Implementation of the Primary Spine Care Model in a Multi-Clinician Primary Care Setting: An Observational Cohort Study

Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS.

METHODS

Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

Integrated clinical opportunities for training offered through US doctor of chiropractic programs

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess, summarize, and compare the current integrated clinical learning opportunities offered for students who matriculated in US doctor of chiropractic programs (DCPs).

METHODS

Two authors independently searched all accredited DCP handbooks and websites for clinical training opportunities within integrated settings. The 2 data sets were compared with any discrepancies resolved through discussion. We extracted data for preceptorships, clerkships, and/or rotations within the Department of Defense, Federally Qualified Health Centers, multi-/inter-/transdisciplinary clinics, private/public hospitals, and the Veterans Health Administration. Following data extraction, officials from each DCP were contacted with a request to verify the collected data.

RESULTS

Of the 17 DCPs reviewed, all but 3 offered at least 1 integrated clinical experience, while 41 integrated clinical opportunities were the most offered by a single DCP. There was an average of 9.8 (median 4.0) opportunities per school and an average of 2.5 (median 2.0) clinical setting types. Over half (56%) of all integrated clinical opportunities were within the Veterans Health Administration, followed by multidisciplinary clinic sites (25%).

CONCLUSION

This work presents preliminary descriptive information of the integrated clinical training opportunities available through DCPs.

A descriptive analysis of the contents of Care Response, an international data set of patient-reported outcomes for chiropractic patients

BACKGROUND

Databases have become an important tool in understanding trends and correlations in health care by collecting demographic and clinical information. Analysis of data collected from large cohorts of patients can have the potential to generate insights into factors identifying treatments and the characteristics of subgroups of patients who respond to certain types of care. The Care Response (CR) database was designed to capture patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for chiropractic patients internationally. Although several papers have been published analysing some of the data, its contents have not yet been comprehensively documented. The primary aim of this study was to describe the information in the CR database. The secondary aim was to determine whether there was suitable information available to better understand subgroups of chiropractic patients and responsiveness to care. This would be achieved by enabling correlations among patient demographics, diagnoses, and therapeutic interventions with machine learning approaches.

METHODS

Data in all available fields were requested with no date restriction. Data were collected on 12 April 2022. The output was manually scanned for scope and completeness. Tables were created with categories of information. Descriptive statistics were applied.

RESULTS

The CR database collects information from patients at the first clinical visit, 14, 30, and 90 days subsequently. There were 32,468 patient responses; 3210 patients completed all fields through the 90 day follow up period. 45% of respondents were male; 54% were female; the average age was 49. There was little demographic information, and no information on diagnoses or therapeutic interventions. We received StartBack, numerical pain scale, patient global impression of change, and Bournemouth questionnaire data, but no other PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

The CR database is a large set of PROMs for chiropractic patients internationally. We found it unsuitable for machine learning analysis for our purposes; its utility is limited by a lack of demographic information, diagnoses, and therapeutic interventions. However, it can offer information about chiropractic care in general and patient satisfaction. It could form the basis for a useful clinical tool in the future, if reformed to be more accessible to researchers and expanded with more information collected.

Chiropractors in interprofessional practice settings: a narrative review exploring context, outcomes, barriers and facilitators

To determine the added value of interprofessional interventions over existing mono-professional practice, elucidation of specific health care issues, service delivery contexts and benefits of combining multiple service provider is required. However, from existing literature, it is difficult to develop a sense of the evidence that supports interprofessional practice initiatives involving chiropractors. This review aims to describe and explore the contexts, outcomes, and barriers and facilitators relating to interprofessional practice involving chiropractors available in current literature. A search of Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases covering the literature from 2005 to October 2021 was conducted, after which a narrative review of identified peer-reviewed articles written in English was performed. We included data from seven studies, conducted across four distinct service delivery contexts. Eight interprofessional practice partners were identified, and eight factors appear to act as barriers and facilitators. Data suggests that incorporating chiropractors into community health and sports medicine interprofessional practice interventions is achievable and appears to impact collaborative practice positively. For older adults with low back pain, quality of life and care-related satisfaction are potential relevant outcomes for the evaluation of interprofessional practice interventions. There is currently very limited evidence from which to judge the value of interprofessional practice interventions, as available literature appears to focus mainly on interprofessional collaboration. Studies conducted specifically to evaluate interprofessional practice solutions and addressing specific health care issues or practice domains are urgently required.

Clinical pathways for the management of low back pain from primary to specialised care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Clinical pathways for low back pain (LBP) have potential to improve clinical outcomes and health service efficiency. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence for clinical pathways for LBP and/or radicular leg pain from primary to specialised care and to describe key pathway components.

METHODS

Electronic database searches (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE) from 2006 onwards were conducted with further manual and citation searching. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. A narrative synthesis of findings is presented.

