Purpose and background. Although clinical guidelines recommend that low back pain (LBP) is best managed in primary or community care, in the UK and globally, LBP accounts for around 4% of emergency department (ED) attendances. Organising and delivering healthcare to be safe, effective, and acceptable requires hearing patients’ perspectives; this study therefore aimed to explore patients’ experiences of attending the ED for LBP. Methods and results. This was a multisite qualitative interview study with 47 adults (aged 23–79 years) who, in the past six weeks, had attended one of four UK NHS emergency departments for LBP (all types and durations). Purposive sampling was used to gain variation in the recruiting site, and LBP and demographic characteristics. Data were collected using individual, semi-structured, telephone interviews (median 45mins). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. We identified significant variation in patients’ experiences of ED care for LBP, which we argue reflects contrasting cultures of ED care. We present three cultures, emergency screening only, ‘cynicism and neglect’, and ‘kindness’; these cultures differ in how they navigate the tension between the ED remit and patients’ perceived needs of care. We draw on Bourdieu's notions of field and habitus and professional identity theory to help explain these findings. Conclusion. Our findings suggest unwarranted variation in ED care for LBP. Implications include the need for urgent access to primary and community care and clarity about best practice managing LBP in the ED; best practice guidance and strategies to implement this should be informed by notions of culture and professional identity. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Cauda equina syndrome (CES) leads to nerve compression in the lumbar spine, and requires immediate treatment to prevent permanent neurological dysfunction, including urinary/anorectal incontinence. The consequences for the patient are significant as, in the decade to 2018, CES has cost the NHS £186,134,049. No study has reported patients’ experiences of being managed with suspected CES in an emergency department (ED), and this study explores patients’ experiences and how the NHS can optimise care for patients experiencing this condition. Methods and Results. In this qualitative secondary analysis, 14 participants (aged 23–63 years) with suspected CES were purposively sampled from 4 EDs in England. Online, semi-structed interviews were undertaken (in 2021, during the pandemic), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed using a Framework approach and analysed thematically. Three themes were identified: quality of care; environmental factors; and expectations. The quality of care included managing uncertainty, the importance of communication, appropriate assessment and follow-up care. Environmental factors, including the chairs, waiting times and the busy nature of the ED, negatively impacted patients’ experiences. Furthermore, an expectation gap was identified, as most individuals came to the ED expecting to receive a scan, an accurate diagnosis and a cure. Despite frustrations, patients expressed gratitude towards the ED staff. Conclusion. This study highlights the importance of empathically acknowledging the patient's pain and providing comprehensive assessments and management plans for people attending ED with suspected CES. Optimising the ED environment to minimise patients’ pain and distress while waiting to access care is paramount and overdue. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES), a rare (<1 per 100,000) and potentially devasting condition, involves compression of the lumbosacral nerve roots. If not quickly identified and treated, it can lead to lasting disability, and high medicolegal costs (>£186 million in the decade to 2018). This study identified why people with suspected CES attend the emergency department (ED) and explored any delays in attending. Methods and Results. The design was a secondary analysis of a qualitative dataset comprising patients with back pain who attended the ED, undertaken using an interpretivist approach. Fourteen patients (8M:6F, aged 23–63 years) with suspected CES were purposively sampled from 4 EDs (2 Northern and 2 Southern) in England between August and December 2021. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Acopia with pain was the biggest factor in a participant's decision to attend the ED, along with the need for a diagnosis. This pain was the worst ever experienced and debilitating, leaving people unable to cope and desperate for relief. 12/14 were advised to attend the ED following identification of red flags by: GPs (n=9); physiotherapists (n=2); surgical colleague (n=1); and 111 (n=1). Factors such as guilt, previous experience of being disregarded, and symptom misattribution were seen to cause delays in seeking care. Conclusion. This paper revealed a disconnect between the priorities of patients and clinicians prior to attending the ED. Clinicians need to validate the pain experience, communicate clearly why signs and symptoms are concerning, and convey the urgency and potential impact of CES. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National. Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background. Low back pain (LBP), a leading cause of chronic disability, is associated with high and disproportionate socioeconomic costs. Clinical assessment and triage via the NHS 111 service aims to reduce pressure on the urgent and emergency care system. Studies show that many attend the emergency department (ED) against advice, when they could be better managed elsewhere. The aim of this research was to explore how patients with LBP perceive and interact with NHS 111, and how this may have influenced their decision to attend ED. Methods and Results. This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional, qualitative dataset of 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) purposively sampled with LBP, who attended 1 of 4 EDs in the UK in 2021, (during the pandemic). The participants took part in online, semi-structured interviews, mean duration 45-minutes (range 23–156 minutes), within six weeks of their ED visit. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Three key themes were identified: purpose, process and performance. The themes showed mixed understanding and low awareness of the purpose of NHS 111, despite its strong triage role. Long waits for call backs however, sometimes resulted in patients attending ED, along with previous negative perspectives and experiences. Conclusion. This research suggests enhanced visibility and knowledge of NHS 111 would increase its use by people with LBP. Further exploration comparing outcomes of callers to NHS 111 with those who seek care elsewhere, could help evaluate how NHS 111 can best help people with LBP and prevent unnecessary ED attendance. No conflicts of interest.  . Sources of funding. Funding for primary data: Health Education England & National Institute of Health and Care Research (ICA-CDRF-2018-04-ST2-040)

