Dataset Information

Is establishing a specialist back pain assessment and management service in primary care a safe and effective model? Twelve-month results from the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) prospective cohort pilot study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To report on the design, implementation and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) model.

Design

BAC is a new, community-based specialist service for assessing and managing neck and low back pain (LBP). The BAC pilot was supported by a Victorian Department of Health and Human Services grant and was evaluated using the Victorian Innovation Reform Impact Assessment Framework (VIRIAF). Data were obtained by auditing BAC activity (22 July 2014 to 30 June 2015) and conducting surveys and interviews of patients, stakeholders and referrers.

Setting

Tertiary and primary care.

Participants

Adult patients with neck and LBP referred for outpatient surgical consultation.

Main outcome measures

VIRIAF outcomes: (1) access to care; (2) appropriate and safe care; (3) workforce optimisation and integration; and (4) efficiency and sustainability.

Results

A total of 522 patients were seen during the pilot. Most were referred to hospital services by general practitioners (87%) for LBP (63%) and neck pain (24%). All patients were seen within 10 weeks of referral and commenced community-based allied health intervention within 2-4 weeks of assessment in BAC. Of patients seen, 34% had medications adjusted, 57% were referred for physiotherapy, 3.2% to pain services, 1.1% to rheumatology and 1.8% for surgical review. Less MRI scans were ordered in BAC (6.4%) compared with traditional spinal surgical clinics (89.8%), which translated to a cost-saving of $52?560 over 12?months. Patient and staff satisfaction was high. There have been no patient complaints or adverse incidents.

Conclusion

Evaluation of the BAC pilot suggests it is a potentially safe and cost-saving alternative model of care. Results of the BAC pilot merit further evaluation to determine the potential cost-effectiveness, longer term and broader societal impact of implementing BAC more widely.

SUBMITTER: Moi JHY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6252686 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is establishing a specialist back pain assessment and management service in primary care a safe and effective model? Twelve-month results from the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) prospective cohort pilot study.

Moi John H Y JHY Phan Uyen U de Gruchy Adam A Liew Danny D Yuen Tanya I TI Cunningham John E JE Wicks Ian P IP

BMJ open 20181010 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To report on the design, implementation and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) model.<h4>Design</h4>BAC is a new, community-based specialist service for assessing and managing neck and low back pain (LBP). The BAC pilot was supported by a Victorian Department of Health and Human Services grant and was evaluated using the Victorian Innovation Reform Impact Assessment Framework (VIRIAF). Data were obtained by auditing BAC activity ...[more]

PMID: 30309987

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdequate pain assessment is critical for evaluating the efficacy of analgesic treatment in clinical practice and during the development of new therapies. Yet the currently used scores of global pain intensity fail to reflect the diversity of pain manifestations and the complexity of underlying biological mechanisms. We have developed a tool for a standardized assessment of pain-related symptoms and signs that differentiates pain phenotypes independent of etiology.Methods and findingsUsing a structured interview (16 questions) and a standardized bedside examination (23 tests), we prospectively assessed symptoms and signs in 130 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain caused by diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or radicular low back pain (LBP), and in 57 patients with non-neuropathic (axial) LBP. A hierarchical cluster analysis revealed distinct association patterns of symptoms and signs (pain subtypes) that characterized six subgroups of patients with neuropathic pain and two subgroups of patients with non-neuropathic pain. Using a classification tree analysis, we identified the most discriminatory assessment items for the identification of pain subtypes. We combined these six interview questions and ten physical tests in a pain assessment tool that we named Standardized Evaluation of Pain (StEP). We validated StEP for the distinction between radicular and axial LBP in an independent group of 137 patients. StEP identified patients with radicular pain with high sensitivity (92%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83%-97%) and specificity (97%; 95% CI 89%-100%). The diagnostic accuracy of StEP exceeded that of a dedicated screening tool for neuropathic pain and spinal magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, we were able to reproduce subtypes of radicular and axial LBP, underscoring the utility of StEP for discerning distinct constellations of symptoms and signs.ConclusionsWe present a novel method of identifying pain subtypes that we believe reflect underlying pain mechanisms. We demonstrate that this new approach to pain assessment helps separate radicular from axial back pain. Beyond diagnostic utility, a standardized differentiation of pain subtypes that is independent of disease etiology may offer a unique opportunity to improve targeted analgesic treatment.

