Ramanathan Shanthi A, Hibbert Peter D, Maher Chris G, Day Richard O, Hindmarsh Diane M, Hooper Tamara D, Hannaford Natalie A, Runciman William B
Hunter Medical Research Institute and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Jul 1;42(13):E802-E809. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001972.
Retrospective medical record review to assess compliance with low back pain (LBP) care indicators.
To establish baseline estimates of the appropriateness of LBP care in the general Australian population provided by a range of healthcare providers in various real-world settings.
LBP is a costly condition and accounts for the greatest burden of disease worldwide, yet the care provided is often at variance with guidelines. No baseline estimates of performance are currently available in Australia across various aspects of LBP care, practitioners, and settings.
A population-based sample of patients with 22 common conditions was recruited by telephone; consents were obtained to review their medical records against indicators ("CareTrack"). Care for LBP was reviewed against 10 indicators used in a previous study and ratified by experts as representing appropriate LBP care in Australia during 2009 and 2010.
Of the 22 CareTrack conditions, LBP had the highest number of eligible healthcare encounters (6588 of 35,573, 19%), 125 to 884 per indicator among 164 LBP patients. Overall compliance with LBP indicators was 72% (range 42%-98%). Allied health practitioners and hospitals were the most compliant (82%-83% respectively), followed by general practitioners (54%). Some aspects of care were poor, such as documenting a thorough neurological examination, screening for serious diseases such as infection and inappropriate use of drugs such as steroids and treatments such as traction.
Over a quarter of LBP care was not appropriate despite the availability of guidelines. There is a need for national and, potentially, international agreement on clinical standards, indicators and tools to guide, document and monitor the appropriateness of care for LBP, and for measures to increase their uptake, particularly where deficiencies have been identified.
N /A.
回顾性病历审查,以评估对腰痛(LBP)护理指标的依从性。
确定在澳大利亚普通人群中,由一系列医疗服务提供者在各种实际环境中提供的LBP护理适宜性的基线估计值。
腰痛是一种代价高昂的疾病,在全球疾病负担中占比最大,但所提供的护理往往与指南不符。目前在澳大利亚,尚无关于LBP护理各个方面、从业者和环境的绩效基线估计值。
通过电话招募了一个基于人群的患有22种常见疾病的患者样本;获得同意后,根据指标(“CareTrack”)审查他们的病历。根据先前一项研究中使用的10项指标对LBP护理进行审查,这些指标经专家认可,代表了2009年和2010年澳大利亚适当的LBP护理。
在22种CareTrack疾病中,腰痛的合格医疗接触次数最多(35573次中有6588次,占19%),164名LBP患者中每个指标有125至884次。LBP指标的总体依从率为72%(范围为42%-98%)。专职医疗人员和医院的依从性最高(分别为82%-83%),其次是全科医生(54%)。护理的某些方面较差,例如记录全面的神经系统检查、筛查严重疾病(如感染)以及不适当使用药物(如类固醇)和治疗方法(如牵引)。
尽管有指南,但超过四分之一的LBP护理并不适当。需要在国家层面乃至国际层面就临床标准、指标和工具达成一致,以指导、记录和监测LBP护理的适宜性,并采取措施提高其采用率,特别是在已发现不足的地方。
无。