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

Background and study purpose. Low back pain with no identified underlying cause is categorised as primary musculoskeletal pain by the International Association for the Study of Pain. In April 2021, the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) published updated guidance for the management of primary chronic pain conditions in England. As part of the De-STRESS pain study, we explored the perspectives of GPs on the updated guideline and impact upon clinical practice. Methods and results. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 GPs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison techniques. GPs agreed with the recommendations restricting pharmacological options for pain management and reflected that they now had an expert reference to back-up their decision-making and could use the guidance in potentially difficult conversations with patients. Frustration was expressed by GPs about the lack of alternative options to medication, as the non-pharmacological recommendations were difficult to implement, had lengthy waiting lists, or were unavailable in their locality. Conclusion. Although GPs discussed benefits of the updated NICE guideline in potentially reducing prescriptions of ineffective and potentially harmful medications, frustration about the lack of alternative strategies added to the difficulties encountered in managing people with persistent back pain in primary care. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study was funded by Versus Arthritis – grant number 22454; Carolyn A Chew-Graham is part-funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands

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 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. Methods and Results. From a subtle realist stance, the design was a secondary analysis of qualitative data, where 47 patients (26M:21F, aged 23–79 years) with back pain were purposively sampled from four EDs (2 Northern and 2 Southern) in England between August and December 2021. Eight patients had previously visited ED for this episode of back pain. As this was during the pandemic, semi-structured interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflective thematic analysis. Three themes were identified as crucial in making the decision to attend ED: The Healthcare professional; Trusted others; and the Individual. Healthcare professionals often dictated decisions, leaving participants feeling powerless. Trusted others provided varying support levels, often acting as allies. Individuals grappled with anxieties around their condition and treatment expectations. Conclusion. This study highlights the need for clinicians to provide clarity and guidance to individuals and their Trusted others, seeking advice regarding escalation to visit the ED with back pain. There was evidence that worrying about pain was a significant motivator for attending ED, resulting in malalignment with current practice guidelines. 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) 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)

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

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. 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 of the study. Self-management and behaviour change is at the core of back pain management. Despite the high-rate of recurrence and healthcare utilisation, clinical guidelines do not include guidance for clinicians on return consultations. This project aimed to identify primary care clinicians’ reported practices and experiences of delivering self-management advice for people returning with persistent low back pain (LBP), to inform future delivery of self-management care. Methods and Results. In this qualitative study involving 27 primary care clinicians, four focus groups and two semi-structure interviews were conducted online. GPs (n=5) and physiotherapists working in primary care roles (First contact practitioners n=7, community and interface roles n=7, and mixed roles n=8) in England and Scotland shared their experience of delivering self-management advice to people returning with persistent LBP. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Clinicians unanimously shared their frustrations identifying the challenges involved in supporting people who return with LBP. Helpful strategies to support self-management in return consultations were identified by clinicians in addition to service and system-level changes vital to optimise care. Patient-factors affecting delivery of care, lack of defined responsibility and challenges in meeting patients’ expectations illustrated the tensions that exist in return consultations. Conclusion. This novel study provides insight into the experiences and practices of the frontline primary care workforce seeing patients return with persistent or recurrent LBP. It identifies the tensions that exist between services, professional roles and between clinicians and patients regarding self-management. Important practice implications have been identified to improve information-sharing, agenda-setting, and exploring expectations. No conflicts of interest.  . Source of funding. Lisa Osborn-Jenkins is funded by University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) Research & Development PhD Fellowship [GRT0723]

Purpose of the study. The purpose of this project was to evaluate whether OHEIs could facilitate student physiotherapy placement training in their educational outpatient clinics. Background. The National Health Service (NHS) is actively promoting Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) to have a greater role in supporting healthcare delivery. There are challenges to increasing AHP numbers and one of these is providing enough student training placements to meet demand. Methods. This evaluation used quantitative and qualitative methods. The OHEI clinical tutors and students collected activity data Anonymised questionnaires for physiotherapy students examining expectation were completed online before placement and an experience questionnaire after placement. Interviews and focus groups were conducted to investigate the experiences of stakeholders involved in the project. This included physiotherapy and osteopathy students, clinic tutors, and placement coordinators in OHEIs and physiotherapy HEIs. Results. Four universities with physiotherapy courses participated, and 37 students in 2 cohorts completed either five- or six-week placements at three OHEI clinics between April and August 2021. Cohort 1 expressed uncertainties about roles and integration in clinic and with patients. Concerns were addressed for Cohort 2 and physiotherapy student learning experiences were much better with 83% of physiotherapy students satisfied or very satisfied with their placement. Conclusion. The placement of physiotherapists in OHEI clinics is feasible. Careful expectation management is essential. Future sustainability is dependent upon managing costs to the OHEIs as it is unlikely placements will generate income. The learning environment could be made more reciprocal with time and experience leading to better understanding of the different professions and enhanced multidisciplinary working. Conflicts of interest: Dawn Carnes and Carol Fawkes are both trained osteopaths. Sources of funding: Health Education England grant to the Institute of Osteopathy (the professional association for UK osteopaths)

