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

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Pippa Flanagan, Robert Waller, Ivan Lin, Karen Richards, Piers Truter, Gustavo C. Machado, Vinicius Cavalheri
{"title":"Interventions to improve the quality of low back pain care in emergency departments: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Pippa Flanagan, Robert Waller, Ivan Lin, Karen Richards, Piers Truter, Gustavo C. Machado, Vinicius Cavalheri","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03736-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 (<i>n</i> = 2), clinician (<i>n</i> = 8), health service (<i>n</i> = 12), or multiple-level (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03736-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

提高急诊科腰背痛护理质量的干预措施:系统回顾与荟萃分析
腰背痛(LBP)是人们到急诊科(ED)就诊的常见原因。然而,所提供的护理往往不符合指南建议。尽管有越来越多的研究旨在促进急诊科基于指南的护理,但如何以最佳方式实施建议的干预措施尚不得而知。本研究旨在确定已试用过的急诊室枸杞多糖症实施干预措施,并评估其对急诊室相关结果的影响。本研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,包括评估干预措施的研究,这些干预措施旨在提高为急诊科成人枸杞多糖症患者提供的护理质量。2023 年 5 月之前检索的数据库包括 Cochrane Library、CINAHL、EMBASE(通过 OVID)和 PEDro。根据干预措施是否以患者、临床医生、医疗服务或多层次为重点进行分类。在可能的情况下进行荟萃分析。采用 GRADE 标准对结果的确定性进行评估。共纳入 28 项研究。干预措施分为针对患者(2 项)、临床医生(8 项)、医疗服务(12 项)或多层次(6 项)。总体而言,干预措施成功降低了在急诊室接受阿片类药物治疗的可能性(OR 0.65;95% CI 0.55-0.75)。然而,干预措施对腰椎造影并无明显效果(OR 0.85;95% CI 0.64-1.12)。亚组分析显示,报告基线成像率≥ 36% 的高成像率研究和包含基于系统变化的研究显著减少了成像(OR 分别为 0.60;95% CI 0.39-0.93;OR 0.65;95% CI 0.45-0.94)。在接受枸杞多糖干预的组别中,观察到急诊室停留时间略有缩短(平均差异-0.38小时;95% CI-0.58至-0.17)。总体而言,证据的确定性被认为较低或很低。干预措施大多以单一系统为重点,偏向于针对患者或临床医生的以教育为基础的实施策略。干预措施减少了急诊室使用阿片类药物治疗腰痛,但对腰椎造影率的影响尚不确定。需要进一步开展高质量的研究,以改善这种情况下的腰椎间盘突出症护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信