Joshua J Fenton1,2, Anthony Jerant3,4, Peter Franks3,4, Melissa Gosdin4, Ilona Fridman5, Camille Cipri4, Gary Weinberg4, Andrew Hudnut6, Daniel J Tancredi4,7. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, USA. jjfenton@ucdavis.edu. 2. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Davis, USA. jjfenton@ucdavis.edu. 3. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, USA. 4. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Davis, USA. 5. Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Sutter Institute for Medical Research, Sacramento, CA, USA. 7. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, Davis, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Patients with acute low back pain frequently request diagnostic imaging, and clinicians feel pressure to acquiesce to such requests to sustain patient trust and satisfaction. Spinal imaging in patients with acute low back pain poses risks from diagnostic evaluation of false-positive findings, patient labeling and anxiety, and unnecessary treatment (including spinal surgery). Watchful waiting advice has been an effective strategy to reduce some low-value treatments, and some evidence suggests a watchful waiting approach would be acceptable to many patients requesting diagnostic tests. METHODS: We will use key informant interviews of clinicians and focus groups with primary care patients to refine a theory-informed standardized patient-based intervention designed to teach clinicians how to advise watchful waiting when patients request low-value spinal imaging for low back pain. We will test the effectiveness of the intervention in a randomized clinical trial. We will recruit 8-10 primary care and urgent care clinics (~ 55 clinicians) in Sacramento, CA; clinicians will be randomized 1:1 to intervention and control groups. Over a 3- to 6-month period, clinicians in the intervention group will receive 3 visits with standardized patient instructors (SPIs) portraying patients with acute back pain; SPIs will instruct clinicians in a three-step model emphasizing establishing trust, empathic communication, and negotiation of a watchful waiting approach. Control physicians will receive no intervention. The primary outcome is the post-intervention rate of spinal imaging among actual patients with acute back pain seen by the clinicians adjusted for rate of imaging during a baseline period. Secondary outcomes are use of targeted communication techniques during a follow-up visit with an SP, clinician self-reported use of watchful waiting with actual low back pain patients, post-intervention rates of diagnostic imaging for other musculoskeletal pain syndromes (to test for generalization of intervention effects beyond back pain), and patient trust and satisfaction with physicians. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether standardized patient instructors can help clinicians develop skill in negotiating a watchful waiting approach with patients with acute low back pain, thereby reducing rates of low-value spinal imaging. The trial will also examine the possibility that intervention effects generalize to other diagnostic tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255199 . Registered on January 20, 2020.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patients with acute low back pain frequently request diagnostic imaging, and clinicians feel pressure to acquiesce to such requests to sustain patient trust and satisfaction. Spinal imaging in patients with acute low back pain poses risks from diagnostic evaluation of false-positive findings, patient labeling and anxiety, and unnecessary treatment (including spinal surgery). Watchful waiting advice has been an effective strategy to reduce some low-value treatments, and some evidence suggests a watchful waiting approach would be acceptable to many patients requesting diagnostic tests. METHODS: We will use key informant interviews of clinicians and focus groups with primary care patients to refine a theory-informed standardized patient-based intervention designed to teach clinicians how to advise watchful waiting when patients request low-value spinal imaging for low back pain. We will test the effectiveness of the intervention in a randomized clinical trial. We will recruit 8-10 primary care and urgent care clinics (~ 55 clinicians) in Sacramento, CA; clinicians will be randomized 1:1 to intervention and control groups. Over a 3- to 6-month period, clinicians in the intervention group will receive 3 visits with standardized patient instructors (SPIs) portraying patients with acute back pain; SPIs will instruct clinicians in a three-step model emphasizing establishing trust, empathic communication, and negotiation of a watchful waiting approach. Control physicians will receive no intervention. The primary outcome is the post-intervention rate of spinal imaging among actual patients with acute back pain seen by the clinicians adjusted for rate of imaging during a baseline period. Secondary outcomes are use of targeted communication techniques during a follow-up visit with an SP, clinician self-reported use of watchful waiting with actual low back painpatients, post-intervention rates of diagnostic imaging for other musculoskeletal pain syndromes (to test for generalization of intervention effects beyond back pain), and patient trust and satisfaction with physicians. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether standardized patient instructors can help clinicians develop skill in negotiating a watchful waiting approach with patients with acute low back pain, thereby reducing rates of low-value spinal imaging. The trial will also examine the possibility that intervention effects generalize to other diagnostic tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255199 . Registered on January 20, 2020.
Entities:
Keywords:
Back pain; Computed tomography; Diagnostic testing; Magnetic resonance imaging; Overuse; Patient-doctor communication; Primary care; Randomized controlled trial; X-rays/roentgenography
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Richard L Kravitz; Anthony Jerant; Debora A Paterniti; Heejung Bang; Donna Williams; Ronald M Epstein; Peter Franks Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Alan Rosenberg; Abiy Agiro; Marc Gottlieb; John Barron; Peter Brady; Ying Liu; Cindy Li; Andrea DeVries Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ilona Fridman; Paul A Glare; Stacy M Stabler; Andrew S Epstein; Alison Wiesenthal; Thomas W Leblanc; E Tory Higgins Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Ronald M Epstein; Paul R Duberstein; Joshua J Fenton; Kevin Fiscella; Michael Hoerger; Daniel J Tancredi; Guibo Xing; Robert Gramling; Supriya Mohile; Peter Franks; Paul Kaesberg; Sandy Plumb; Camille S Cipri; Richard L Street; Cleveland G Shields; Anthony L Back; Phyllis Butow; Adam Walczak; Martin Tattersall; Alison Venuti; Peter Sullivan; Mark Robinson; Beth Hoh; Linda Lewis; Richard L Kravitz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 31.777