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Serious traumatic injury is a leading cause of death and disability globally, with the majority of survivors developing chronic pain. Methods. The aims of this study were to describe early predictors of poor long-term outcome for post-trauma pain. We conducted a prospective observational study, recruiting patients admitted to a Major Trauma Centre hospital in England within 14 days of their injuries, and followed them for 12 months. We defined a poor outcome as Chronic Pain Grade ≥ II and measured this at both 6-months and 12-months. A broad range of candidate predictors were used, including surrogates for pain mechanisms, quantitative sensory testing, and psychosocial factors. Univariate models were used to identify the strongest predictors of poor outcome, which were entered into multivariate models. Results. 124 eligible participants were recruited. At 6-months, 19 (23.2%) of 82 respondents reported a good outcome, whereas at 12-months 27 (61.4%) of 44 respondents reported a good outcome. The multivariate model for 6-months produced odds ratios for a unit increase in: number of fractures, 3.179 (0.52 to 19.61); average pain intensity, 1.611 (0.96 to 2.7); pain extent, 1.138 (0.92 to 1.41) and post-traumatic stress symptoms, 1.044 (0.10 to 1.10). At 12-months, equivalent values were: number of fractures, 1.653 (0.77 to 3.55); average pain intensity, 0.967 (0.67 to 1.40); pain extent, 1.062 (0.92 to 1.23) and post-traumatic stress symptoms, 1.025 (0.99 to 1.07). Conclusion. A poor long-term pain outcome from musculoskeletal traumatic injuries can be predicted by measures recorded within days of injury. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre (SRMRC)

Aims. The British Spine Registry (BSR) was introduced in May 2012 to be used as a web-based database for spinal surgeries carried out across the UK. Use of this database has been encouraged but not compulsory, which has led to a variable level of engagement in the UK. In 2019 NHS England and NHS Improvement introduced a new Best Practice Tariff (BPT) to encourage input of spinal surgical data on the BSR. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the spinal BPT on compliance with the recording of surgical data on the BSR. Methods. A retrospective review of data was performed at a tertiary spinal centre between 2018 to 2020. Data were collated from electronic patient records, theatre operating lists, and trust-specific BSR data. Information from the BSR included operative procedures (mandatory), patient consent, email addresses, and demographic details. We also identified Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs) which qualified for BPT. Results. A total of 3,587 patients were included in our study. Of these, 1,684 patients were eligible for BPT. Between 2018 and 2019 269/974 (28%) records were complete on the BSR for those that would be eligible for BPT. Following introduction of BPT in 2019, 671/710 (95%) records were complete having filled in the mandatory data (p < 0.001). Patient consent to data collection also improved from 62% to 93%. Email details were present in 43% of patients compared with 68% following BPT introduction. Conclusion. Our study found that following the introduction of a BPT, there was a statistically significant improvement in BSR record completion compliance in our unit. The BPT offers a financial incentive which can help generate further income for trusts. National data input into the BSR is important to assess patient outcome following spinal surgery. The BSR can also aid future research in spinal surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:198–201

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

Purpose. Clinical guidelines identify a clear role for managing back pain with structured exercise. Pilates is a commonly recommended modality, however, Pilates-specific research is limited. Research suggests the patient-practitioner relationship may be important in managing persistent low back pain, although further research is needed to evaluate its impact on outcomes. The purpose of this study was to identify the components of the relationship between Pilates teachers and clients with persistent low back pain. Methods and Results. This qualitative study used a multi-site, ethnographically-informed methodology. Data collection included observation of 24 Pilates sessions at eight sites across the South of England, and 19 semi-structured interviews with Pilates teachers and clients with persistent low back pain. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. From the interviews and observations, ten themes emerged, of which four related to components of the relationship: (1) ‘being known’; (2) support; (3) teacher expertise; and (4) mastery of exercises, facilitated by the teacher. Key influences on the relationship were identified in four themes: (5) professional identity of Pilates teachers; (6) health perceptions; (7) social influences such as group dynamic; and (8) service perceptions. An additional two themes described the perceived impact of the relationship: (9) feelings of safety; and (10) ‘feeling good’. Conclusion. These findings demonstrate the complex, multi-faceted interaction that occurs during Pilates sessions that includes instruction, demonstration, verbal and tactile feedback. This study illustrates the perceived importance of Pilates teachers in providing a safe environment for clients with persistent low back pain to exercise. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