Purpose and background

Low back pain burdens individuals, society and services, including Emergency Departments (ED), straining services and prolonging wait times. Despite reported personal influences on deciding to attend ED, the role of third-party advice remains underexplored. Sparse guidance for clinicians and service-users highlights the need for effective back pain management strategies, to alleviate system pressure and optimise patient outcomes. This study explored how advice influences the decision to attend the ED for back pain.

Introduction. Advanced practice physiotherapists (APPs) manage the national low back and radicular pain pathway across the UK. A novel spinal APP-led same-day emergency care (SDEC) pathway in Nottingham, manages patients referred from community services and the emergency department (ED). Patients may attend ED in the belief their pain is due to sinister or ‘red flag’ pathology. Little data exists on prevalence of spinal ‘red flag’ pathologies within a secondary care setting. This paper aims to review the number of ‘red flag’ pathology identified by APP's on a same-day emergency care pathway. Methods. Retrospective data from 1 year of routinely collected information was extracted and analysed by two APPs. Counts were reported as a percentage of total patients seen on the SDEC unit over a one-year period and compared to nationally reported figures. A total of 2042 patients were assessed on the unit in 2021, of which, 293 (14%) had serious pathology identified. Patients were classified into type of serious pathology: myelopathy (126, 6.1%), fractures (72, 3.5%), cauda equine compression (40, 1.9%), infection (37, 1.8%), cancers (28, 1.3%), neurological conditions (14, 0.6%) and other (16, 0.8%) serious pathology. Conclusion. APP's working within an emergency pathway are highly likely to see and diagnose serious spinal pathology. The most common include cord or cauda equina compression, fractures, infection and cancers. Figures reported are slightly higher than previously documented. Knowledge and training to identify ‘red flags’ and robust pathways of escalation are essential in support of APP roles and services. Conflict of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No sources of funding

Background. NHS improvement advocates same day emergency care (SDEC) for patients requiring additional specialism than can be provided in an Emergency Department. A novel physiotherapist-led spinal SDEC unit was established in January 2020, integrated within the on-call spinal service. The aim of this paper was to evaluate patient and peer satisfaction with the spinal SDEC. Methods. Patient satisfaction questionnaires and/or friends and family tests were collected from patients over a six-month period. Questionnaires evaluated satisfaction with recommendations given, service given, staff friendliness. Anonymous, completed questionnaires were uploaded onto a spreadsheet. Peer satisfaction was assessed using a google sheets document emailed to interface, primary care and community services. The questionnaire captured the respondents’ role, how many patients they had referred to the SDEC, reasons for referral, ease of referral, and compared this new pathway with the previous pathway. All patient's satisfaction responses recommended the service to family and friends (n=110 extremely likely, 8 likely) (6% total seen). All respondents were satisfied with the service they received (n=80 very satisfied, n=12 satisfied) and recommendations made (n=86 very satisfied, n=6 satisfied). Of peer satisfaction, 26 respondents (n=12 (46%) physiotherapists, n=6 (23%) first contact practitioners, n=6 (23%) advanced practice physiotherapists, n=1 (4%) GP, n=1 (4%) nurse) reported the SDEC delivered a better pathway and outcomes (n=25, 96%), and 20 (77%) respondents reported favourable comments of the service and its impact on patients and referrers. Conclusion. Peer and patient satisfaction data support the use of a physiotherapist-led spinal SDEC in emergency and urgent spinal care pathways. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of Interest. Sources of interest: No sources of funding

