An Interactive Website for Whiplash Management (My Whiplash Navigator): Process Evaluation of Design and Implementation

Impact of an online training tool on individual and organizational resilience and mindfulness among radiological personnel in Norway

BACKGROUND

Heavy workloads and increasing demands for productivity have contributed to rising rates of stress and burnout among radiological staff. Different forms of mindfulness and resilience-training might assist with stress management and protect these employees against burnout.

AIM

The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of an online training tool on individual and organizational resilience, mindfulness and quality of care.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was used, consisting of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, the Benchmark Resilience Tool, and questions pertaining to quality, safety, and burnout (baseline = 68 participants between July 2022 - October 2022, follow-up = 13 participants between November 2022 - February 2023). Descriptive statistics and a paired-sampled t-test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Few participants reported completing any of the exercises. The baseline group had significantly higher mean resilience (p = 0.018) and mindfulness scores (p = < 0.001), mean decrease in scores was 7.46 for resilience and 1.7 for mindfulness. In conclusion, both individual and organizational resilience are perceived as low among radiological personnel in Norway. However, it does not seem to affect quality and safety.

Implementation of a risk-stratified, guideline-based clinical pathway of care to improve health outcomes following whiplash injury (Whiplash ImPaCT): a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Current pathways of care for whiplash follow a "stepped care model," result in modest treatment outcomes and fail to offer efficient management solutions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a risk-stratified clinical pathway of care (CPC) compared with usual care (UC) in people with acute whiplash. We conducted a multicentre, 2-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled trial in primary care in Australia. Participants with acute whiplash (n = 216) were stratified for risk of a poor outcome (low vs medium/high risk) and randomised using concealed allocation to either the CPC or UC. In the CPC group, low-risk participants received guideline-based advice and exercise supported by an online resource, and medium-risk/high-risk participants were referred to a whiplash specialist who assessed modifiable risk factors and then determined further care. The UC group received care from their primary healthcare provider who had no knowledge of risk status. Primary outcomes were neck disability index (NDI) and Global Rating of Change (GRC) at 3 months. Analysis blinded to group used intention-to-treat and linear mixed models. There was no difference between the groups for the NDI (mean difference [MD] [95% confidence interval (CI)] -2.34 [-7.44 to 2.76]) or GRC (MD 95% CI 0.08 [-0.55 to 0.70]) at 3 months. Baseline risk category did not modify the effect of treatment. No adverse events were reported. Risk-stratified care for acute whiplash did not improve patient outcomes, and implementation of this CPC in its current form is not recommended.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To identify and quantify the barriers and facilitators to the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) by primary care professionals (PCPs).

METHODS

A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using a sequential synthesis design. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library were searched in July 2021. Studies that evaluated CDSSs providing recommendations to PCPs and intended for use during a consultation were included. We excluded CDSSs used only by patients, described as concepts or prototypes, used with simulated cases, and decision supports not considered as CDSSs. A framework synthesis was performed according to the HOT-fit framework (Human, Organizational, Technology, Net Benefits), then a quantitative synthesis evaluated the impact of the HOT-fit categories on CDSS use.

RESULTS

A total of 48 studies evaluating 45 CDSSs were included, and 186 main barriers or facilitators were identified. Qualitatively, barriers and facilitators were classified as human (eg, perceived usefulness), organizational (eg, disruption of usual workflow), and technological (eg, CDSS user-friendliness), with explanatory elements. The greatest barrier to using CDSSs was an increased workload. Quantitatively, the human and organizational factors had negative impacts on CDSS use, whereas the technological factor had a neutral impact and the net benefits dimension a positive impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasize the need for CDSS developers to better address human and organizational issues, in addition to technological challenges. We inferred core CDSS features covering these 3 factors, expected to improve their usability in primary care.

Impact of an interactive workshop on specialist physiotherapists' practice when implementing a new clinical care pathway for people with musculoskeletal conditions

BACKGROUND

A new pathway of care proposes early comprehensive assessment and targeted management by specialist musculoskeletal clinicians for people with musculoskeletal conditions at risk of poor outcomes. Adoption of this care pathway is likely to be influenced by beliefs and behaviours of specialist musculoskeletal clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an interactive educational workshop about the proposed clinical care pathway on knowledge, beliefs and practice of specialist musculoskeletal physiotherapists.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

METHODS

Fifty specialist musculoskeletal physiotherapists participated in a 2-day interactive educational workshop. Knowledge, beliefs and clinical practice behaviours were assessed immediately before the workshop and 3 months' later using surveys.

RESULTS

Knowledge about key guideline messages improved and were maintained at follow-up. Most participants agreed to provide more targeted interventions to patients at risk of poor outcome (92%, 95% CI: 81%-98%) and utilise prognostic screening tools (84%, 95% CI: 71 to 93). However, only 56% (95% CI: 39%-68%) of participants believed implementing a shared care pathway was easy. At follow-up, participants' beliefs were more aligned with the proposed care pathway (i.e., shared care: 83%, 95% CI: 68%-93%). With respect to clinical practice, there were 16% more referrals back to the primary physiotherapist at 3 months than before the workshop. Barriers (practitioner, patient and system factors) to implementation of the care pathway were discussed.

CONCLUSION

An interactive educational workshop influenced specialist musculoskeletal physiotherapists' knowledge, beliefs and clinical practice, but barriers need to be overcome to facilitate widespread implementation.

Implementation of a novel stratified PAthway of CarE for common musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in primary care: protocol for a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial (the PACE MSK trial)

Introduction

Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions constitute the highest burden of disease globally, with healthcare services often utilised inappropriately and overburdened. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel clinical PAthway of CarE programme (PACE programme), where care is provided based on people’s risk of poor outcome.

Methods and analysis

Multicentre randomised controlled trial. 716 people with MSK conditions (low back pain, neck pain or knee osteoarthritis) will be recruited in primary care. They will be stratified for risk of a poor outcome (low risk/high risk) using the Short Form Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (SF-ÖMSPQ) then randomised to usual care (n=358) or the PACE programme (n=358). Participants at low risk in the PACE programme will receive up to 3 sessions of guideline based care from their primary healthcare professional (HCP) supported by a custom designed website (mypainhub.com). Those at high risk will be referred to an allied health MSK specialist who will conduct a comprehensive patient-centred assessment then liaise with the primary HCP to determine further care. Primary outcome (SF 12-item PCS) and secondary outcomes (eg, pain self-efficacy, psychological health) will be collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be measured as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Health economic analysis will include direct and indirect costs. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Primary and secondary outcomes will be analysed independently, using generalised linear models. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies embedded within the trial will evaluate patient experience, health professional practice and interprofessional collaboration.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been received from the following Human Research Ethics Committees: The University of Sydney (2018/926), The University of Queensland (2019000700/2018/926), University of Melbourne (1954239), Curtin University (HRE2019-0263) and Northern Sydney Local Health District (2019/ETH03632). Dissemination of findings will occur via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and social media.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12619000871145.

Health care personnel's perception of guideline implementation for musculoskeletal imaging: a process evaluation

Background

The increasing complexity and variability in radiology have significantly fueled the need for guidelines. There are many methods for disseminating and implementing guidelines however; and obtaining lasting changes has been difficult. Implementation outcome is usually measured in a decrease in unwarranted examinations, and qualitative data are rarely used. This study’s aim was to evaluate a guideline implementation process and identify factors influencing implementation outcome using qualitative data.

Methods

Seven general practitioners and five radiological personnel from a Norwegian county participated in four focus group interviews in 2019. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, where some categories were predetermined, while most were drawn from the data.

Results

Four main categories were developed from the data material. 1) Successful/unsuccessful parts of the implementation, 2) perceived changes/lack of changes after the implementation, 3) environment-related factors that affected guideline use, and 4) User related factors that affect guideline use.

Conclusions

Our findings show that clinical guideline implementation is difficult, despite the implementation strategy being tailored to the target groups. Several environment- and user-related factors contributed to the lack of changes experienced in practice for both general practitioners and radiological personnel.

Concussion in Combination With Whiplash-Associated Disorder May Be Missed in Primary Care: Key Recommendations for Assessment and Management

Whiplash and concussion may have similar presenting symptoms, biomechanical mechanisms, and neurophysiological sequelae, but neither enjoys a gold standard diagnostic test. Guidelines for whiplash and concussion are developed and implemented separately. This disparate process may contribute to misdiagnosis, delay appropriate primary care management, and impair patient outcomes. In our clinical commentary, we present 3 cases where signs and symptoms consistent with whiplash were identified in primary care. Symptoms in all cases included neck pain, headache, dizziness, and concentration deficits, raising suspicion of coexisting postconcussion syndrome. All cases were referred for specialist physical therapy. Characteristics consistent with poor recovery in both whiplash and postconcussion syndrome were confirmed, and multidisciplinary management, drawing from both whiplash and concussion guidelines, was implemented. All patients reported improvement in activities of daily living after tailored management addressing both neck and head injury-related factors, suggesting that these conditions were not mutually exclusive. Self-reported outcomes included reductions in neck disability and postconcussion symptoms of between 20% and 40%. It may be appropriate for whiplash and concussion guidelines to be amalgamated, enhanced, and mutually recognized on a patient-by-patient basis. Primary health care professionals might consider minimum screening to identify postconcussion syndrome in patients following motor vehicle collision by administering questionnaires and assessing cranial nerve function, balance, and cognition. Management should then incorporate principles from both whiplash and concussion guidelines and harmonize with available imaging guidelines for suspected spine and head trauma. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(11):819-828. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8946.