using LBP diagnostic codes and key data extracted (patient demographics, clinical activity, discharge destination). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to measure associations between identified variables and hospitalisation.

RESULTS

There were 11 709 ED presentations across the study period. People aged ≥65 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.61-3.10) and those who arrived at the ED via ambulance (age-adjusted OR 2.68, 95% CI 2.44-2.95) were more likely to be hospitalised. People were also more likely to be hospitalised when triaged as more urgent, when blood tests or advanced spinal imaging were ordered, and when i.v./subcutaneous opioids or oral benzodiazepines were administered. Hospitalisation rates for LBP were lower in regional hospitals, in people residing in lower socioeconomic areas and in Indigenous Australians.

CONCLUSION

Certain patient characteristics and ED clinical activity are associated with hospitalisations for LBP. Understanding these factors will better inform the design and delivery of appropriate high-quality care.

Process and implementation evaluation of a virtual hospital model of care for low back pain (Back@Home)

OBJECTIVES

Low back pain was the sixth most common reason for an ED visit in 2022-2023 in Australia, one-third of these patients were subsequently admitted to hospital. Therefore, we have assessed whether some patients could be diverted to alternate clinical pathways, via admission to a virtual hospital (rpavirtual), and be cared for remotely in their own homes.

METHODS

Ethics approval was granted for protocols X21-0278 & 2021/ETH10967 and X21-0094 & 2021/ETH00591. We conducted a mixed-method process evaluation, using the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance) to answer key questions regarding the Back@Home model of care.

RESULTS

This preliminary evaluation describes a cohort of the first 50 patients who received care between 13 February and 31 July 2023. The service had high levels of reach and adoption, very low levels of ED representation, and no AEs. Virtual care cost a median of AU$2215 (interquartile range = AU$1724-AU$2855) per admission. Patients admitted virtually had the same high satisfaction with care as traditionally admitted patients and reported less pain and better physical function.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings suggest that this model of care is a safe, acceptable, and feasible alternative to hospitalisation for non-serious low back pain, in a select cohort of patients meeting inclusion criteria. Further data collection will inform whether Back@Home has had an impact on length of stay or traditional admission rates.

Utilisation and experience of emergency medical services by patients with back pain: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Back pain is recognised as a common reason for people to access emergency medical services (EMS). EMS focus on identifying and treating serious and life-threatening conditions. Back pain frequently has a non-specific cause, however back pain is also a symptom for potentially serious pathology best suited for management by EMS.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review explores how and why patients with back pain access EMS, the care provided, and patients' and clinicians' perceptions of EMS.

METHODS

The established methodology advocated by the Joanna Briggs Institute was followed. Literature was identified via a comprehensive search of six databases as well as grey literature searching. Data was extracted to form a narrative review supported by summary tables and figures.

RESULTS

The review included 144 papers across the last 36 years, with half the papers published since 2018, the majority from the USA and Australia. Rates of back pain presentation range from 1 to 9% depending on the definition used, with the rate of serious pathology higher than in primary care. Patients present due to concerns about their condition, positive perceptions of the care provided by EMS and difficulty in accessing primary care. Imaging and opioids are widely used, blood markers may aid diagnosis of serious pathology, whilst physiotherapists in Emergency Departments may support management of patients without serious pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Back pain is a common reason for EMS presentation. Whilst non-specific back pain is the most common diagnosis further research to support the recognition and care of serious cases would be beneficial.

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.

Emergency presentations for older persons with low back pain: An increasing clinical and economic challenge

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether differences exist for older persons presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with lower back pain (LBP) in terms of management, health service resource use and cost when compared to younger patients with LBP.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of routinely collected electronic medical record data from January 2015 to July 2021. Data from 11,098 adults presenting with LBP to two large regional Australian EDs were analysed over a 5-year period. Rates of presentation, investigation, medication use, spinal surgery and cost were assessed for all participants with respect to age groups (over or under 65 years of age), diagnosis and time. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the contribution of presentation characteristics to the risk of inpatient admission and to investigate the variable effect of patient age.

RESULTS

Older people represented 23% (n = 2565) of all LBP presentations, with a growing proportion of presentations over time. More than 1 in 4 patients over 65 were admitted (n = 703, 27%), with CT imaging being proportionately three times more prevalent (24% vs. 6%), and average cost double (AU$3973 vs. $1671) that of the younger population. Consultation by an ED physiotherapist was associated with lower admission risk across all adult presentations (OR 0.52, 95% CI [0.40 to 0.67]).

