Is establishing a specialist back pain assessment and management service in primary care a safe and effective model? Twelve-month results from the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) prospective cohort pilot study
journal contributionposted on 10.02.2021, 02:39 by JHY Moi, U Phan, Adam de GruchyAdam de Gruchy, D Liew, TI Yuen, JE Cunningham, IP Wicks
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Objectives To report on the design, implementation and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the Back pain Assessment Clinic (BAC) model. Design BAC is a new, community-based specialist service for assessing and managing neck and low back pain (LBP). The BAC pilot was supported by a Victorian Department of Health and Human Services grant and was evaluated using the Victorian Innovation Reform Impact Assessment Framework (VIRIAF). Data were obtained by auditing BAC activity (22 July 2014 to 30 June 2015) and conducting surveys and interviews of patients, stakeholders and referrers. Setting Tertiary and primary care. Participants Adult patients with neck and LBP referred for outpatient surgical consultation. Main outcome measures VIRIAF outcomes: (1) access to care; (2) appropriate and safe care; (3) workforce optimisation and integration; and (4) efficiency and sustainability. Results A total of 522 patients were seen during the pilot. Most were referred to hospital services by general practitioners (87%) for LBP (63%) and neck pain (24%). All patients were seen within 10 weeks of referral and commenced community-based allied health intervention within 2-4 weeks of assessment in BAC. Of patients seen, 34% had medications adjusted, 57% were referred for physiotherapy, 3.2% to pain services, 1.1% to rheumatology and 1.8% for surgical review. Less MRI scans were ordered in BAC (6.4%) compared with traditional spinal surgical clinics (89.8%), which translated to a cost-saving of $52 560 over 12 months. Patient and staff satisfaction was high. There have been no patient complaints or adverse incidents. Conclusion Evaluation of the BAC pilot suggests it is a potentially safe and cost-saving alternative model of care. Results of the BAC pilot merit further evaluation to determine the potential cost-effectiveness, longer term and broader societal impact of implementing BAC more widely.
The study was funded by a Workforce Innovation Grant provided by the Victorian State Government Department of Health and Human Services. IPW is supported by a Clinical Practitioner Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; 1023407) and an NHMRC Program Grant (1016647).
Article NumberARTN e019275
Pagination9p. (p. 1-9)
Rights StatementThe Author reserves all moral rights over the deposited text and must be credited if any re-use occurs. Documents deposited in OPAL are the Open Access versions of outputs published elsewhere. Changes resulting from the publishing process may therefore not be reflected in this document. The final published version may be obtained via the publisher’s DOI. Please note that additional copyright and access restrictions may apply to the published version.
Science & TechnologyLife Sciences & BiomedicineMedicine, General & InternalGeneral & Internal MedicineMULTIDISCIPLINARYHumansLow Back PainNeck PainPain MeasurementProspective StudiesPilot ProjectsAdultAgedMiddle AgedPain ClinicsCost-Benefit AnalysisReferral and ConsultationPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareAustraliaFemaleMalePhysical Therapy ModalitiesSurveys and Questionnairesback painhealth economicsrheumatology