4.5 Article

Bridging the gap between science and practice in managing low back pain - A comprehensive spine care system in a health maintenance organization setting

期刊

SPINE
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 738-740

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200003150-00015

关键词

low back pain; managed care; primary care; spine clinic; spine surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. A case study of spine care system changes in a multispecialty group practice health maintenance organization setting. Objectives. To reduce unnecessary use of imaging and specialty referrals for low back pain in the primary care setting and to reduce spine surgery rates. Summary of Background Data. Results of previous research indicate that diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for low back pain are frequently used even though there is no scientific evidence of their efficacy. This indicates that low back pain care can be made more efficient by reducing the use of unproven diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for low back pain. Methods. Rates of diagnostic imaging and specialty referral rates for low back pain were monitored for 9 months before and 9 months after primary care physician education regarding appropriate low back pain evaluation and management. Spine surgery rates were also monitored before and after implementation of a nonsurgical spine clinic. Results. Large reductions in rates of imaging and specialty referrals for low back pain were achieved after primary care physician education. After spine clinic implementation, visits to spine surgeons dropped by approximately 50%, and spine surgery rates per thousand health plan members were reduced by 35%. Conclusions. Primary care physician education regarding low back pain management can reduce use of imaging and specialty referrals without reductions in patient satisfaction, and implementation of a nonsurgical spine clinic for complex or chronic spine patients can significantly reduce spine surgery consultations and spine surgery rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据