Emergency department care for low back pain: Should we adopt recommendations from primary care guidelines?

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.

On-Site Physiotherapy in Emergency Department Patients Presenting with Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: There is a high incidence of nonspecific Low Back Pain (LBP) in patients visiting Emergency Departments (EDs), but there is a lack of knowledge regarding emergency physiotherapy for LBP. The effect of on-site physiotherapy in these patients was therefore never demonstrated. We assessed short-term outcomes, feasibility and patient satisfaction with physiotherapy in ED patients presenting with nonspecific LBP. Methods: A block-randomized, controlled, open-label trial with a follow-up of 42 days. Patients aged 18 years or older presenting to an ED with nonspecific LBP were prospectively enrolled. Both groups received the same booklet with written information on LBP management and exercises. Patients in the intervention group were given additional instructions by a certified physiotherapist. Results: We included 86 patients in the primary analysis. The median age was 40, and 40.7% were female. At day 7, the median Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 2 points lower in the intervention group compared to the control group, which was not statistically significant. There was no between-group difference in pain at day 7. Patients who received physiotherapy felt significantly more confident with the exercises they were taught (p = 0.004, effect size = 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.5]). Conclusions: On-site physiotherapy in ED patients presenting with nonspecific low back pain is associated with higher patient satisfaction, compared to standard of care. The effect of physiotherapy was small, with only minimal improvement in disability, but without a reduction in pain. Despite the very small effect size, physiotherapeutic interventions should be investigated in larger cohorts with an extended intervention including patient education, exercises, and other physiotherapeutic modalities.

Nine recommendations for the emergency department for patients presenting with low back pain based on management and post-discharge outcomes in an Australian, tertiary emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain and develop recommendations for analgesic management, discharge planning and further healthcare utilisation of adults presenting to an Australian tertiary ED with radicular or low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included adults presenting with non-specific LBP or radicular pain to an Australian tertiary ED. Participants with trauma/cancer-related pain, and those requiring hospital admission or surgical interventions were excluded. The primary outcome was pharmacological and non-pharmacological management delivered in ED, retrospectively collected via electronic medical records. The secondary outcomes include discharge management use, and changes made due to post-discharge healthcare utilisation, as observed by weekly telephone questionnaires over 4-weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 100 participants recruited, 94 completed follow-up. In ED, pharmacological management was received by 85%, including opioids (62%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS, 63%). Non-pharmacological management was received by 73%, including patient education (71%) and exercise prescription (37%). In the first-week post-discharge, changes to initial discharge plan occurred in 50%, mostly carried out by GPs (76%). Over the follow-up period, 51% received additional investigations/referrals. Pharmacological use decreased by 38% and non-pharmacological use decreased by 10%. 16% of opioid-naïve patients continued using opioids 4-weeks post-discharge.

CONCLUSION

ED presentations for LBP were more often treated pharmacologically than non-pharmacologically, with opioids commonly prescribed and NSAIDs potentially under-utilised. Post-discharge, additional investigations/referrals, discharge analgesia reductions and maintenance of non-pharmacological management were common. Opioid initiation as a result of LBP presentations, signifies a potential 'gateway' towards unintentional long-term use. Key study findings form our nine recommendations to inform ED LBP pain management.

Management of acute non-specific low back pain in the emergency department: do emergency physicians follow the guidelines? Results of a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Clinical guidelines for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) recommend avoiding imaging studies or invasive treatments and to advise patients to stay active. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management of acute non-specific LBP in the emergency departments (ED).

SETTING

We invited all department chiefs of Swiss EDs and their physician staff to participate in a web-based survey using two clinical case vignettes of patients with acute non-specific LBP presenting to an ED. In both cases, no neurological deficits or red flags were present. Guideline adherence and low-value care was defined based on current guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

In total, 263 ED physicians completed at least one vignette, while 212 completed both vignettes (43% residents, 32% senior/attending physicians and 24% chief physicians). MRI was considered in 31% in vignette 1 and 65% in vignette 2. For pain management, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol and metamizole were mostly used. A substantial proportion of ED physicians considered treatments with questionable benefit and/or increased risk for adverse events such as oral steroids (vignette 1, 12% and vignette 2, 19%), muscle relaxants (33% and 38%), long-acting strong opioids (25% and 33%) and spinal injections (22% and 43%). Although guidelines recommend staying active, 72% and 67% of ED physicians recommended activity restrictions.

