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. 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.Purpose and background
Methods and results
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. 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.Purpose and background
Methods and Results
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. 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.Purpose and Background
Methods and Results
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. 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.Background and study purpose
Methods and results
Low mood and distress are commonly reported with by people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and may be mislabelled as ‘depression’. In order to understand how pain-related distress is conceptualised and managed in primary care consultations, we explored understanding of pain-related distress and depression from the perspectives of people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and general practitioners (GPs). Semi-structured interviews with 21 GPs and 21 people with persistent musculoskeletal pain were conducted. The majority of people with pain had back pain (15/21). Data were analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Participants described challenges distinguishing between distress and depression in the context of persistent pain but described strategies to make this distinction. Some people with pain described how acceptance of their situation was key, involving optimism about the future and creation of a new identity. Some GPs expressed ‘therapeutic nihilism’, with uncertainty about the cause of pain and thus how to manage people with both pain and distress, whilst GPs who could identify and build on optimism with patients described how this could help the patient to move forwards.Background and study purpose
Method and results
Musculoskeletal disorders are leading causes of work disability. Our purpose was to develop a predictive model in a cohort from 2012 and validate the model in 2016 data. Prospectively collected data was used to identify inception cohorts in 2012 (n=1652) and 2016 (n=199). Data from back pain claimants receiving treatment in physiotherapy clinics and the Ontario workers' compensation database were linked. Patients were followed for 1 year. Variables from a back pain questionnaire and clinical, demographic and administrative factors were assessed for predictive value. The outcome was cumulative number of calendar days receiving wage-replacement benefits. Cox regression revealed 8 significant predictors of shorter time on benefits in the 2012 cohort: early intervention (HR=1.51), symptom duration < 31 days (HR=0.88), not in construction industry (HR=1.89), high Low Back Outcome Score (HR=1.03), younger age (HR=0.99), higher benefit rate (HR=1.00), intermittent pain (HR=1.15), no sleep disturbance (HR=1.15). The 2012 model c-statistic was 0.73 with a calibration slope of 0.90 (SE=0.19, p=0.61) in the 2016 data, meaning not significantly different. The c-statistic in the 2016 data was 0.69. Median duration on benefits of those with a high risk score was 129 days in 2012 and 45 days in 2016.Purposes and Background
Methods and Results
Fractures of the odontoid peg are common spinal
injuries in the elderly. This study compares the survivorship of
a cohort of elderly patients with an isolated fracture of the odontoid
peg A total of 32 patients with an isolated odontoid fracture were
identified. The rate of mortality was 37.5% (n = 12) at one year.
The period of greatest mortality was within the first 12 weeks.
Time made a lesser contribution from then to one year, and there
was no impact of time on the rate of mortality thereafter. The rate
of mortality at one year was 41.2% for male patients (7 of 17) compared
with 33.3% for females (5 of 15). The rate of mortality at one year was 32% (225 of 702) for patients
with a fracture of the hip and 4% (9 of 221) for those with a fracture
of the wrist. There was no statistically significant difference
in the rate of mortality following a hip fracture and an odontoid
peg fracture (p = 0.95). However, the survivorship of the wrist
fracture group was much better than that of the odontoid peg fracture
group (p <
0.001). Thus, a fracture of the odontoid peg in the
elderly is not a benign injury and is associated with a high rate
of mortality, especially in the first three months after the injury. Cite this article:
Prospectively evaluate the timescale of leg pain resolution after lumbar discectomy and decompression, in the immediate post-operative period and identify possible risk factors for failure/delay in leg pain resolution. A prospective observational study of 100 consecutive patients undergoing lumbar discectomy or decompression. Patients recorded their leg and back pain in VAS and disability in ODI preoperatively. Patients rated their leg pain relief just prior to discharge after surgery. Telephone follow-up at 1-2 week and 3-4 week post-op was followed by clinic review at 6 and 12 weeks, to assess the timescale of leg pain resolution and improvement in function (ODI score).Purpose
Materials and Methods
In this study we aim to establish which symptoms and signs are able to reliably predict the presence or absence of cauda equina syndrome. Prospective collection of data was carried out over 10 months on all patients referred with suspected cauda equina syndrome(CES) to a single spinal unit. 28 patients were referred. MRI was normal in 4 (14%) patients. 4 (14%) had disc prolapse causing CES and 3 (11%) had spinal metastatic disease. All patients with CES presented with low back pain, unilateral sciatica, urinary dysfunction (painless retention 2, incontinence 2), altered perianal sensation and abnormal anal tone. 1 described constipation. Of patients without CES or malignancy 21 (100%) complained of low back pain, 19 (90%) sciatica (15 unilateral, 4 bilateral), 12 urinary dysfunction (incontinence 5, reduced sensation 3, painless retention 2, urgency 1, terminal dribbling 1) and 5 described altered bowel habit. 7 (33%) exhibited altered perianal sensation and 1 (5%) abnormal anal tone. The patients with spinal metastases all described back pain but no sciatica. 2 had urinary retention and constipation with 1 having abnormal perianal sensation and anal tone. This study suggests abnormal anal tone (sensitivity 1.0, specificity 0.95) and altered perianal sensation (sensitivity 1.0, specificity 0.67) are the most reliable predictors of CES. Thorough clinical examination is essential. Back pain with bladder and/or bowel dysfunction without sciatica should raise the suspicion of malignancy.
We evaluated the efficacy of anterior fusion alone compared with combined anterior and posterior fusion for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis. Anterior fusion alone was undertaken in 15 patients (group A) and combined anterior and posterior fusion was carried out in a further 15 (group B). The degree and maintenance of the angle of correction, the incidence of graft subsidence, degeneration at adjacent levels and the rate of fusion were assessed radiologically and clinically and the rate of complications recorded. The mean angle of correction in group B was significantly higher than in group A (p = 0.0009). The mean visual analogue scale and the neck disability index in group B was better than in group A (p = 0.043, 0.0006). The mean operation time and the blood loss in B were greater than in group A (p <
0.0001, 0.037). Pseudarthrosis, subsidence of the cage, and problems related to the hardware were more prevalent in group A than in group B (p = 0.034, 0.025, 0.013). Although the combined procedure resulted in a longer operating time and greater blood loss than with anterior fusion alone, our results suggest that for the treatment of degenerative cervical kyphosis the combined approach leads to better maintenance of sagittal alignment, a higher rate of fusion, a lower incidence of complications and a better clinical outcome.