Aim. Identifying cervical spine injuries in confused or comatose patients with multiple injuries provides a diagnostic challenge. Our aim was to investigate the protocols which are used for the clearance of the cervical spine in these patients in English hospitals. Patients and Methods. All hospitals in England with an Emergency Department were asked about the protocols which they use for assessing the cervical spine. All 22 Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) and 141 of 156 non-MTCs responded (response rate 91.5%). Results. Written guidelines were used in 138 hospitals (85%). CT scanning was the first-line investigation in 122 (75%). A normal CT scan was sufficient to clear the cervical spine in 73 (45%). However, 40 (25%) would continue precautions until the patient regained full consciousness. MRI was performed in all confused or comatose patients with a possible cervical spinal injury in 15 (9%). There were variations in the grade and speciality of the clinician who had responsibility for deciding when to discontinue precautions. A total of 31 (19%) reported at least one missed cervical spinal injury following discontinuation of spinal precautions within the last five years. Only 93 (57%) had a formal mechanism for reviewing missed injuries. Take home message: There are significant variations in protocols and practices for the clearance of the cervical spine in multiply injured patients in acute hospitals in England. The establishment of trauma networks should be taken as an opportunity to further standardise trauma care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:825–8

Background. Low back pain (LBP) with or without leg pain, is one of the most common causes of pain and disability and a frequent cause of attendance to emergency departments (ED). Increasing numbers of patients create a difficult challenge for clinicians to effectively and appropriately manage patients with LBP in an urgent care setting. Purpose. To improve the management of atraumatic spinal pain patients admitted onto the emergency assessment unit (EAU) thus improving quality of care, reducing bed stay and facilitating appropriate discharge and follow-up within an interdisciplinary model. Method. From January 2014, consultant physiotherapists, led a 7-day service to assess and manage patients admitted to the EAU with atraumatic back pain. Patients are referred for appropriately and timely investigations. Non-medical prescribing skills allow physiotherapists to offer pharmacological review and prescribing in line with best practice guidelines. All care is delivered within a framework of inter-professional care with involvement of emergency medicine, spinal orthopaedic, neurosurgical, pain management and pharmacy teams. Results. Length of stay has reduced by 25% in two years (potential saving £411,726 per annum). Official patient complaints have reduced to zero. Readmission within 30 days has fallen from 1.2% of the total number of admissions with atraumatic back pain to 0.8% despite earlier discharge. Cost of bed stay has fallen from. Conclusion. Highly skilled physiotherapists are ideally placed to lead and deliver safe and effective care for patients presenting with atraumatic back pain within an urgent care setting. This has resulted in improved care at lower cost. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Background. Advances in surgical and anesthetic technique have resulted in a reducing length of stay for lumbar decompression, with the first day case procedure published in the literature in 1980. Current evidence suggests day case surgery is associated with improved patient satisfaction, faster recovery, reduced infection rates and financial savings. Following the introduction of a locally agreed day case protocol for lumbar microdiscectomy, we reviewed our 30-day postoperative complication rates. Aims. To review postoperative complication rates for patients who underwent day case primary lumbar microdiscectomy. Methods. We studied all patients that met a locally agreed day case protocol for lumbar microdiscectomy and were operated upon between 1. st. March 2013 and 31. st. December 2015. Results. 134 patients underwent primary day case microdiscectomy (70 males, 64 females). The cohort had a mean age of 41 years (16–82). 96% (n=129) were single level procedures, 93% were unilateral (n=125). 