CONCLUSION

Management of acute non-specific LBP in the ED was not in agreement with current guideline recommendations in a substantial proportion of ED physicians. Overuse of imaging studies, the use of long-acting opioids and muscle relaxants, as well as recommendations for activity and work restrictions were prevalent and may potentially be harmful.

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.

Do patients with acute low back pain in emergency departments have more severe symptoms than those in general practice? A systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice versus those presenting to emergency departments.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0-100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using a validated tool for observational studies and the overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analysis using random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings.

RESULTS

We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95%CI: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0-100 scale). Similarly, there was low quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7, 95%CI: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0-100 scale).

CONCLUSION

Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076806.

The Long-Term Prognosis in People With Recent Onset Low Back Pain From Emergency Departments: An Inception Cohort Study

Most studies investigating the course of recent-onset low back pain (LBP) included patients from primary care. We aimed to describe the prognosis in people with recent-onset LBP presenting to emergency departments (EDs) and to identify prognostic factors for nonrecovery. This inception cohort study with a 1-year follow-up recruited 600 consecutive acute LBP patients presenting to 4 EDs. The outcomes measured the days to recover from pain, recover from disability, return to previous work hours and duties, and complete recovery. Within 12 months, 73% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69-77) recovered from pain, 86% (95% CI = 82-90) recovered from disability, 79% (95% CI = 71-87) returned to previous work hours and duties, and 70% (95% CI = 66-74) completely recovered. The median recovery times were 67 days (95% CI = 54-80) to recover from pain, 37 days (95% CI = 31-43) to recover from disability, 37 days (95% CI = 25-49) to return to previous work hours and duties, and 70 days (95% CI = 57-83) to recover completely. Higher pain levels, a higher perceived risk of persistent LBP, more days of reduced activity due to LBP, more pain sites, and higher duration of LBP were associated with complete nonrecovery within 6 months. PERSPECTIVE: This information relates to prognosis and to likely recovery times for patients with recent-onset LBP in EDs. The findings also confirm previous factors associated with poor outcomes in patients with recent-onset LBP.

Healthcare costs due to low back pain in the emergency department and inpatient setting in Sydney, Australia

Background

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a common presentation to emergency departments, often resulting in subsequent admissions to hospital. There have been several studies investigating the cost of low back pain to society, but few specific to the emergency department and inpatient setting, especially in Australia. The aim was to describe the cost of low back pain in Australian public hospital emergency departments, and inpatient settings, and explore healthcare costs associated with different care pathways.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, we explored the costs associated with an episode of care for low back pain in adults that attended three emergency departments in Sydney between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms (SNOMED) diagnosis codes were used to identify episodes of care where the patients had been diagnosed with non-specific low back pain or lumbosacral radicular syndromes. Serious spinal pathologies were excluded. We determined the costs for different treatment pathways involving the ambulance service, emergency department and inpatient ward care. Hospital costs were adjusted for inflation to 2019 Australian dollars (AUD).

Findings

There were 12,399 non-serious low back pain episodes of care during the study period. 4006 (32%) arrived by ambulance and 2067 (17%) were admitted for inpatient care. The total costs of inpatient and emergency department care across the 5-year period were AUD$36.7 million, with a mean of AUD$2959 per episode of care. The mean cost for a patient who had a non-ambulance presentation to the emergency department and was discharged was AUD$584. Patients presenting to the emergency department via ambulance and were discharged had a mean cost of AUD$1022. Patients who presented without the need of an ambulance and were admitted had a mean cost of $13,137. The most expensive care pathway was for patients arriving by ambulance with subsequent admission, with a mean cost of AUD$14,949.

Interpretation

The common practice of admitting patients with non-serious low back pain for inpatient care comes at great cost to the healthcare system. In a resource constrained environment, our data highlights the economic need to implement innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce the inpatient management of these patients.

Funding

Nil.