Project description:BackgroundBetter understanding of the episodic cancer pain (CP) spectrum, including pains that occur in addition to its conventionally defined breakthrough CP (BTcP) and incident CP (IcP) components, may inform CP assessment and management. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of episodic patient-reported CP and the prevalence and associations of study-defined BTcP (S-BTcP) and IcP (S-IcP) in patients with CP.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study at their first CP clinic attendance, participants with CP had the following assessments: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); Pain Management Index (PMI), with PMI-negative status indicating undertreatment; standardized neuropathic pain component (NPC) status; S-BTcP (no trigger identified) and S-IcP (trigger identified) status, based on a preceding 7-day history of transitory pain flares distinct from background pain, and BPI-Worst or BPI-Now pain intensity???4. Clinicodemographic variables' association with S-BTcP and S-IcP was examined in logistic regression analyses.ResultsOf 371 participants, 308 (83%) had episodic CP by history alone; 140 (37.7%) and 181 (48.8%) had S-BTcP and S-IcP, respectively. Multivariable analyses demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) associations (odds ratios: 95% CIs) for 6 variables with S-BTcP: head and neck pain location (2.53; 1.20-5.37), NPC (2.39; 1.34-4.26), BPI average pain (1.64; 1.36-1.99), abdominal pain (0.324; 0.120-0.873), S-IcP (0.207; 0.116-0.369), and PMI-negative status (0.443; 0.213-0.918). Similar independent associations (p < 0.05) occurred for S-IcP with NPC, BPI average pain, and PMI-negative status, in addition to radiotherapy, S-BTcP, soft tissue pain, and sleep interference.ConclusionsEpisodic or transient patient-reported CP flares often do not meet the more conventional criteria that define BTcP and IcP, the principal episodic CP types. Both BTcP and IcP occur frequently and both are associated with a NPC, higher pain intensity, and less opioid underuse in the management of CP. Further studies are warranted to both better understand the complex presentations of episodic CP and inform its classification.

Project description:ImportanceNineteen states have passed legislation requiring insurers to cover the dispensation of a 12-month supply of short-acting, hormonal contraception.ObjectiveTo determine whether 12-month contraceptive supply policies were associated with an increase in the receipt of 12-month or longer supply of contraception.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included data from all female Medicaid enrollees aged 18 to 44 years who used short-acting hormonal contraception (ie, pill, patch, or ring) from 2016 to 2020.ExposuresEleven treatment states where legislation required insurers to cover a 12-month supply of contraception to continuing users and 25 comparison states without such legislation prior to December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of contraception months received via a single 12-month or longer fill.ResultsThis study included 48 255 512 months of dispensed oral pill, patch, and ring contraception prescription supply among 4 778 264 female Medicaid enrollees. The majority of months of supplied contraception were for the contraceptive pill rather than the patch or ring. In a staggered difference-in-differences model, the 12-month supply policy was associated with an estimated 4.39-percentage point (pp) increase (95% CI, 4.38 pp-4.40 pp) in the proportion of contraception dispensed as part of a 12-month or longer supply, from a mean of 0.11% in treatment states during the first quarter of the study period. Investigating the heterogeneity in policy association across states, California stood out with a 7.17-pp increase (95% CI, 7.15 pp-7.19 pp) in the proportion of contraception dispensed as a 12-month or longer supply; in the other 10 treatment states, the policy association was less than 1 pp.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicaid recipients using short-acting hormonal contraception, the passage of a 12-month contraceptive supply policy was associated with a minimal increase in the proportion of contraception dispensed through a 12-month or longer supply.

