Purpose and background. Nearly 70% of UK physiotherapists experience work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs) during their career, with a significant proportion occurring in the back and being attributed to patient handling tasks. Evidence suggests that manual handling training alone is ineffective and interventions among nurses indicate that a tailored approach, including targeted exercise (TE), can reduce WRMSD rates. This study aimed to explore physiotherapists’ perspectives of WRMSDs, patient handling, and the role of TE in reducing WRMSDs among physiotherapists. Methods and Results. Key informant interviews were conducted with 4 physiotherapy operational leads and 1 manual handling trainer from NHS Grampian. Interviews were transcribed and Framework Analysis was utilised to identify key themes, including challenges, barriers, and facilitators. Following this, two online focus groups were conducted with 7 qualified NHS physiotherapists across the UK. Views of manual handling training varied across specialities, with some finding it comprehensive and adaptable, and others finding it less applicable to patients in their speciality or community setting. Physiotherapist views on fitness for work varied, with some highlighting the necessity of TE to ensure workforce health whilst others considered exercise to be a personal matter. Facilitators to implementation identified by participants were having support from management and a strong justification for the exercise content. Varied work schedules and facilities were identified as barriers to implementation of a work-based TE intervention. Conclusion. Varying perspectives on TE interventions and barriers to implementation were identified. This work will inform future research to develop TE interventions in consultation with key stakeholders. Conflicts of Interest. No conflicts of interest. Source of Funding. NHS Endowment Research Grant 22/001

Purpose and Background. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) can affect 56–80% of physiotherapists. Patient handling is reported as a significant risk factor for developing WRMSD with the back most frequently injured. Physiotherapists perform therapeutic handling to manually assist and facilitate patients’ movement to aid rehabilitation, which can increase physiotherapists risk of experiencing high forces during patient handling. Methods and Results. A descriptive cross-sectional study was completed to explore and quantitatively measure the movement of ten physiotherapists during patient handling, over one working day, in a neurological setting. A wearable 3-dimensional motion analysis system, Xsens (Movella, Henderson, NV), was used to measure physiotherapist movement and postures in the ward setting during patient treatment sessions. The resulting joint angles were reported descriptively and compared against a frequently used ergonomic assessment tool, the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Physiotherapists adopted four main positions during patient handling tasks: 1) kneeling; 2) half-kneeling; 3) standing; and 4) sitting. Eight patient handling tasks were identified and described: 1) Lie-to-sit; 2) sit-to-lie; 3) sit-to-stand; facilitation of 4) upper limb; 5) lower limb; 6) trunk; and 7) standing treatments; and 8) walking facilitation. Kneeling and sitting positions demonstrated greater neck extension and greater lumbosacral flexion during treatments which scores highly with the RULA. Conclusion. This research identified that patient treatment tasks were more often performed in kneeling or sitting positions than standing. Current moving and handling guidance teaches moving and handling in a standing position; loading and stresses experienced by the physiotherapists may differ in sitting or kneeling positions. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None. This work has been presented as a poster at the CSP conference Glasgow 2023

Purpose and Background. Patients with low back pain are increasing globally. Physical dysfunction and psychosocial factors such as stress, anxiety, and fear of movement, often referred to as yellow flags, play a role in the persistence of low back pain. What is not known is the extent to which yellow flags are screened for and treatment adjusted accordingly by Physiotherapists in India. The aim was to determine the current knowledge and awareness of physiotherapists in India regarding psychosocial factors for managing patients with low back pain. Methods. Semi-structured interviews gathered data from of six physiotherapists, The interviews were conducted online. The data was transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Results. The main finding was that the physiotherapists in India had a limited knowledge regarding psychosocial factors for management of low back pain. They were not supportive of adding yellow flag screening into their routine treatments due to lack of t awareness of such screening tools Physical elements of low back pain were focused on during treatment by the therapists and recommended by management. The physiotherapists noted that high daily patient volume left them with limited time to alter treatment protocols. Conclusion. There appears to be limited information and education delivered to the physiotherapists in India regarding psychosocial factors for managing low back pain. The addition of these factors in the education and treatment protocols could address these important factors when managing patients with low back pain in India. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Background. Low back pain (LBP) is a major problem across the globe and is the leading cause worldwide of years lost to disability. Self-management is considered an important component the treatment of people with non-specific LBP. However, it seems that the self-management support for people with non-specific LBP provided by physiotherapists can be improved. Moreover, the way exercise therapists (ET) address self-management in practice is unknown. Purpose. To investigate the ideas, opinions and methods used by physiotherapists and ET with regard to self-management and providing self-management support to patients with non-specific LBP. Methods. This study was a qualitative survey. An online questionnaire with open-ended questions was developed. The survey was conducted among physiotherapists and ET working in the Netherlands. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. Results. Respondents considered self-management support an important topic in physiotherapy and exercise therapy for people with non-specific LBP. In the self-management support provided by the respondents, providing information and advice were frequently mentioned. The topics included in the support given by the respondents covered a broad range of important factors. The topics frequently focused on biomechanical factors. Therapists mainly provided patient education rather than self-management support. Moreover, important self-management skills were generally not addressed sufficiently. The majority of respondents had a need with regard to self-management or providing self-management support. These needs include having more knowledge, skills and tools aimed at facilitating self-management. Conclusion. The way physiotherapists and ET address self-management in people with non-specific LBP is not optimal and should be improved. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained. Previous publication: This work was published in a scientific journal: Hutting N, Oswald W, Staal JB, Heerkens YF. Self-management support for people with non-specific low back pain: A qualitative survey among physiotherapists and exercise therapists. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020 Dec; 50:102269. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102269. This work was never presented at a conference