RESULTS

From 18,443 identified studies, 28 papers met inclusion criteria. Pathways were developed primarily to address over-burdened secondary care services in high-income countries and almost universally used interface services with a triage remit at the primary-secondary care boundary. Accordingly, evaluation of healthcare resource use and patient flow predominated, with interface services associated with enhanced service efficiency through decreased wait times and appropriate use of consultant appointments. Low quality study designs, heterogeneous outcomes and insufficient comparative data precluded definitive conclusions regarding clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Pathways demonstrated basic levels of care integration across the primary-secondary care boundary.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited volume of research evaluating clinical pathways for LBP/radicular leg pain and spanning primary and specialised care predominantly used interface services to ensure appropriate specialised care referrals with associated increased efficiency of care delivery. Pathways demonstrated basic levels of care integration across healthcare boundaries. Well-designed randomised controlled trials to explore the potential of clinical pathways to improve clinical outcomes, deliver cost-effective, guideline-concordant care and enhance care integration are required.

The primary spine practitioner as a new role in healthcare systems in North America

Background

In an article published in 2011, we discussed the need for a new role in health care systems, referred to as the Primary Spine Practitioner (PSP). The PSP model was proposed to help bring order to the chaotic nature of spine care. Over the past decade, several efforts have applied the concepts presented in that article. The purpose of the present article is to discuss the ongoing need for the PSP role in health care systems, present persistent barriers, report several examples of the model in action, and propose future strategies.

Main body

The management of spine related disorders, defined here as various disorders related to the spine that produce axial pain, radiculopathy and other related symptoms, has received significant international attention due to the high costs and relatively poor outcomes in spine care. The PSP model seeks to bring increased efficiency, effectiveness and value. The barriers to the implementation of this model have been significant, and responses to these barriers are discussed. Several examples of PSP integration are presented, including clinic systems in primary care and hospital environments, underserved areas around the world and a program designed to reduce surgical waiting lists. Future strategies are proposed for overcoming the continuing barriers to PSP implementation in health care systems more broadly.

Conclusion

Significant progress has been made toward integrating the PSP role into health care systems over the past 10 years. However, much work remains. This requires substantial effort on the part of those involved in the development and implementation of the PSP model, in addition to support from various stakeholders who will benefit from the proposed improvements in spine care.

Efficiency of primary spine care as compared to conventional primary care: a retrospective observational study at an Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Primary Spine Care (PSC) is an innovative model for the primary management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs), with a focus on the use of non-pharmacological therapies which now constitute the recommended first-line approach to back pain. PSC clinicians serve as the initial or early point of contact for spine patients and utilize evidence-based spine care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce escalation of care (EoC; e.g., spinal injections, diagnostic imaging, hospitalizations, referrals to a specialist). The present study examined 6-month outcomes to evaluate the efficiency of care for patients who received PSC as compared to conventional primary care. We hypothesized that patients seen by a PSC clinician would have lower rates of EoC compared to patients who received usual care by a primary care (PC) clinician.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study. We evaluated 6-month outcomes for two groups seen and treated for an SRD between February 01, 2017 and January 31, 2020. Patient groups were comprised of N = 1363 PSC patients (Group A) and N = 1329 PC patients (Group B). We conducted Pearson chi-square and logistic regression (adjusting for patient characteristics that were unbalanced between the two groups) to determine associations between the two groups and 6-month outcomes.

RESULTS

Within six months of an initial visit for an SRD, a statistically significantly smaller proportion of PSC patients utilized healthcare resources for spine care as compared to the PC patients. When adjusting for patient characteristics, those who received care from the PSC clinician were less likely within 6 months of an initial visit to be hospitalized (OR = .47, 95% CI .23-.97), fill a prescription for an opioid analgesic (OR = .43; 95% CI .29-.65), receive a spinal injection (OR = .56, 95% CI .33-.95), or have a visit with a specialist (OR = .48, 95% CI .35-.67) as compared to those who received usual primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received PSC in an academic primary care clinic experienced significantly less escalation of their spine care within 6 months of their initial visit. The PSC model may offer a more efficient approach to the primary care of spine problems for patients with SRDs, as compared to usual primary care.

The Role of Chiropractic Care in Providing Health Promotion and Clinical Preventive Services for Adult Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations on best practices for delivery of clinical preventive services by chiropractors and to offer practical resources to empower provider applications in practice. Design: Clinical practice guideline based on evidence-based recommendations of a panel of practitioners and experts on clinical preventive services. Methods: Synthesizing the results of a literature search for relevant clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews, a multidisciplinary steering committee with training and experience in health promotion, clinical prevention, and/or evidence-based chiropractic practice drafted a set of recommendations. A Delphi panel of experienced practitioners and faculty, primarily but not exclusively chiropractors, rated the recommendations by using the formal consensus methodology established by the RAND Corporation/University of California. Results: The Delphi consensus process was conducted during January-February 2021. The 65-member Delphi panel reached a high level of consensus on appropriate application of clinical preventive services for screening and health promotion counseling within the chiropractic scope of practice. Interprofessional collaboration for the successful delivery of clinical preventive services was emphasized. Recommendations were made on primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention of musculoskeletal pain. Conclusions: Application of this guideline in chiropractic practice may facilitate consistent and appropriate use of screening and preventive services and foster interprofessional collaboration to promote clinical preventive services and contribute to improved public health.