header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Spine

“LOVELY PIE IN THE SKY PLANS”: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF CLINICIANS' PERSPECTIVES ON GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING LOW BACK PAIN IN PRIMARY CARE IN ENGLAND

The Society for Back Pain Research (SBPR) - Annual General Meeting 2015



Abstract

A statement of the purposes of the study and background:

Merely publishing clinical guidelines is insufficient to ensure their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify the decision-making processes that result in the delivery of particular treatments to patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care and to examine clinicians' perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines for managing LBP in primary care.

A summary of the methods used and the results:

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 purposively-sampled clinicians from south-west England. Participants were: 16 General Practitioners (GPs), 10 chiropractors, 8 acupuncturists, 8 physiotherapists, 7 osteopaths, and 4 nurses. Thematic analysis showed that official guidelines comprised just one of many inputs to clinical decision-making. Clinicians drew on personal experience and inter-professional networks and were constrained by organisational factors when deciding which treatment to prescribe, refer for, or deliver to an individual patient with LBP. Some found the guideline terminology - “non-specific LBP” - unfamiliar and of limited relevance to practice. They were frustrated by disparities between recommendations in the guidelines and the real-world situation of short consultation times, difficult-to-access specialist services and sparse commissioning of guideline-recommended treatments.

A conclusion:

The NICE guidelines for managing LBP in primary care are one, relatively peripheral, influence on clinical decision-making among GPs, chiropractors, acupuncturists, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and nurses. When revised, these guidelines could be made more clinically relevant by: ensuring guideline terminology reflects clinical practice terminology; dispelling the image of guidelines as rigid and prohibiting patient-centred care; providing opportunities for clinicians to engage in experiential learning about guideline-recommended therapies; and commissioning guideline-recommended treatments for NHS patients.


Email:

Conflicts of interest: None

Source of Funding: This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research (Grant Reference Number 75). Time from NE Foster was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. FLB's post was funded by Arthritis Research UK (Career Development Fellowship 18099).