Purposes of the study and background. Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) is a complex intervention that targets the biopsychosocial nature of low back pain (LBP). The barriers and facilitators to CFT have not previously been researched in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators of CFT in the NHS ahead of a future clinical trial. Methods and results. Participants who had completed a CFT intervention for persistent LBP and physiotherapists who had previously attended a CFT training workshop were recruited. Data were collected using one to one semi-structured interviews and were analysed thematically using framework method. Eight people with LBP and ten physiotherapists consented to participate. The key findings were that UK NHS physiotherapists can be trained to deliver CFT, they valued the training and felt confident to deliver CFT successfully to patients in NHS physiotherapy departments. Peer support and mentorship from a CFT practitioner was necessary for the physiotherapists to sustain changes to their clinical practice. Participants with LBP welcomed CFT as they felt it was beneficial and enabled them to self-manage their LBP and they could recognise the difference between CFT and usual care. The barriers, mainly related to the healthcare system, included short appointment times and poor availability of follow-up appointments. Conclusion. This is the first study to establish the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of CFT in the NHS. The findings of this study were used to inform the planning, design and delivery of a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Background. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Immersive virtual reality (IVR) can be delivered using head mounted display (HMD) to interact with 3D virtual environment (VE). IVR has shown promising results in management of chronic pain conditions, using different mechanisms (e.g., exposure to movement and distraction). However, it has not been widely tested for CLBP. Future development of IVR intervention needs inputs from gatekeepers to determine key considerations, facilitators and barriers. This qualitative study aimed to explore views and opinions of physiotherapists about IVR intervention for adults with CLBP. Methods. Four focus groups were conducted online, with 16 physiotherapists. A demonstration of existing IVR mechanisms was presented. The data were transcribed and analysed through descriptive thematic analysis. Results. IVR was thought to be a suitable adjunct for a subgroup of patients who are reluctant to engage with standard care. Motivation to perform challenging physical tasks was believed to be a potential benefit. Safety, possibility of addiction, and transferability of acquired skills from VE to ‘real world’ and hygiene were concerns and the intervention was preferred to be used under clinical supervision. VE personalisation to patient's goal and preference with delivery and progression being gradual depending upon patient's abilities was suggested. Technical knowledge was seen as a facilitator, while cost and technology acceptance were barriers for future implementation. Conclusion. Future studies would need to consider the reported views of physiotherapists to inform development and implementation of IVR intervention for CLBP. Conflicts of interest: No conflict of interest. Sources of funding: Funded by the government of Saudi Arabia

Statement of purpose of study and background. As the treatment of low back pain (LBP) continues to evolve, there is greater recognition of the importance of optimising the therapeutic relationship to better deliver improved patient outcomes. Contextual effects, such as communication, have been shown to influence the therapeutic relationship, but it is not known how these factors evolve over time. This study analysed interviews from two studies (one cross-sectional and one longitudinal) to explore patients’ and physiotherapists’ perspectives of treatment outcomes and experiences in episodes of LBP in the same dialogic space. The objective was to explore the alignment between these perceptions to identify factors that influence the therapeutic relationship over time. Summary of methods used and results. Two secondary thematic analyses were undertaken, one analysing cross-sectional data and the other analysing longitudinal data, from an existing data set from the programme: “Exploring the relationship between communication and clinical decision-making in physiotherapy consultations for back pain”. All data were thematically analysed and organised using a framework approach. Six themes emerged from the cross-sectional data reporting consistency of opinion in the initial consultation stages, but highlighting inadequate patient involvement in shared decision making. Four main themes emerged from the longitudinal data, all of which reported interactional fears and anxieties identified on both the parts of the patient and the physiotherapist. Conclusion. These findings suggest that failing to involve the patient in adequately personalised treatment from the initial consultation may lead to diagnosis hunting and stereotyping behaviours within the therapeutic relationship, in turn leading to increased health resource usage. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of Funding. The primary data set was collected in a research programme funded by Arthritis Research UK (now Versus Arthritis)

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

Purpose and Background. Patients’ engagement with self-management strategies (SMS) is key when managing low back pain (LBP) and relies on appropriate information being delivered by the treating Clinician. However, patients have differing coping mechanisms which may affect success with SMS. This study aimed to determine Patient and Physiotherapist's perceptions of coping responses and SMS in patients with LBP. Methods. Patient completed a Pain Coping strategies questionnaire, before and after LBP treatment. Semi-structured interviews gathered data from of 10 patients (6 males; and 6 physiotherapists. Questionnaire data was described descriptively, and qualitative data was transcribed/analysed thematically. Results. 5 patients were categorized as ‘active copers’ and 5 as ‘passive copers’ before treatment. SMS success appeared to be impacted by patient coping strategies they adopted. Spiritual religious coping strategies linked to cultural beliefs was a common strategy for all patients. However, the active copers were more likely to engage with active strategies compared to passive copers. All patients felt they had not received full education/details about the home exercises. One patient became an ‘active coper’ following treatment demonstrating high self-confidence to self-manage pain and accepted exercises as a lifestyle. Physiotherapists did not use a valid method for screening purposes for coping, although they referred to ascertaining this verbally and they did tailor exercises differently for passive and active copers. Conclusion. Screening for individual coping strategies would enhance targeting treatments and all patients would benefit from full exercise programmes for self- management and pain self-efficacy approaches to change patients ‘behaviour and enhance patients’ self-confidence. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: The study is sponsored by Kuwait Government

Background and purpose. Adherence to clinical guidelines produces greater improvement in disability in patients with low back pain (LBP), but a wide variation in physiotherapists' adherence has been documented repeatedly. The aim of the study was to investigate the adherence to National Clinical Guidelines for LBP among Danish physiotherapists with regard to three key guideline domains: 1) activity, 2) work, and 3) psychosocial risk factors. Additionally to investigate whether adherence differed between physiotherapists working in private clinics and physiotherapists working at public healthcare centres. Methods. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 817 Danish physiotherapists. Adherence to the three guideline domains was assessed using two vignettes. The difference in adherence between the groups was assessed using the chi-squared test. Results. Response rate was 29%. The proportions of physiotherapists giving advice that was strictly in line with the guideline domains were 32% (activity), 16% (work) and 82% (psychosocial risk factors) for Vignette 1 and 6% (activity), 53% (work) and 60% (psychosocial risk factors) for Vignette 2. Physiotherapists working at public healthcare centres were more likely to manage patients strictly in line with National Clinical Guidelines for assessing the psychosocial risk factors. Regarding the two other domains, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of adherence. Conclusion. Overall, the participating Danish physiotherapists strictly adhered to only one out of three key domains. This confirms the importance of identifying barriers to implementation of the National Clinical Guidelines in physiotherapy care for patients with LBP, including implementation of the inherent bio-psychosocial model. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: None

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. Cognitive Muscular Therapy (CMT) is a new treatment for low back pain which integrates psychological techniques for pain management alongside training to improve postural control. Rather than focus on postural alignment or strength, CMT aims to improve the regulation of postural tone (low-level activity which supports the body against gravity). This is achieved by teaching patients an awareness of compensatory paraspinal activation, which can be triggered by overactivity of the abdominal muscles. The aim of this study was to understand whether CMT could reduce symptoms associated with low back pain and improve paraspinal muscle activation. Methods and results. Fifteen patients with chronic low back pain received seven weekly sessions of CMT from a physiotherapist. Clinical data was captured at baseline and two weeks after the intervention using the Roland-Morris questionnaire and the pain catastrophising scale. Activation of the erector spinae muscle during walking was also measured at baseline and after the final intervention session. Change data were analysed using paired t-tests. There was a 75% reduction (p<0.001) in the Roland-Morris score from a mean (SD) of 9.3(2.9) to 2.3(2.6), along with a 78% reduction in pain catastrophising (p<0.002) from 16.6(13) to 3.7(4.8). Activation of the contralateral erector spinae muscles reduced by 30% (p<0.01) during the contralateral swing phase of walking. Conclusion. In this small sample, CMT delivered large clinical improvements and reduced activation of the low back muscles during walking. Larger randomised trials are now required to confirm whether CMT could outperform existing physiotherapy treatments for chronic back pain. Conflict of interest. No conflicts of interest. Source of funding. University of Salford

