A systematic review of clinical pathways for lower back pain and introduction of the Saskatchewan Spine Pathway.
Review
Overview
abstract
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.
