Paramedics are often first providers of care to patients experiencing non-traumatic low back pain (LBP), though their perspectives and experiences with managing these cases remain unclear.

This study explored paramedic views of the management of non-traumatic LBP including their role and experience with LBP management, barriers to referral and awareness of ambulance service guidelines.

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted between January and April 2023.

New South Wales Ambulance service.

A purposive sample of 30 paramedics of different specialities employed by New South Wales Ambulance were recruited.

Paramedic accounts demonstrated the complexity, challenge, frustration and reward associated with managing non-traumatic LBP. Paramedics perceived that their primary role focused on the assessment of LBP, and that calls to ambulance services were often driven by misconceptions surrounding the management of LBP, and a person’s pain severity. Access to health services, patient factors, defensive medicine, paramedic training and education and knowledge of guidelines influenced paramedic management of LBP.

Paramedics often provide care to non-traumatic LBP cases yet depending on the type of paramedic speciality find these cases to be frustrating, challenging or rewarding to manage due to barriers to referral including access to health services, location, patient factors and uncertainty relating to litigation. Future research should explore patient perspectives towards ambulance service use for the management of their LBP.

Management guidelines for low back pain (LBP) recommend exclusion of serious pathology, followed by simple analgesics, superficial heat therapy, early mobilisation and patient education. An audit in a large metropolitan hospital emergency department (ED) revealed high rates of non-recommended medication prescription for LBP (65% of patients prescribed opioids, 17% prescribed benzodiazepines), high inpatient admission rates (20% of ED LBP patients), delayed patient mobilisation (on average 6 hours) and inadequate patient education (48% of patients). This study aims to improve medication prescription for LBP in this ED by implementing an intervention shown previously to improve guideline-based management of LBP in other Australian EDs.

A controlled interrupted time series study will evaluate the intervention in the ED before (24 weeks; 20 March 2023–3 September 2023) and after (24 weeks; 27 November 2024–12 May 2024) implementation (12 weeks; 4 September 2023–26 November 2023), additionally comparing findings with another ED in the same health service. The multicomponent implementation strategy uses a formalised clinical flow chart to support clinical decision-making and aims to change clinician behaviour, through clinician education, provision of alternative treatments, educational resources, audit and feedback, supported by implementation champions. The primary outcome is the percentage of LBP patients prescribed non-recommended medications (opioids, benzodiazepines and/or gabapentinoids), assessed via routinely collected ED data. Anticipated sample size is 2000 patients (n=1000 intervention, n=1000 control) based on average monthly admissions of LBP presentations in the EDs. Secondary outcomes include inpatient admission rate, time to mobilisation, provision of patient education, imaging requests, representation to the ED within 6 months and healthcare costs. In nested qualitative research, we will study ED clinicians’ perceptions of the implementation and identify how benefits can be sustained over time.

This study received ethical approval from the Metro North Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2022/MNHA/87995). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences and educational workshops.

ACTRN12622001536752.

Health and care resources are under increasing pressure, partly due to the ageing population. Physical activity supports healthy ageing, but motivating exercise is challenging. We aimed to explore staff perceptions towards a virtual reality (VR) omnidirectional treadmill (MOTUS), aimed at increasing physical activity for older adult care home residents.

Interactive workshops and qualitative evaluation.

Eight interactive workshops were held at six care homes and two university sites across Cornwall, England, from September to November 2021.

Forty-four staff participated, including care home, supported living, clinical care and compliance managers, carers, activity coordinators, occupational therapists and physiotherapists.

Participants tried the VR treadmill system, followed by focus groups exploring device design, potential usefulness or barriers for care home residents. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. We subsequently conducted a follow-up interview with the technology developer (September 2022) to explore the feedback impact.

The analysis produced seven key themes: anticipated benefits, acceptability, concerns of use, concerns of negative effects, suitability/unsuitability, improvements and current design. Participants were generally positive towards VR to motivate care home residents’ physical activity and noted several potential benefits (increased exercise, stimulation, social interaction and rehabilitation). Despite the reported potential, staff had safety concerns for frail older residents due to their standing position. Participants suggested design improvements to enhance safety, usability and accessibility. Feedback to the designers resulted in the development of a new seated VR treadmill to address concerns about falls while maintaining motivation to exercise. The follow-up developer interview identified significant value in academia–industry collaboration.

The use of VR-motivated exercise holds the potential to increase exercise, encourage reminiscence and promote meaningful activity for care home residents. Staff concerns resulted in a redesigned seated treadmill for those too frail to use the standing version. This novel study demonstrates the importance of stakeholder feedback in product design.