81% (n=109) took place at either L4/L5 or L5/S1. All patients were discharged on the same day as admission and operation. 3% (n=4) of patients re-presented to hospital within 30 days of which 75% (n=3) were reviewed and discharged from the emergency department within 4 hours, following a satisfactory clinical review. One patient required an inpatient stay for a washout of a superficial postoperative infection. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that with adherence to robust listing and discharge protocols, day case lumbar microdiscectomy can be safely performed. Our 30-day postoperative complication rate of under 1% is comparable to that of traditional inpatient primary lumbar microdiscectomy. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Introduction. Orthopaedic Spinal Rapid Access Service (OSRAS) was developed in our institute to provide a structured pathway for management of urgent spinal pathologies during working hours of Monday to Friday. It was delivered through a published rota by a multi displinary team of Extended Scope Practitioner carrying a bleep and a Spinal Surgeon. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of OSRAS through a prospective audit. Results. From Nov 2013 till April 2014, 177 patients (48 Male: 119 Females) with an average age of 50 (17–95) years were referred to OSRAS. Wednesday was the busiest day with 26% referral in AM and 74% in PM. Main source of referrals were: Regional MSK services (50), Triage (34), ED (27) and GPs (20). The reasons were: suspected CESI (n=100), Acute LBP (n=30), pathological fractures (n=23), progressive neurology (n=16), discitis (n=5) and spinal stenosis (n=2). Depending on clinical need 29 patients were seen on same day, 33 next day, 53 with in 2–5 days and 31 more than 5 days. Eighty patients were discharged, 36 listed for surgery, 27 required further follow up and 31 were given telephone advise only. High user satisfaction rating was obtained. Conclusion. We propose an OSRAS model as an alternate to often un satisfactory current emergency department model, that can provide a structured pathway for timely expert management of serious spinal pathologies therefore prevent potential consequences whilst avoid unnecessary admissions. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Background. Surgical patients have cost the NHS 1.3 billion GBP from 1995. Spinal pathologies can present diagnostic challenges, and the consequences of delayed diagnosis or surgical complications can be devastating and so creating high indemnity costs. We aim to highlight the spinal associated litigation patterns within the United Kingdom. Method. Data was obtained from the NHS Litigation Authority from 2002 to 2010. Result. From 236 claims, 144 were related to trauma or acute diagnostic issues and 92 from elective surgery. The financial burden to the NHS came to 60.5 million GBP. Of this sum 42.8 million GBP were paid in damages, and the remaining 29% in legal costs. The financial costs were similar for trauma and elective cases. The most frequent cause of successful litigation for trauma were, missed fractures(41.7%), missed cauda equina(23.6%) and spinal infection(11.8%). The emergency department(43.8%), orthopaedic surgery(28.5%) and Medicine(13.9%) bore the brunt of the claims. For elective surgery, Spinal Damage(19.8%), failure in Post-Operative Care(15.4%), Infection(11%) and Wrong Level Surgery, Cauda Equina and Surgical Failure(9.9% each). were likely to result in a successful claim, and the litigation burden was felt by the orthopaedic(60.4%), Neurosurgery(18.7%) and other surgical disciplines(11%). Conclusion. Acute spinal fractures, cord compression and infection should be considered in patients in the emergency department setting, with appropriate examination and investigations for uncertainty. A lack of awareness of at risk cases increases the likelihood of a pay-out and sums involved. For elective spinal surgery, a failure in the consenting process and the technical skill of the surgeon are likely to result in a pay-out. A failure to identify post-operative complications such as infection and thromboembolism are also indefensible. Protecting patients intra-operatively and maintaining high technical expertise and vigilance post-operatively in an adequately consented patient may decrease litigation rates

