Search

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging for low back pain (LBP) without any indication of a serious underlying cause does not improve patient outcomes. However, there is still overuse of imaging, especially at emergency departments (EDs). Although evidence-based guidelines for LBP and radicular pain management exist, a protocol for use at the ED in the Belgian University Hospitals Leuven was not available, resulting in high practice variation. The present paper aims to describe the process from protocol development to the iterative implementation approach and explore how it has influenced practice. METHODS: In accordance with a modified 'knowledge-to-action' framework, five steps took place within the iterative bottom-up implementation process: (1) identification of the situation that requires the implementation of evidence based recommendations, (2) context analysis, (3) development of an implementation plan, (4) evaluation and (5) sustainability of the implemented practice recommendations. Two potential barriers were identified: the high turnover of attending specialists at the ED and patients' and general practicioners' expectations that might overrule the protocol. These were tackled by educational sessions for staff, patient brochures, an information campaign and symposium for general practitioners. RESULTS: The rate of imaging of the lumbar spine decreased from over 25% of patients to 15.0%-16.4% for CT scans and 19.0%-21.8% for X-rays after implementation, but started to fluctuate again after 3 years. After introducing a compulsory e-learning before rotation and catchy posters in the ED staff rooms, rates decreased to 14.0%-14.6% for CT scan use and 12.7-13.5% for X-ray use. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a new protocol in a tertiary hospital ED with high turn over of rotating trainees is a challenge and requires ongoing efforts to ensure sustainability. Rates of imaging represent an indirect though useful indicator. We have demonstrated that it is possible to impleme

BACKGROUND The worldwide spread of a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to a near total stop of non-urgent, elective surgeries across all specialties in most affected countries. In the field of aesthetic surgery, the self-imposed moratorium for all aesthetic surgery procedures recommended by most international scientific societies has been adopted by many surgeons worldwide and resulted in a huge socioeconomic impact for most private practices and clinics. An important question still unanswered in most countries is when and how should elective/aesthetic procedures be scheduled again and what kind of organizational changes are necessary to protect patients and healthcare workers when clinics and practices reopen. Defining manageable, evidence-based protocols for testing, surgical/procedural risk mitigation and clinical flow management/contamination management will be paramount for the safety of non-urgent surgical procedures. METHODS We conducted a MEDLINE/PubMed research for all available publications on COVID-19 and surgery and COVID-19 and anesthesia. Articles and referenced literature describing possible procedural impact factors leading to exacerbation of the clinical evolution of COVID-19-positive patients were identified to perform risk stratification for elective surgery. Based on these impact factors, considerations for patient selection, choice of procedural complexity, duration of procedure, type of anesthesia, etc., are discussed in this article and translated into algorithms for surgical/anesthesia risk management and clinical management. Current recommendations and published protocols on contamination control, avoidance of cross-contamination and procedural patient flow are reviewed. A COVID-19 testing guideline protocol for patients planning to undergo elective aesthetic surgery is presented and recommendations are made regarding adaptation of current patient information/informed consent forms and patient health questionnaires. CONCLUSION The

Purpose: Management of patients with persisting pain after spine surgery (PPSS) shows significant variability, and there is limited evidence from clinical studies to support treatment choice in daily practice. This study aimed to develop patient-specific recommendations on the management of PPSS. Methods: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RUAM), an international panel of 6 neurosurgeons, 6 pain specialists, and 6 orthopaedic surgeons assessed the appropriateness of 4 treatment options (conservative, minimally invasive, neurostimulation, and re-operation) for 210 clinical scenarios. These scenarios were unique combinations of patient characteristics considered relevant to treatment choice. Appropriateness had to be expressed on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate). A treatment was considered appropriate if the median score was ≥ 7 in the absence of disagreement (≥ 1/3 of ratings in each of the opposite sections 1–3 and 7–9). Results: Appropriateness outcomes showed clear and specific patterns. In 48% of the scenarios, exclusively one of the 4 treatments was appropriate. Conservative treatment was usually considered appropriate for patients without clear anatomic abnormalities and for those with new pain differing from the original symptoms. Neurostimulation was considered appropriate in the case of (predominant) neuropathic leg pain in the absence of conditions that may require surgical intervention. Re-operation could be considered for patients with recurrent disc, spinal/foraminal stenosis, or spinal instability. Conclusions: Using the RUAM, an international multidisciplinary panel established criteria for appropriate treatment choice in patients with PPSS. These may be helpful to educate physicians and to improve consistency and quality of care. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [Figure not available: see fulltext.]