A statement of the purposes of the study and background. Lower back pain (LBP) is one of the ten leading causes of disease burden globally, producing significant detrimental effects on physical and emotional wellbeing whilst having a substantial economic burden for society. There is an inverse relationship between socio-economic status and pain prevalence. The effectiveness of a locally run ‘Back to Fitness Programme’ (6-week education and exercise programme) in the most deprived local authority area in England was evaluated. A summary of the methods used and the results. Patients at Blackpool Hospitals NHS Trust over a 6-month timeframe were included. Initial data were collected from 49 patients (mean age 53.4 years, 67% female). The amount of final data collected varied per outcome measure due to a range of factors. Participants reported the programme had helped with their understanding of pain (n=16, 100%), ability to move around and function (n=15, 94%), and level of pain (n=14, 88%). Looking at Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores (n=17), 88% (n=15) of patients indicated a reduction (n=12, 71%) or no change (n=3, 18%) in perceived disability. The Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire (n=18) showed that 78% (n=14) of participants perceived an increase in their average level of confidence to move despite pain. There was an overall improvement in understanding of pain reflected by Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire scores (n=44): 89% (n=39) improved (n=36, 82%) or did not change (n=3, 7%). Regarding lumbar flexion post-programme (n=17), 77% (n=13) of participants demonstrated an improvement (n=9, 53%) or no change (n=4, 24%). Conclusion. The majority of clinical outcomes improved following participation, predominantly in relation to understanding of pain. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by The University of Central Lancashire in partnership with The Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Background. There is a paucity of prognosis research in patients with neuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care. Purpose. To investigate the clinical course and prognostic factors in primary care LBLP patients consulting with neuropathic pain (NP). Methods. LBLP patients in a primary-care cohort study (n=606) completed the self-report version of Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs (s-LANSS, score of ≥12 indicates possible NP) at baseline and 4-months. Mixed effects models compared pain-intensity (highest of mean leg or mean back pain - 0–10 NRS at baseline, 4-months, 12-months and 3-years) between those with persistent NP (s-LANSS ≥12 at baseline and 4-months) and those without (s-LANSS ≥12 at baseline and <12 at 4-months). Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression examined association between potential prognostic factors (chosen from baseline self-report questionnaires, clinical examination, MRI scan findings) and persistent NP. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Results. 44% (72/164) of patients with NP at baseline had persistent NP at 4-months. Mean pain intensity of patients with persistent NP was higher at 4-months, 12-months and 3-years compared to those without. In univariable analysis, only pain self-efficacy was significantly associated with persistent NP (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.998). In multivariable analysis, none of the 7 investigated factors were significantly associated with persistent NP. Conclusion. Patients with persistent NP were consistently worse-off up to 3-years follow-up compared to those without. It was difficult to identify those patients with NP at baseline who would have persistent NP at 4-months. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Sarah Harrisson is a Clinical Doctoral Fellow funded through a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship for Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). Nadine Foster is a NIHR Senior Investigator. Kika Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ National Institute for Health Research Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This work relates to an Education and Continued Professional Development (level 2) award by the Musculoskeletal Association of Chartered Physiotherapists to Sarah Harrisson (June 2016)

Background. Medication prescribing patterns for patients with neuropathic low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care are unknown. Purpose. To estimate the proportion of patients prescribed pain medications, describe baseline characteristics of patients prescribed neuropathic pain (NP) medication and estimate the proportion of LBLP patients with refractory NP. Methods. General practice electronic medical and prescribing records of a large (n=609), prospective, primary-care cohort of LBLP patients were analysed. Cases of NP were identified using the self-report version of the NP scale, Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs (score of ≥12 indicates possible NP) (n=293). Patients with leg pain intensity ≥ 5 (mean of three 0–10 NRSs) or <30% reduction in disability (RMDQ 0–23) at 4-months compared to baseline and who were prescribed ≥ 2 NP medications were considered to have refractory NP. Results. 82% (223/273) of patients with NP were prescribed at least one pain medication; 29% (80/273) of patients were prescribed one first-line NP medication (for example Amitriptyline). Patients who were prescribed NP medication(s) had higher leg pain intensity and disability. There was evidence that patients improved with (61%, 41/67) and without (75%, 76/102) having been prescribed NP medication. Few patients (4%, 7/169) met the criteria for refractory NP suggesting that the scale of the problem in primary care is limited. Conclusion. Patients with NP were commonly prescribed pain medication, under a third were prescribed NP medication and many patients improved without such medication. Future research is needed to determine the effectiveness of NP medication. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Sarah Harrisson is a Clinical Doctoral Fellow funded through a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship awarded to Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). Nadine Foster is a NIHR Senior Investigator. Kika Konstantinou is supported by a Higher Education Funding Council for England/ National Institute for Health Research Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This work relates to an Education and Continued Professional Development (level 2) award by the Musculoskeletal Association of Chartered Physiotherapists to Sarah Harrisson (June 2016)

Aims

Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted.