[Quality indicators for managing patients with low back pain].
BACKGROUND
Low back pain (LBP) is an epidemiologically and economically relevant health care problem appropriate for quality assurance approaches. Therefore an expert panel (AQUIK) of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians has proposed three quality indicators (QI) for monitoring the quality of ambulatory care for LBP. The aim of this article is to present and evaluate the proposed QIs.


METHODS
The three proposed QIs relating to red flags, imaging and sick leave certificates were evaluated with regard to the underpinning evidence, epidemiology and feasibility. Guidelines and original research as well results from surveys and observational studies evaluating adherence to LBP guidelines were used for assessment.


RESULTS
The expert panel concluded that only the recording of red flags is a relevant and feasible QI. Despite a two-stage expert method the epidemiology of LBP, feasibility and existing routine health care data were not sufficiently taken into account. The author's conclusion differs in two instances. The red flag concept is not sufficiently clinically validated and recordable to be used as a QI. Otherwise imaging is considered a suitable QI given the observed overuse and the availability of billing data.


CONCLUSIONS
Deriving valid and pragmatic QI from LBP guidelines for evaluating care for LBP is difficult. The core messages of guidelines are only recommendations with limited precision and transferability to individual patients. For pragmatic reasons definition of an upper or lower proportion of patients receiving a given health care service is recommended instead of tedious individual evaluation. Reasonable estimates can be based on data from research on health care services. Because of this uncertainty QIs should be evaluated before they are used as a steering instrument.
Chenot
J F
JF
Abteilung Allgemeinmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, Göttingen, Deutschland. jchenot@gwdg.de
D000041:Absenteeism; D000553:Ambulatory Care / Q000592:standards; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005858:Germany; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000592:standards; D019984:Quality Indicators, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D012050:Rehabilitation, Vocational / Q000592:standards; D018582:Sick Leave
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Aug 1;22(15):1747-54
9259786
J Gen Intern Med. 1992 Sep-Oct;7(5):486-91
1403203
Eur J Pain. 2008 Apr;12(3):275-83
17681811
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008 Mar;105(10):181-7
19629222
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Apr 15;19(8):888-93
8009345
Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Aug;50(457):640-4
11042916
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Feb;61(2):110-118
18177783
Arthritis Rheum. 1984 Apr;27(4):361-8
6231933
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 May 17;6:57
16707005
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(30):1-69
11701101
Int J Epidemiol. 2008 Feb;37(1):69-74
18024977
Eur Spine J. 2007 Oct;16(10):1673-9
17566791
Muscle Nerve. 2007 Apr;35(4):529-31
17143890
Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Oct;60(10):3072-80
19790051
JAMA. 1997 Jun 11;277(22):1782-6
9178791
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1993 Apr;22(5):319-34
8511596
Lancet. 2009 Feb 7;373(9662):463-72
19200918
BMJ. 2001 Feb 17;322(7283):400-5
11179160
Fam Pract. 2006 Dec;23(6):682-6
17046973
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Dec 1;26(23):2615-22
11725244