A review of accident and emergency attendances for non-traumatic musculo-skeletal complaints

Non-traumatic musculoskeletal pain in Western Australian hospital emergency departments: A clinical audit of the prevalence, management practices and evidence-to-practice gaps

OBJECTIVES

Musculoskeletal pain (MSP) conditions are a leading cause of morbidity worldwide and a common reason for ED presentation. Little is currently known about non-traumatic MSP (NTMSP) presenting to EDs. The present study described the prevalence and management practices of NTMSP in EDs.

METHODS

The design was a retrospective clinical audit in two hospital EDs in Western Australia covering 3 months beginning 1 January 2016. We defined NTMSP as pain of musculoskeletal origin occurring in the absence of external force or excessive physical loading. The outcomes measured included: patient, condition and hospital-episode characteristics, as well as management practices. Management practices were compared to recommended care derived from guideline recommendations. These included: assessment for red flags and psychosocial risk factors, appropriate use of diagnostic imaging, provision of patient education, administration and prescription of analgesic medication, and assessment of risk factors for opioid-related harm.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and eighty-eight patients were included in the present study. NTMSP accounted for 3.0% of all ED presentations. According to clinician documentation, red flag and psychosocial assessments were recorded in 73.3 and 10.5% of patients. Forty-one percent of patients were referred for imaging, of which 39.7% were inconsistent with guideline recommendations. Education was recorded 52.0% of the time. At least one opioid medication was administered to 55.3% of patients and there was no documented assessment of risk factors for opioid-related harm.

CONCLUSIONS

NTMSP is a relatively common reason for ED presentation. Documented management practices are discordant with guideline recommendations. Strategies to improve the concordance between management and guideline recommendations are needed.

The physical therapist as a musculoskeletal specialist in the emergency department

Because patients with musculoskeletal injuries commonly seek intervention in the emergency department (ED), it has been proposed that practitioners with expertise in musculoskeletal practice can be of benefit in this setting. This clinical commentary describes the rationale for utilizing physical therapists as musculoskeletal specialists in the ED. Evidence indicates that physical therapists have the knowledge and skills to provide such expertise. Literature describing ED practice suggests that the management of patients with musculoskeletal conditions would be improved through the consistent integration of evaluation and treatment principles associated with physical therapy practice. Furthermore, early access to physical therapy, as can be provided in the ED setting, has the potential to positively influence patient recovery. Based on prior research and recent evolution of practice, further consideration of physical therapists as consultants in the ED is warranted, and, therefore, additional dialogue on the subject should be encouraged.

Randomised controlled trial and cost consequences study comparing initial physiotherapy assessment and management with routine practice for selected patients in an accident and emergency department of an acute hospital

OBJECTIVE

The Department of Health is reviewing the effectiveness of accident and emergency (A&E) departments. This study aimed to compare health and economic effects of physiotherapy initial assessment and management with routine practice in an A&E department.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trial and cost and consequences study. Patients presenting at A&E were eligible if suspected at triage to have soft tissue injury without fracture. The efficacy end point was "days to return to usual activities". Secondary end points included patient satisfaction with their care and further health outcomes and cost data.

RESULTS

766 of 844 (915) patients were randomised. The median days before return to usual activities (available for 73% of those randomised) was greater in the physiotherapist group (41 days compared with 28.5 days; hazard ratio 0.85 p = 0.071). The physiotherapy group expressed greater satisfaction with their A&E care (on a scale of 1 to 5, median was 4.2 compared with 4.0, p<0.001), were more likely to be given advice and reassurance, and more likely to be provided with aids and appliances. Costs were the same between the two arms.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that physiotherapy leads to a prolonged time before patients return to usual activities. This study shows no clear danger from physiotherapy intervention and long term outcomes may be different but given these findings, a best estimate is that introducing physiotherapist assessment will increase costs to the health service and society. Routine care should continue be provided unless there is some reason why it is not feasible to do so and an alternative must be found.