Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36588308›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2022

Applying a knowledge translation framework for triaging low back pain and radicular pain at an emergency department: an iterative process within an uncontrolled before-and-after design.

Sanne Peters, Karel Jacobs, Peter Van Wambeke, Sofie Rummens, Sebastiaan Schelfaut, Lieven Moke, Joost Dejaegher, Ann Spriet, Anne-Lies Van den Broeck, Johan Vliers and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sanne PetersDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6235-1752
Karel JacobsFaculty of Medicine, Leuven Institute for Health Policy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Peter Van WambekeDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Sofie RummensDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Sebastiaan SchelfautDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lieven MokeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Joost DejaegherDepartment of Neurosurgery, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ann SprietDepartment of Ambulatory Physiotherapy, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Anne-Lies Van den BroeckDepartment of Ambulatory Physiotherapy, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Johan VliersDepartment of General Practice, Bleyenbergh General Practice, Wilsele, Belgium.
Bart DepreitereDepartment of Neurosurgery, KU Leuven University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium bart.depreitere@uzleuven.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic imaging for low back pain (LBP) without any indication of a serious underlying cause does not improve patient outcomes. However, there is still overuse of imaging, especially at emergency departments (EDs). Although evidence-based guidelines for LBP and radicular pain management exist, a protocol for use at the ED in the Belgian University Hospitals Leuven was not available, resulting in high practice variation. The present paper aims to describe the process from protocol development to the iterative implementation approach and explore how it has influenced practice.

methodsIn accordance with a modified 'knowledge-to-action' framework, five steps took place within the iterative bottom-up implementation process: (1) identification of the situation that requires the implementation of evidence based recommendations, (2) context analysis, (3) development of an implementation plan, (4) evaluation and (5) sustainability of the implemented practice recommendations. Two potential barriers were identified: the high turnover of attending specialists at the ED and patients' and general practicioners' expectations that might overrule the protocol. These were tackled by educational sessions for staff, patient brochures, an information campaign and symposium for general practitioners.

resultsThe rate of imaging of the lumbar spine decreased from over 25% of patients to 15.0%-16.4% for CT scans and 19.0%-21.8% for X-rays after implementation, but started to fluctuate again after 3 years. After introducing a compulsory e-learning before rotation and catchy posters in the ED staff rooms, rates decreased to 14.0%-14.6% for CT scan use and 12.7-13.5% for X-ray use.

conclusionsImplementation of a new protocol in a tertiary hospital ED with high turn over of rotating trainees is a challenge and requires ongoing efforts to ensure sustainability. Rates of imaging represent an indirect though useful indicator. We have demonstrated that it is possible to implement a protocol that includes demedicalisation in an ED environment and to observe changes in indicator results.

Indexed as

Low Back PainEmergency Service, HospitalHumansPain ManagementTomography, X-Ray ComputedTranslational Science, BiomedicalContinuous quality improvementEmergency departmentEvidence-based medicine

Identifiers

PMID36588308
PMCPMC9723906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.