Diagnoses and trends in use of imaging for low back pain in four Australian emergency departments between 2012 and 2019

Interventions to improve the quality of low back pain care in emergency departments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Low back pain (LBP) is a common reason people visit Emergency Departments (ED). However, the care provided is often not aligned with guideline recommendations. Despite increasing research aiming to promote guideline-based care in EDs, interventions to best implement recommendations are unknown. This study aimed to identify ED LBP implementation interventions that have been trialed and evaluate their effects on ED-relevant outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis, including studies that evaluated interventions to improve the quality of care provided to adults presenting to ED with LBP. Databases searched until May 2023 were Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE (via OVID), and PEDro. Interventions were categorized according to whether they had a patient, clinician, health service, or multiple-level focus. Where possible, meta-analysis was undertaken. Certainty around the results was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Twenty-eight studies were included. Interventions were categorized as patient (n = 2), clinician (n = 8), health service (n = 12), or multiple-level (n = 6) targeted. Overall, interventions successfully reduced the likelihood of receiving an opioid in ED (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.55-0.75). However, no significant effect on lumbar imaging was demonstrated (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.64-1.12). Subgroup analyses showed that studies reporting high baseline imaging rates ≥ 36% and those that included systems-based changes significantly reduced imaging (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39-0.93; and OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.45-0.94, respectively). A small reduction in ED length of stay was observed in the group exposed to the LBP interventions (mean difference - 0.38 h; 95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.17). Overall, certainty of evidence was deemed low to very low. Interventions were mostly single-system focused with a preference for education-based implementation strategies targeting patients or clinicians. The interventions reduced the use of opioid medication for LBP in ED, but the effects on lumbar imaging rates were uncertain. Further high-quality research is needed to improve LBP care in this setting.

Systematic review of predictors of hospitalisation for non-specific low back pain with or without referred leg pain

Significant costs and utilisation of healthcare resources are associated with hospitalisations for non-specific low back pain despite clinical guidelines recommending community-based care. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the predictors of hospitalisation for low back pain. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (#CRD42021281827) and conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Database search of Ovid Medline, Emcare, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PEDro and OTSeeker was conducted. Studies were included if they examined a predictor of hospitalisation for non-specific low back pain with or without referred leg pain. Data was extracted and descriptively synthesised. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklists. There were 23 studies published over 29 articles which identified 52 predictor variables of hospitalisation for low back pain. The risk of hospitalisation was grouped into themes: personal, health and lifestyle, psychology, socioeconomic, occupational, clinical, and health systems and processes. There was moderate level evidence that arrival to an emergency department via ambulance with low back pain, and older age increase the risk of hospitalisations for low back pain. There was low level evidence that high pain intensity, past history of low back pain, opioid use, and occupation type increase the risk of hospitalisation for low back pain. Further research into psychological and social factors is warranted given the paucity of available studies. Hospital avoidance strategies, improved patient screening and resource utilisation in emergency departments are considerations for practice.

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.

Hospital variation in admissions for low back pain following an emergency department presentation: a retrospective study

Background

One in 6 patients with low back pain (LBP) presenting to emergency departments (EDs) are subsequently admitted to hospital each year, making LBP the ninth most common reason for hospital admission in Australia. No studies have investigated and quantified the extent of clinical variation in hospital admission following an ED presentation for LBP.

Methods

We used routinely collected ED data from public hospitals within the state of New South Wales, Australia, to identify presentations of patients aged between 18 and 111 with a discharge diagnosis of LBP. We fitted a series of random effects multilevel logistic regression models adjusted by case-mix and hospital variables. The main outcome was the hospital-adjusted admission rate (HAAR). Data were presented as funnel plots with 95% and 99.8% confidence limits. Hospitals with a HAAR outside the 95% confidence limit were considered to have a HAAR significantly different to the state average.

Results

We identified 176,729 LBP presentations across 177 public hospital EDs and 44,549 hospital admissions (25.2%). The mean (SD) age was 51.8 (19.5) and 52% were female. Hospital factors explained 10% of the variation (ICC = 0.10), and the median odds ratio (MOR) was 2.03. We identified marked variation across hospitals, with HAAR ranging from 6.9 to 65.9%. After adjusting for hospital variables, there was still marked variation between hospitals with similar characteristics.

Conclusion

We found substantial variation in hospital admissions following a presentation to the ED due to LBP even after controlling by case-mix and hospital characteristics. Given the substantial costs associated with these admissions, our findings indicate the need to investigate sources of variation and to determine instances where the observed variation is warranted or unwarranted.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08134-8.