Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundTo 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThere 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).ConclusionMany 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.

Background The prevalence of continued opioid use or serious adverse events (SAEs) following opioid therapy in the emergency department (ED) for musculoskeletal pain is unclear. The aim of this review was to examine the prevalence of continued opioid use and serious adverse events (SAEs) following the provision of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) or at discharge. Methods Records were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to 7 October 2022. We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies enrolling adult patients with musculoskeletal pain who were administered and/or prescribed opioids in the ED. Continued opioid use and opioid misuse data after day 4 since ED discharge were extracted. Adverse events were coded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and those rated as grades 3–4 (severe or life-threatening) and grade 5 (death) were considered SAEs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results Seventy-two studies were included. Among opioid-naïve patients who received an opioid prescription, 6.8–7.0% reported recent opioid use at 3–12 months after discharge, 4.4% filled ≥ 5 opioid prescriptions and 3.1% filled > 90-day supply of opioids within 6 months. The prevalence of SAEs was 0.02% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 0.2%] in the ED and 0.1% (95% CI 0, 1.5%) within 2 days. One study observed 42.9% of patients misused opioids within 30 days after discharge. Conclusions Around 7% of opioid-naïve patients with musculoskeletal pain receiving opioid therapy continue opioid use at 3–12 months after ED discharge. SAEs following ED administration of an opioid were uncommon; however, studies only monitored patients for 2 days. Protocol Registration 10.31219/osf.io/w4z3u.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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). 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. PRR1-10.2196/50146.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/50146.].

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a virtual hospital model of care (Back@Home) for low back pain (LBP). We conducted an observational study across four hospitals in the Sydney Local Health District, Australia. We included patients aged ≥16 years presenting to the ED with a primary diagnosis of non-specific or radicular (non-serious) LBP. We performed logistic or linear mixed models and multivariate linear regression analyses. From January 2017 to January 2025, 18,851 patients presented to the ED with non-serious LBP. The Back@Home model of care did not significantly affect admissions to inpatient or short-stay units (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.46 to 3.06). However, it reduced ED re-presentations within 30 days (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.84) by 41%. Patients who received virtual hospital care reported less pain (β: -1.26, 95% CI: -2.22 to -0.30), better physical function (β: 4.81, 95% CI: 2.36 to 7.27) and similar satisfaction (β: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.72 to 1.01) with care compared to those receiving inpatient care. Back@Home did not reduce admissions for LBP, but the model of care resulted in fewer ED re-presentations. Although causal inference cannot be made, virtual care may deliver health outcomes comparable to, or better than, traditional care.

BackgroundOveruse 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionIt 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.

BackgroundDisparate care in the ED for minority populations with low back pain is a long-standing issue reported in the USA. Our objective was to compare care delivery for low back pain in Australian EDs between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and non-CALD patients.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of medical records of the ED of three public hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia from January 2016 to October 2021. We included adult patients diagnosed with non-serious low back pain at ED discharge. CALD status was defined by country of birth, preferred language and use of interpreter service. The main outcome measures were ambulance transport, lumbar imaging, opioid administration and hospital admission.ResultsOf the 14 642 included presentations, 7656 patients (52.7%) were born overseas, 3695 (25.2%) preferred communicating in a non-English language and 1224 (8.4%) required an interpreter. Patients born overseas were less likely to arrive by ambulance (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.73) than Australian-born patients. Patients who preferred a non-English language were also less likely to arrive by ambulance (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90), yet more likely to be imaged (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) or be admitted to hospital (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.29) than Native-English-speaking patients. Patients who required an interpreter were more likely to receive imaging (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.64) or be admitted (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.73) compared with those who communicated independently. CALD patients were generally less likely to receive weak opioids than non-CALD patients (aOR range 0.76–0.87), yet no difference was found in the use of any opioid or strong opioids.ConclusionPatients with low back pain from a CALD background, especially those lacking English proficiency, are significantly more likely to be imaged and admitted in Australian EDs. Future interventions improving the quality of ED care for low back pain should give special consideration to CALD patients.

Abstract Introduction There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen 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 vs those presenting to emergency departments. Methods Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database 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 with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with 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% confidence interval: 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% confidence interval: 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.

IntroductionPatients 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 analysisA 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 disseminationThe 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 numberAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12617001160325.