Project description:BackgroundSuccessful treatments for intractable chronic low back pain (CLBP) in patients who are not eligible for surgical interventions are scarce. The superior efficacy of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) to conventional SCS (Conv-SCS) on the treatment of CLBP in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) who have failed surgical interventions (PSPS-T2) motivated the evaluation of DTM SCS versus Conv-SCS on PSPS patients who are non-surgical candidates (PSPS-T1).MethodsThis is a prospective, open label, crossover, post-market randomized controlled trial in 20 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were randomized to either DTM SCS or Conv-SCS in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was CLBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥50% CLBP relief) at 3-month in randomized subjects who completed trialing (modified intention-to-treat population). Patients were followed up to 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change of CLBP and leg pain, responder rates, changes in disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction and global impression of change, and safety profile. An optional crossover was available at 6-month to all patients.ResultsAbout 121 PSPS-T1 subjects with CLBP and leg pain mostly associated with degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy and who were not eligible for spine surgery were randomized. CLBP responder rate with DTM SCS (93.5%) was superior to Conv-SCS (36.4%) at the primary endpoint. Superior CLBP responder rates (88.1%-90.5%) were obtained with DTM SCS at all other timepoints. Mean CLBP reduction with DTM SCS (6.52 cm) was superior to that with Conv-SCS (3.01 cm) at the primary endpoint. Similar CLBP reductions (6.23-6.43 cm) were obtained with DTM SCS at other timepoints. DTM SCS provided significantly better leg pain reduction and responder rate, improvement of disability and quality of life, and better patient satisfaction and global impression of change. 90.9% of Conv-SCS subjects who crossed over were CLBP responders at completion of the study. Similar safety profiles were observed between the two groups.ConclusionDTM SCS for chronic CLBP in nonsurgical candidates is superior to Conv-SCS. Improvements were sustained and provided significant benefits on the management of these patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To investigate the effects after twelve months related to patient activation and a range of secondary outcomes on persons with chronic pain of a chronic pain self-management course compared to a low-impact outdoor physical activity, delivered in an easily accessible healthcare service in public primary care. METHODS:An open, pragmatic, parallel group randomised controlled trial was conducted. The intervention group was offered a group-based chronic pain self-management course with 2.5-h weekly sessions for a period of six weeks comprising education that included cognitive and behavioural strategies for pain management, movement exercises, group discussions and sharing of experiences among participants. The control group was offered a drop-in, low-impact, outdoor physical activity in groups in one-hour weekly sessions that included walking and simple strength exercises for a period of six weeks. The primary outcome was patient activation assessed using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13). Secondary outcomes included assessments of pain, anxiety and depression, pain self-efficacy, sense of coherence, health-related quality of life, well-being and the 30-s Chair to Stand Test. Analyses were performed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS:After twelve months, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention group (n?=?60) and the control group (n?=?61) for the primary or the secondary outcomes. The estimated mean difference between the groups for the primary outcome PAM was 4.0 (CI 95% -0.6 to 8.6, p?=?0.085). Within both of the groups, there were statistically significant improvements in pain experienced during the previous week, the global self-rated health measure and the 30-s Chair to Stand Test. CONCLUSIONS:No long-term effect of the chronic pain self-management course was found in comparison with a low-impact physical activity intervention for the primary outcome patient activation or for any secondary outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02531282 . Registered on August 212,015.

Project description:BackgroundStratification strategies based on identifying patient's prognosis in order to guide patient care constitute one of the most prominent and recent approach in low back pain research. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) although promising, has not been studied in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Considering how challenging it is to translate research into practice, the value of integrating a new tool should be thoroughly assessed. The purpose was therefore to assess associations between the short- and long-terms clinical status and two types of variables, physiologic measures and the SBST, in participants with cLBP. The ability of both types of variables to discriminate between participants with and without higher levels of disability, pain, fear of movement and patient's global impression of change was also investigated.MethodsFifty-three volunteers with cLBP participated in an initial evaluation and follow-ups at 2-, 4-, 6- and 12-month. Physiologic measures (maximal voluntary contraction, maximal endurance and muscle activity evaluated during prone and lateral isometric tasks) and the SBST were assessed at baseline. Disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), pain intensity (101-point Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, TSK) and patient's global impression of change (7-point scale, PGIC) were evaluated at baseline and at each follow-up. Aside the use of correlation analyses to assess potential associations; ROC curves were performed to evaluate the discriminative ability of physiologic measures and the SBST.ResultsThe SBST allowed for the identification of participants presenting higher levels of disability (ODI ≥24 %), pain (NRS ≥37 %) or fear of movement (TSK ≥41/68) over a 12-month period (AUC = 0.71 to 0.84, ps < 0.05). The SBST score was also correlated with disability at each follow-up (τ = 0.22 to 0.33, ps < 0.05) and with pain intensity and fear of movement at follow-ups. Among physiologic measures, only maximal voluntary contraction was correlated to disability, pain intensity or fear of movement during the follow-up (|τ| = 0.26 to 0.32, ps < 0.05) and none was able to identify participants presenting higher levels of outcomes (AUC ps > 0.05).ConclusionPhysiologic measures obtained during prone and lateral tests have limited associations with the clinical status over a 12-month period in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. On the other hand, the STarT Back Screening Tool is useful for the identification of patients who will present higher levels of disability, pain intensity and fear of movement over a year.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02226692.

Dataset Information

Is establishing a specialist back pain assessment and management service in primary care a safe and effective model? Twelve-month results from the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) prospective cohort pilot study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Is establishing a specialist back pain assessment and management service in primary care a safe and effective model? Twelve-month results from the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) prospective cohort pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets