Work disability due to low back pain (LBP) is a global concern, resulting in significant healthcare costs and welfare payments. In recognition of this, recent UK policy calls for healthcare to become more ‘work-focused’. However, an ‘evidence-policy’ gap has been identified, resulting in uncertainty about how this is to be achieved. Clear, evidence-based recommendations relevant to both policy-makers and healthcare practitioners are required. A policy theory approach combining scientific evidence with governance principles in a pragmatic manner was undertaken. This entailed extracting evidence from a recent review of the system influences on work disability due to LBP* (focused specifically on the healthcare system) and appraising it alongside the most recent review evidence on the implementation of clinical guidance, and policy material aimed at developing work-focused healthcare.Background
Methods
Implicit in the diagnosis of CES is the presence of leg pain with a spectrum of bladder and/or bowel disturbance and/or peri-anal sensory loss. Current research describes the clinical features of patients with radiologically confirmed CES, but the specificity of these features is not known. This study explores the accuracy of patient self reported bladder or bowel dysfunction and numbness of the bottom in individuals presenting with lumbar nerve root pain. A retrospective review of patient completed questionnaires, of 281 consecutive patients with leg dominant back pain, presenting to an interface service. 26% of patients reported bottom numbness. 25% reported recent bladder or bowel (B/B) changes. Following a comprehensive assessment including anal tone testing 10 patients were referred to the spinal on-call service. Of these 1 had surgical decompression for radiologically confirmed CES. A review of the hospital records suggests that none of the remaining sample were subsequently admitted for CES within 2 months of the assessment. Individually bottom numbness and recent changes to the B/B had a sensitivity of 1 and a specificity of 0.73. When both numbness of the bottom and changes to B/B are reported the sensitivity was 1 and the specificity was 0.9.Introduction purpose and background
Methods and Results