Background and purpose. The musculoskeletal system is a common, but often overlooked, cause of chest pain. Little is known about the efficacy of spinal manipulation for this condition. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two conservative treatment approaches for acute musculoskeletal chest pain, 1) a spinal manipulation-based therapy as a typical example of chiropractic treatment and 2) self-management as an example of minimal intervention. Methods and results. In a non-blinded, randomised controlled trial set at an emergency cardiology department and four outpatient chiropractic clinics, 115 consecutive patients with acute chest pain and no clear medical diagnosis at initial presentation were included. After a baseline evaluation, patients with musculoskeletal chest pain were randomized to four weeks of chiropractic treatment or self-management, with post-treatment questionnaire follow-up four and 12 weeks later. Primary outcome measures were numeric change in pain intensity (11-point box numerical rating scale) and self-perceived change in pain (7-point ordinal scale). Secondary measures included Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores, change in pain intensity (chest, thoracic spine, neck and shoulder/arm), and self-perceived change in general health. Preliminary results will be available at the time of presentation. Conclusions. This is the first randomised controlled trial assessing chiropractic treatment versus a minimal intervention in patients with musculoskeletal chest pain. Results will indicate whether chiropractic treatment is a useful option for patients with musculoskeletal chest pain, but the design does not allow for standardisation of treatment or identification of potentially active ingredients of care

Aims

Diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome (CES) remains difficult; clinical assessment has low accuracy in reliably predicting MRI compression of the cauda equina (CE). This prospective study tests the usefulness of ultrasound bladder scans as an adjunct for diagnosing CES.

Aims

Early cases of cauda equina syndrome (CES) often present with nonspecific symptoms and signs, and it is recommended that patients undergo emergency MRI regardless of the time since presentation. This creates substantial pressure on resources, with many scans performed to rule out cauda equina rather than confirm it. We propose that compression of the cauda equina should be apparent with a limited sequence (LS) scan that takes significantly less time to perform.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to assess the association between whole body sagittal balance and risk of falls in elderly patients who have sought treatment for back pain. Balanced spinal sagittal alignment is known to be important for the prevention of falls. However, spinal sagittal imbalance can be markedly compensated by the lower extremities, and whole body sagittal balance including the lower extremities should be assessed to evaluate actual imbalances related to falls.

Aims

Rates of mortality as high as 25% to 30% have been described following fractures of the odontoid in the elderly population. The aim of this study was to examine whether easily identifiable variables present on admission are associated with mortality.

We assessed the frequency and causes of neurological deterioration in 59 patients with spinal cord injury on whom reports were prepared for clinical negligence litigation. In those who deteriorated neurologically we assessed the causes of the change in neurology and whether that neurological deterioration was potentially preventable. In all 27 patients (46%) changed neurologically, 20 patients (74% of those who deteriorated) had no primary neurological deficit. Of those who deteriorated, 13 (48%) became Frankel A. Neurological deterioration occurred in 23 of 38 patients (61%) with unstable fractures and/or dislocations; all 23 patients probably deteriorated either because of failures to immobilise the spine or because of inappropriate removal of spinal immobilisation. Of the 27 patients who altered neurologically, neurological deterioration was, probably, avoidable in 25 (excess movement in 23 patients with unstable injuries, failure to evacuate an epidural haematoma in one patient and over-distraction following manipulation of the cervical spine in one patient). If existing guidelines and standards for the management of actual or potential spinal cord injury had been followed, neurological deterioration would have been prevented in 25 of the 27 patients (93%) who experienced a deterioration in their neurological status.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:527–31.

This study examined spinal fractures in patients admitted to a Major Trauma Centre via two independent pathways, a major trauma (MT) pathway and a standard unscheduled non-major trauma (NMT) pathway. A total of 134 patients were admitted with a spinal fracture over a period of two years; 50% of patients were MT and the remainder NMT. MT patients were predominantly male, had a mean age of 48.8 years (13 to 95), commonly underwent surgery (62.7%), characteristically had fractures in the cervico-thoracic and thoracic regions and 50% had fractures of more than one vertebrae, which were radiologically unstable in 70%. By contrast, NMT patients showed an equal gender distribution, were older (mean 58.1 years; 12 to 94), required fewer operations (56.7%), characteristically had fractures in the lumbar region and had fewer multiple and unstable fractures. This level of complexity was reflected in the length of stay in hospital; MT patients receiving surgery were in hospital for a mean of three to four days longer than NMT patients. These results show that MT patients differ from their NMT counterparts and have an increasing complexity of spinal injury.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:235–9.