Patient Information Leaflets for Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Missed Opportunity

A quality analysis of internet patient information for immediate, sequential, bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS)

BACKGROUND

Due to surgical capacity pressures, induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, immediate bilateral simultaneous cataract surgery (ISBCS) has been utilised increasingly throughout the U.K. This surgical method comes with both novel risks and benefits, so the consent process must be modified. Prior randomised trials have demonstrated that appropriate online information may act as an adjunct to the surgical consent process. This study aims to assess the quality of available internet information for ISBCS.

METHODS

Terms searched were 'bilateral cataract surgery patient information', 'double cataract surgery patient information', and 'immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery patient information'. The Google search engine was used. The DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmarks were used to assess healthcare information for quality. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG) Level and Gunning Fog Score (GFS) were used to assess for readability. HONcode certification was used to assess transparency and quality.

RESULTS

Forty-six websites were found. The average DISCERN score was 41.3, meaning a "fair" quality which is below what many patients would anticipate discovering when trying to find information. National Healthcare Service websites had higher DISCERN scores than private healthcare-provided websites (p < 0.01; 95% CI: 1.13-1.88.).

CONCLUSIONS

Fair patient information for ISBCS has been demonstrated. Specific internet information sources with appropriate information should be further developed, with cited sources, and patients signposted to them if felt appropriate.

Are healthcare providers offering the proper education for people with low back pain? Content analysis of educational materials

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent disorder and leading cause of disability worldwide. In Saudi Arabia, patients with LBP are dispensed with educational materials to supposedly facilitate their recuperation.

OBJECTIVE

Appraise the suitability of educational materials provided for people with LBP in Saudi Arabia to determine whether they meet the needs of patients, inform self-management, and are consistent with clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

A qualitative data collection method was used, and content analyses were conducted to analyse data based on manifest content. Educational items in English and Arabic were collected from relevant health providers in Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

Seventeen educational materials were sourced from: Ministry of Health hospitals (n= 10), military hospitals (n= 4), private hospitals (n= 2), and a multidisciplinary healthcare association (n= 1). Six identified sub-themes comprise: epidemiological/anatomical data about LBP (n= 6); causes/risk factors (n= 10); exercise (n= 14) and physical activity-related (n= 3) recommendations; treatment-related recommendations (n= 2); general health and lifestyle-related recommendations (n= 8); and postural and ergonomics-related recommendations (n= 13). A common theme emerged, that 'the content of educational materials hindered reassurance and self-management for people with LBP.'

CONCLUSION

The reviewed educational materials fail to adequately report information that assure patients or inform their self-management among the Saudi population with LBP. Further, reviewed items are heavily influenced by the biomedical model of pain.

Physical therapy of patients undergoing first-time lumbar discectomy: a survey of current UK practice

BACKGROUND

The type, timing, and extent of provision of rehabilitation for lumbar discectomy patients in the UK are currently unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the provision and type of rehabilitation for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy in UK neurosurgical centers.

METHOD

Physical therapists involved in treating lumbar discectomy patients in UK neurosurgery centers were invited to complete an online survey that asked about the type, timing (preop, postop), and rehabilitation content for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy.

RESULTS

Seventeen UK neurosurgery centers completed the survey. Twelve (36%) responded from the 33 centers targeted as well as an additional five private centers. All participating centers provided a rehabilitation service for lumbar discectomy patients. Rehabilitation was provided preoperatively in n = 6 (35%) centers, postoperatively as an inpatient in all centers, and postoperatively as an outpatient in n = 14 (82%) centers. Factors that influenced the decision to provide rehabilitation included both external and internal or patient-related factors. Preoperative rehabilitation focused mainly on education, whilst postoperative outpatient rehabilitation focused more on exercises. Rehabilitation consistently included mobility, functional task training, and exercise prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst all neurosurgical centers in this survey provided some form of rehabilitation for patients undergoing LD surgery, the approach remains inconsistent. Rehabilitation was delivered most frequently postoperatively, with one in three centers providing it preoperatively. Rehabilitation content also varied depending on when it was provided. Further research is needed to determine the optimum timing, contents, and target of rehabilitation for patients undergoing LD surgery.

Adopting the day surgery default in the provision of lumbar discectomy and decompressive surgery

INTRODUCTION

Provision of day case spinal procedures in the UK is below expected standards and there is a need for the creation of guidance and patient pathways to address this. Here we present a day case lumbar discectomy protocol and evaluate its impact at our institution.

METHODS

A new pathway (incorporating defined selection criteria, patient education, anaesthetic protocol and discharge prescriptions) was implemented for all suitable patients within a single surgeon's cohort. Day case rates for lumbar discectomy were compared before and after implementation. Patient feedback was collated using a patient-reported experience measure.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 23 patients selected as suitable via the pathway successfully underwent day surgery, leading to an increase in lumbar discectomy day case rates from 25% to 69% at our institution. Nearly all patients were satisfied with their experience, although a significant proportion felt provision of postoperative analgesia could be improved.

CONCLUSION

We present a day surgery pathway for lumbar discectomy that is safe and effective. This could be more widely implemented to increase day case rates.