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]

Background. Musculoskeletal disorders, including low back pain, affects 68% of UK physiotherapists across their career with patient handling considered a key risk factor. Manual handling training is mandatory for all allied health professionals, however there is limited research investigating whether professionals adopt recommended manual handling principles following training. Purpose of Study. To investigate spinal angles when facilitating sit-to-stand, and a turning manoeuvre in bed, comparing first-year physiotherapy students (who have not received manual handling training) with final-year physiotherapy students (who have received manual handling training). Methods. Cross-sectional pilot study (n= 20; 10 first-year, 10 final-year). All participants were exposed to a short training video outlining how to safely perform each manoeuvre. Retroreflective markers were attached to: L4, ASIS, PSIS, T12, C7, tragus and canthus. Spinal (neck, thoracic, lumbar and pelvic) angles were established via digital photographs using a bespoke MATLAB programme (MathWorks). A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to determine between group differences. Results. No statistically significant results were observed between first-year and final-year students for both manoeuvres (p<0.05), except for neck angle during the turning manoeuvre (final-year students demonstrating more upright postures, p=0.037). Interestingly, for the turning manoeuvre in bed it was noted that none of the participants adjusted the bed height. Conclusion. The results suggest that clinical experience and routine manual handling training may not have a significant effect on spinal posture, especially in relation to pelvic, lumbar and thoracic angles. Further work is needed to understand how training relates to adoption of manual handling principles in practice. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None

Purpose and background. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders, particularly back pain, are a significant issue for healthcare workers, with patient handling being the most frequently reported risk factor. Patient handling is often performed without assistive devices or equipment, which can cause healthcare staff to maintain awkward postures or experience high loads. This review aimed to comprehensively map the literature surrounding manual patient handling (without assistive devices) by healthcare practitioners to identify the current evidence-base on moving and handling of patients and explore what primary research had been conducted. Methods and results. JBI methodology for scoping reviews and an a priori registered protocol (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8PR7A) was followed and AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and EMBASE databases were searched. Literature published in English between 2002 and 2021 was included. Forty-nine records were included: 36 primary research studies, 1 systematic review and 12 ‘other’ including narrative and government reports. Primary research predominantly used observational cross-sectional designs (n = 21 studies). Most studies took place in hospitals (n = 13) and laboratories (n = 12). Nurses formed the largest population group (n = 13), with very little research on physiotherapists and other allied health professionals. Conclusion. This scoping review comprehensively reviewed the available literature in the area. Most of the included primary research was observational. Nurses were often investigated in hospitals and laboratories. Qualitative research investigating moving and handling and further biomechanical investigation into therapeutic handling by healthcare staff were identified as areas for further research. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None. This work has been published in Physiotherapy: Johnson, K., Swinton, P., Pavlova, A. and Cooper, K., 2023. Manual patient handling in the healthcare setting: a scoping review. Physiotherapy. (120) 60–77 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2023.06.003

Background. Advanced spinal practitioner physiotherapists (ASPPs) assess and manage spinal referrals, as advocated by the National Low Back Pain Pathway in the United Kingdom. The ASPP pathway relies on multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings where potential surgically appropriate or complex cases can be discussed. Meetings were held with two different Consultant Spinal Neurosurgeons (total 2 meetings per month). The aim of this service evaluation was to assess MDT meeting outcomes and surgical listing. Methods. This retrospective service evaluation used routinely collected MDT meeting documentation between May 2019 and October 2021. Data was extracted by two ASPPs, and 20% checked by a third ASPP. Extracted data included: number of patients discussed, Consultant, reason for discussion, and outcome (surgical listing or other). Data was analysed by two ASPPs using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel and was reported using counts and percentages across month and year. Results. The majority of MDT discussions were for a surgical opinion (n=293, 25% clinician led, n=351, 30% patient led). Of these, 46% (n=135) of clinician surgical opinions were directly listed compared to 20% (n=70) of patient led discussions. Similar rates of consultant clinic review were seen between the two groups (22% and 32%), suggesting that the majority of patients discussed for surgical consideration were appropriate. 517 (45%) were discussed for management opinion. Conclusions. This evaluation demonstrates that a majority of cases (68%) identified by ASPPs for surgical opinion were either directly listed or had consultant clinic surgical review. The results and trends identified will guide future patient pathway development and ASPP training. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No sources of funding

