STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of spine care pathways and case study of the Saskatchewan Spine Pathway (SSP). OBJECTIVE: (1) What are the differences between clinical pathways and clinical guidelines? (2) Are there examples of clinical pathways in the management of lower back pain (LBP)? Is there evidence that they are successful? (3) What is the SSP, and what are its key features? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for LBP produces superior outcomes and may improve efficiency by reducing unnecessary imaging, ineffective treatments, and inappropriate surgical referrals. A clinical pathway is an attempt to bridge the "translation gap" between guidelines and clinical practice. METHODS: A qualitative review was performed for question 1. For question 2, a systematic review of the English language literature was performed for articles published through March 31, 2011. A case study is provided for question 3. RESULTS: (1) Evidence for clinical pathways is mainly derived from guidelines, but pathways are distinguished by several features including the coordination of multidisciplinary care, facilitation of communication among care providers, resources for ongoing quality improvements, and a central focus on the patient experience. (2) Five articles describing four clinical pathways met the a priori criteria, but none tested comparative effectiveness. (3) The SSP is unique in that it is (a) inclusive for all types of LBP, (b) based on a classification system, (c) patient-focused mostly at primary care rather than in specialized clinics, (d) implemented in the health care system of a geopolitically defined region, and (e) includes all of the defining features of modern care pathways. CONCLUSION: Several clinical pathways for LBP have been described, but effectiveness has not been tested. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinical pathways for LBP need to be further developed and investigated as a means to facilitate guidelines-concordant practice and improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Insufficient. RECOMMENDATION: Weak.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of spine care pathways and case study of the Saskatchewan Spine Pathway (SSP). OBJECTIVE: (1) What are the differences between clinical pathways and clinical guidelines? (2) Are there examples of clinical pathways in the management of lower back pain (LBP)? Is there evidence that they are successful? (3) What is the SSP, and what are its key features? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for LBP produces superior outcomes and may improve efficiency by reducing unnecessary imaging, ineffective treatments, and inappropriate surgical referrals. A clinical pathway is an attempt to bridge the "translation gap" between guidelines and clinical practice. METHODS: A qualitative review was performed for question 1. For question 2, a systematic review of the English language literature was performed for articles published through March 31, 2011. A case study is provided for question 3. RESULTS: (1) Evidence for clinical pathways is mainly derived from guidelines, but pathways are distinguished by several features including the coordination of multidisciplinary care, facilitation of communication among care providers, resources for ongoing quality improvements, and a central focus on the patient experience. (2) Five articles describing four clinical pathways met the a priori criteria, but none tested comparative effectiveness. (3) The SSP is unique in that it is (a) inclusive for all types of LBP, (b) based on a classification system, (c) patient-focused mostly at primary care rather than in specialized clinics, (d) implemented in the health care system of a geopolitically defined region, and (e) includes all of the defining features of modern care pathways. CONCLUSION: Several clinical pathways for LBP have been described, but effectiveness has not been tested. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinical pathways for LBP need to be further developed and investigated as a means to facilitate guidelines-concordant practice and improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Insufficient. RECOMMENDATION: Weak.
Authors: Thomas M Kosloff; David Elton; Stephanie A Shulman; Janice L Clarke; Alexis Skoufalos; Amanda Solis Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Mohammad Zarrabian; Andrew Bidos; Caroline Fanti; Barry Young; Brian Drew; David Puskas; Raja Rampersaud Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Jason W Busse; John J Riva; Raja Rampersaud; Michael J Goytan; Thomas E Feasby; Martin Reed; John J You Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Scott Haldeman; Claire D Johnson; Roger Chou; Margareta Nordin; Pierre Côté; Eric L Hurwitz; Bart N Green; Christine Cedraschi; Emre Acaroğlu; Deborah Kopansky-Giles; Arthur Ameis; Afua Adjei-Kwayisi; Selim Ayhan; Fiona Blyth; David Borenstein; O'Dane Brady; Peter Brooks; Connie Camilleri; Juan M Castellote; Michael B Clay; Fereydoun Davatchi; Robert Dunn; Christine Goertz; Erin A Griffith; Maria Hondras; Edward J Kane; Nadège Lemeunier; John Mayer; Tiro Mmopelwa; Michael Modic; Jean Moss; Rajani Mullerpatan; Elijah Muteti; Lillian Mwaniki; Madeleine Ngandeu-Singwe; Geoff Outerbridge; Kristi Randhawa; Heather Shearer; Erkin Sönmez; Carlos Torres; Paola Torres; Leslie Verville; Adriaan Vlok; William Watters; Chung Chek Wong; Hainan Yu Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Emma K Ho; Manuela L Ferreira; Adrian Bauman; Paul W Hodges; Christopher G Maher; Milena Simic; Rachael L Morton; Chris Lonsdale; Qiang Li; Melissa T Baysari; Anita B Amorim; Dragana Ceprnja; Ornella Clavisi; Mark Halliday; Matthew Jennings; Alice Kongsted; Katherine Maka; Kate Reid; Tahlia Reynolds; Paulo H Ferreira Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Diego Miñambres-Martín; Patricia Martín-Casas; Ibai López-de-Uralde-Villanueva; César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas; Juan Antonio Valera-Calero; Gustavo Plaza-Manzano Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 3.390