CONCLUSIONS

Older persons are over-represented amongst gradually increasing rates of LBP presentations to EDs and associated with escalating cost of care and hospital resource use. Older patients present a different clinical and economic profile to younger patients, supporting the provision of individualised management recommendations.

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.

Australian emergency department care for older adults diagnosed with low back pain of lumbar spine origin: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record system data (2016-2019)

BACKGROUND

In Australian emergency departments, 30% of all back pain presentations are for older adults. Relatively little is known about the care that this population receives during an emergency department stay, including admission to hospital. The aim of this study is to describe emergency department management of older adults diagnosed with a lumbar spine condition and to determine predictors of healthcare use in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data of adults aged ≥ 65 years with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis. Demographic, clinical care (date and time of presentation and discharge, length of stay in the emergency department, mode of arrival, triage category, re-presentations to the emergency department (within 48 h), discharge mode, the administration of pain-relieving medicines, lumbar imaging, and laboratory tests) and costs data were extracted from the electronic medical record system. Descriptive analyses and multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed.

RESULTS

Over the period January 2016 to December 2019 there were 4,093 presentations to emergency departments by older adults with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis (82.0% were non-specific low back pain). Most were female (58.3%), 39.9% had some form of lumbar imaging, and 34.1% were admitted to hospital. The most administered pain medicines were opioid analgesics (67.1%), followed by paracetamol (63.9%) and NSAIDs (33.0%). Predictors of healthcare use and hospital inpatient admission were receiving a laboratory test and receiving any opioid. For the financial period 2019-20, the mean (SD) total cost of care per presentation was $5,629 ($11,982).

CONCLUSION

In the emergency department, more than two thirds of older adults with a lumbar spine condition received opioid analgesics. They often received imaging and laboratory tests, had high costs and were admitted to hospital. Alternative pathways of care are needed to support older adults with low back pain, to receive guideline-concordant emergency department care and have good health outcomes.

Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terminology (SNOMED CT) Clinical Use Cases in the Context of Electronic Health Record Systems: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The Systematized Medical Nomenclature for Medicine-Clinical Terminology (SNOMED CT) is a clinical terminology system that provides a standardized and scientifically validated way of representing clinical information captured by clinicians. It can be integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) to increase the possibilities for effective data use and ensure a better quality of documentation that supports continuity of care, thus enabling better quality in the care process. Even though SNOMED CT consists of extensively studied clinical terminology, previous research has repeatedly documented a lack of scientific evidence for SNOMED CT in the form of reported clinical use cases in electronic health record systems.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore evidence in previous literature reviews of clinical use cases of SNOMED CT integrated into EHR systems or other clinical applications during the last 5 years of continued development. The study sought to identify the main clinical use purposes, use phases, and key clinical benefits documented in SNOMED CT use cases.

METHODS

The Cochrane review protocol was applied for the study design. The application of the protocol was modified step-by-step to fit the research problem by first defining the search strategy, identifying the articles for the review by isolating the exclusion and inclusion criteria for assessing the search results, and lastly, evaluating and summarizing the review results.

RESULTS

In total, 17 research articles illustrating SNOMED CT clinical use cases were reviewed. The use purpose of SNOMED CT was documented in all the articles, with the terminology as a standard in EHR being the most common (8/17). The clinical use phase was documented in all the articles. The most common category of use phases was SNOMED CT in development (6/17). Core benefits achieved by applying SNOMED CT in a clinical context were identified by the researchers. These were related to terminology use outcomes, that is, to data quality in general or to enabling a consistent way of indexing, storing, retrieving, and aggregating clinical data (8/17). Additional benefits were linked to the productivity of coding or to advances in the quality and continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

While the SNOMED CT use categories were well supported by previous research, this review demonstrates that further systematic research on clinical use cases is needed to promote the scalability of the review results. To achieve the best out-of-use case reports, more emphasis is suggested on describing the contextual factors, such as the electronic health care system and the use of previous frameworks to enable comparability of results. A lesson to be drawn from our study is that SNOMED CT is essential for structuring clinical data; however, research is needed to gather more evidence of how SNOMED CT benefits clinical care and patient safety.

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.