Background. Scoliosis is described as a lateral spinal curvature exceeding ten degrees on radiograph with vertebral rotation. Approximately 80% of scoliosis presentations are adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Current management for AIS in the UK occurs in Surgeon or Paediatrician-led clinics and can be conservative or surgical. The musculoskeletal assessment and triage of AIS appears well-suited to an advanced physiotherapist practitioner (APP) skill set. The aim of this service evaluation was to scope, develop, implement and evaluate a four-month pilot of an APP-led AIS triage pathway. Method and Results. Spinal Consultant deformity and scoliosis clinics were scoped and observed. Clinic inclusion criteria and a patient assessment form was developed. An APP AIS clinic was set up beside a consultant led clinic. All patients assessed were discussed with a spinal surgeon. Consultant and APP agreement (% of total), waiting times, surgical conversion, and patient satisfaction were reviewed. A clinical competency package was developed for training and development of APPs. A total of 49 patients were seen (20 sessions). Waiting list reduced from 10 weeks to 6 weeks. 45%(n=22) of new patients seen were diagnosed with AIS, 27% (n=6) were directly listed for surgery. Consultant/ APP percentage agreement was high for Cobb angle measurement (82%), management plans (90%), and further diagnostic requests (94%). There were no adverse events and high patient satisfaction levels (n=20), (100% Very satisfied or satisfied) were reported. Conclusion. APP-led AIS clinics can provide similar levels of management and assessment as Spinal Consultants with improved waiting times and high levels of satisfaction. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

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

Purpose of study. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is a surgical emergency. With Physiotherapists increasingly taking on first-contact and spinal triage roles, screening for CES must be as thorough and effective as possible. This study explores whether Physiotherapists are asking the correct questions, in the correct way and investigates their experiences when screening for this serious condition. Background. Thirty physiotherapists working in a community musculoskeletal service were purposively invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Data was transcribed and thematically analysed. Methods and Results. All participants routinely asked bladder, bowel function and saddle anaesthesia screening questions although only 9 routinely asked about sexual function. Whether questions are asked in the correct way has never been studied. Sufficient depth of questioning was achieved by 63% of participants, 76% used lay terminology and 73% used explicit language. Only 43% framed the questions before asking them and only 16% combined all four dimensions. Whilst most participants (n = 25) felt comfortable asking general CES questions, 50% reported feeling uncomfortable when asking about sexual function. Issues around; gender, culture and language were also highlighted. Conclusion. Four main themes emerged from this study; i) Physiotherapists ask the right questions but frequently omit sexual function questions, ii) mostly, Physiotherapists ask CES questions in a way that patients understand however, there needs to be improvement in framing the context of the questions, iii) Physiotherapists generally feel comfortable with CES screening but there is some awkwardness surrounding discussion of sexual function and iv) Physiotherapists perceive there to be barriers to effective CES screening caused by culture and language. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained. Previously presented poster at BritSpine 2021 and VPUK 2021

Background. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) needs to be diagnosed and managed promptly to ensure the best outcome for patients. Our current spinal service has been centralised, with referrals currently delivered via an online system. This means that patients aren't seen by spinal specialists until confirmed radiological diagnosis. To ensure patient safety, we must make sure that our CES pathway is as robust as possible. Methods & Results. A Google Forms questionnaire was emailed to various health professionals involved in the CES patient journey throughout the Lancashire & South Cumbria region. Participants were asked to identify problems with our current pathway and to provide possible solutions for improvement. 64 responses were received from 5 different departments throughout 6 NHS employers: 21 (33%) consultants, 6 (9%) middle grade doctors, 31 physiotherapists (48%), 3 (5%) GPs and 3 (5%) others. Many common themes were identified: the need to improve CES education to both referrers and patients (22% responses), addressing the issue of scan availability (39% responses), the need for a clearer pathway for GPs (26% responses) among others. Participants were asked to rate their confidence in the management of both suspected (mean=7.6 +/−2.3) and diagnosed CES (mean=8.0 +/− 2.0). Discussion. These results have made it evident that there is a need for improvement to our current CES pathway at all levels. Our current system is overloaded with poor referrals that backlog the MRI scanner, leading to delays. Providing training for referrers in the first instance may improve things, however a more thorough overhaul of the pathway is required. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained