Effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guideline adherence among general practitioners

Arnela Suman, Frederieke G. Schaafsma, Peter M. Van De Ven, Pauline Slottje, Rachelle Buchbinder, Maurits W. Van Tulder, Johannes R. Anema

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: To improve patient care, and to reduce unnecessary referrals for diagnostic imaging and medical specialist care for low back pain, an evidence-based guideline for low back pain was developed in the Netherlands in 2010. The current study evaluated the effect of a multifaceted implementation strategy on guideline adherence among Dutch general practitioners. Methods: The implementation strategy included a multidisciplinary training, provision of educational material and an interactive website for healthcare professionals, supported by a multimedia eHealth intervention for patients with low back pain. Adherence was measured using performance indicators based on 3 months data extracted from the contacts with patients with low back pain recorded in the electronic medical records of participating general practitioners. Performance indicators were compared between two groups: a usual care group and an implementation group. Performance indicators were referrals to consultations with medical specialists, to diagnostic imaging, and to psychosocial and/or occupational physician consultations, and inquiries about psychosocial and occupational risk factors. Results: The electronic medical records of 5130 patient contacts for LBP were analysed; 2453 patient contacts in the usual care group and 2677 patient contacts in the implementation group. Overall, rates of referral and of recorded inquiries regarding psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low in both groups over time. The only statistically significant difference found was a reduction in the number of referrals to neurologists in the implementation group (from 100 (7%) to 50 (4%)) compared to the usual care group (from 48 (4%) to 50 (4%), (p < 0.01)). There were no other between-group differences in referrals. Conclusion: In the short term, the strategy did not result in improved guideline adherence among general practitioners, and it is not recommended for widespread use. However, baseline referral rates in participating practices were already low, possibly leaving only little room for improvement. Inquiries for psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low and this leaves room for improvement. Trial registration: This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4329. Registration date: December 20th, 2013.

Original languageEnglish
Article number3166
Number of pages9
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 May 2018

Keywords

  • Guidelines
  • Health plan implementation
  • Low back pain
  • Primary health care
  • Referral and consultation

Cite this

Suman, Arnela ; Schaafsma, Frederieke G. ; Van De Ven, Peter M. ; Slottje, Pauline ; Buchbinder, Rachelle ; Van Tulder, Maurits W. ; Anema, Johannes R. / Effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guideline adherence among general practitioners. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2018 ; Vol. 18, No. 1.
@article{23e50bf1db704bdd9994eff1e56a83d5,
title = "Effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guideline adherence among general practitioners",
abstract = "Background: To improve patient care, and to reduce unnecessary referrals for diagnostic imaging and medical specialist care for low back pain, an evidence-based guideline for low back pain was developed in the Netherlands in 2010. The current study evaluated the effect of a multifaceted implementation strategy on guideline adherence among Dutch general practitioners. Methods: The implementation strategy included a multidisciplinary training, provision of educational material and an interactive website for healthcare professionals, supported by a multimedia eHealth intervention for patients with low back pain. Adherence was measured using performance indicators based on 3 months data extracted from the contacts with patients with low back pain recorded in the electronic medical records of participating general practitioners. Performance indicators were compared between two groups: a usual care group and an implementation group. Performance indicators were referrals to consultations with medical specialists, to diagnostic imaging, and to psychosocial and/or occupational physician consultations, and inquiries about psychosocial and occupational risk factors. Results: The electronic medical records of 5130 patient contacts for LBP were analysed; 2453 patient contacts in the usual care group and 2677 patient contacts in the implementation group. Overall, rates of referral and of recorded inquiries regarding psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low in both groups over time. The only statistically significant difference found was a reduction in the number of referrals to neurologists in the implementation group (from 100 (7{\%}) to 50 (4{\%})) compared to the usual care group (from 48 (4{\%}) to 50 (4{\%}), (p < 0.01)). There were no other between-group differences in referrals. Conclusion: In the short term, the strategy did not result in improved guideline adherence among general practitioners, and it is not recommended for widespread use. However, baseline referral rates in participating practices were already low, possibly leaving only little room for improvement. Inquiries for psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low and this leaves room for improvement. Trial registration: This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4329. Registration date: December 20th, 2013.",
keywords = "Guidelines, Health plan implementation, Low back pain, Primary health care, Referral and consultation",
author = "Arnela Suman and Schaafsma, {Frederieke G.} and {Van De Ven}, {Peter M.} and Pauline Slottje and Rachelle Buchbinder and {Van Tulder}, {Maurits W.} and Anema, {Johannes R.}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1186/s12913-018-3166-y",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guideline adherence among general practitioners. / Suman, Arnela; Schaafsma, Frederieke G.; Van De Ven, Peter M.; Slottje, Pauline; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Van Tulder, Maurits W.; Anema, Johannes R.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 3166, 11.05.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guideline adherence among general practitioners

AU - Suman, Arnela

AU - Schaafsma, Frederieke G.

AU - Van De Ven, Peter M.

AU - Slottje, Pauline

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

AU - Van Tulder, Maurits W.

AU - Anema, Johannes R.

PY - 2018/5/11

Y1 - 2018/5/11

N2 - Background: To improve patient care, and to reduce unnecessary referrals for diagnostic imaging and medical specialist care for low back pain, an evidence-based guideline for low back pain was developed in the Netherlands in 2010. The current study evaluated the effect of a multifaceted implementation strategy on guideline adherence among Dutch general practitioners. Methods: The implementation strategy included a multidisciplinary training, provision of educational material and an interactive website for healthcare professionals, supported by a multimedia eHealth intervention for patients with low back pain. Adherence was measured using performance indicators based on 3 months data extracted from the contacts with patients with low back pain recorded in the electronic medical records of participating general practitioners. Performance indicators were compared between two groups: a usual care group and an implementation group. Performance indicators were referrals to consultations with medical specialists, to diagnostic imaging, and to psychosocial and/or occupational physician consultations, and inquiries about psychosocial and occupational risk factors. Results: The electronic medical records of 5130 patient contacts for LBP were analysed; 2453 patient contacts in the usual care group and 2677 patient contacts in the implementation group. Overall, rates of referral and of recorded inquiries regarding psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low in both groups over time. The only statistically significant difference found was a reduction in the number of referrals to neurologists in the implementation group (from 100 (7%) to 50 (4%)) compared to the usual care group (from 48 (4%) to 50 (4%), (p < 0.01)). There were no other between-group differences in referrals. Conclusion: In the short term, the strategy did not result in improved guideline adherence among general practitioners, and it is not recommended for widespread use. However, baseline referral rates in participating practices were already low, possibly leaving only little room for improvement. Inquiries for psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low and this leaves room for improvement. Trial registration: This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4329. Registration date: December 20th, 2013.

AB - Background: To improve patient care, and to reduce unnecessary referrals for diagnostic imaging and medical specialist care for low back pain, an evidence-based guideline for low back pain was developed in the Netherlands in 2010. The current study evaluated the effect of a multifaceted implementation strategy on guideline adherence among Dutch general practitioners. Methods: The implementation strategy included a multidisciplinary training, provision of educational material and an interactive website for healthcare professionals, supported by a multimedia eHealth intervention for patients with low back pain. Adherence was measured using performance indicators based on 3 months data extracted from the contacts with patients with low back pain recorded in the electronic medical records of participating general practitioners. Performance indicators were compared between two groups: a usual care group and an implementation group. Performance indicators were referrals to consultations with medical specialists, to diagnostic imaging, and to psychosocial and/or occupational physician consultations, and inquiries about psychosocial and occupational risk factors. Results: The electronic medical records of 5130 patient contacts for LBP were analysed; 2453 patient contacts in the usual care group and 2677 patient contacts in the implementation group. Overall, rates of referral and of recorded inquiries regarding psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low in both groups over time. The only statistically significant difference found was a reduction in the number of referrals to neurologists in the implementation group (from 100 (7%) to 50 (4%)) compared to the usual care group (from 48 (4%) to 50 (4%), (p < 0.01)). There were no other between-group differences in referrals. Conclusion: In the short term, the strategy did not result in improved guideline adherence among general practitioners, and it is not recommended for widespread use. However, baseline referral rates in participating practices were already low, possibly leaving only little room for improvement. Inquiries for psychosocial and occupational risk factors remained low and this leaves room for improvement. Trial registration: This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4329. Registration date: December 20th, 2013.

KW - Guidelines

KW - Health plan implementation

KW - Low back pain

KW - Primary health care

KW - Referral and consultation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046956897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-018-3166-y

DO - 10.1186/s12913-018-3166-y

M3 - Review Article

VL - 18

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 3166

ER -