Rehabilitation

Despite improvements in stroke prevention and management, most patients in Australia do not have access to the latest evidence-based care.

Tammy C Hoffmann PhD, BOccThy(Hons) · Richard I Lindley MB BS, MD, FRACP

CorrectionAuthorship statement omitted: In “Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in Australia: a blueprint for reform” in the 4 February 2013 issue of the Journal (Med J Aust 2013; 198: 70-71), a full statement of authorship was omitted. Julie Redfern and Clara Chow coauthored the editorial on behalf of the Executive Committee and all participants in the National Secondary Prevention of Coronary Disease Summit held in December ...

Julie Redfern* BSc, BAppSc(Physio), PhD · Clara K Chow* MB BS, PhD, FRACP

The authors explore the reasons for barriers to discharge from inpatient rehabilitation and whether these can be predicted by demographic or clinical variables.

Peter W New MB BS, MClinEpi, FAFRM(RACP) · Damien J Jolley MSc(Epidemiol), MSc, A Stat · Peter A Cameron MB BS, MD, FACEM · John H Olver MB BS, MD, FAFRM(RACP) · Johannes U Stoelwinder MB BS, MD, FRACMA

To the Editor: Weisbrot and Breen’s proposal1 for a no-fault compensation system for medical injuries should extend to all injuries in Australia, including those from motor vehicle accidents and in the workplace. It should also apply to recreational injuries that may lead to common law compensation cases. After 40 years of clinical experience in the rehabilitation of patients with severe neurological injury, I argue that such ...

David C Burke

To the Editor: Return to driving following a stroke is a complex issue. Austroads provides general guidelines1 and the National Stroke Foundation recommends a process including off-road and on-road driving tests.2 On-road assessments conducted by occupational therapists are considered the gold standard for decision making on return to driving following a stroke. Limited access is available to off-road and on-road tests across Australia, with few occupational therapists qualified to assess driving ability. Additionally, a range of off-road assessments are used for patients who have had a stroke. General practitioners, who are instrumental in managing return to driving, often base their decisions on limited information regarding functional status, particularly in terms of vision, cognition and perception. Rehabilitation physicians generally have access to more detailed information from allied health staff on which to base their decisions on driving ability. I investigated whether rehabilitation physicians’ recommendations on driving following a stroke were associated with patients’ performance on two objective tools, which could be used in general practice to assist with decision making. Participants were recruited at two rehabilitation services in Adelaide, South Australia, using the following inclusion criteria: had been diagnosed with stroke; had driven before the stroke; were aged over 18 years; and had provided written informed consent. I performed two assessments. The first was the Useful Field of View (UFOV) assessment;3 this is a computer-administered assessment that analyses processing speed, divided attention and selective attention, and takes 20 minutes to complete. The second was the Stroke Drivers Screening Assessment (SDSA);4 this consists of three tests conducted at a table — dot cancellation, compass recognition and road sign recognition — and takes 45–60 minutes to complete. Both assessments have been validated in patients who have had a stroke by comparison to on-road assessment.5 Treating rehabilitation physicians, blinded to assessment results, were contacted to obtain their recommendations on driving ability based on their clinical assessment and feedback from allied health staff at a case conference. A total of 123 participants (98 men [80%]) were recruited, and diagnoses included 53 right hemisphere strokes (43%), 63 left hemisphere strokes (51%) and 7 other strokes (6%). The participants’ mean age was 67.3 years (SD, 13.5 years), median period since injury was 42 days (range, 7–2190 days) and mean amount of driving experience was 48 years (SD, 14.9 years). Results of the SDSA (n = 120) and UFOV assessment (n = 123) were significantly associated with rehabilitation physicians’ recommendations on driving (Box). This suggests that referring patients who have had a stroke for one of these assessments would provide GPs with objective information to guide decision making on driving. With the introduction of Medicare Locals, resources that allow GPs to refer patients for standardised off-road driving tests should be considered. Rehabilitation physicians’ recommendations on driving for patients with a stroke diagnosis and results of two off-road assessments Rehabilitation physicians’ recommendations (number of patients) Not medically fit to return to driving On-road assessment required Return to driving — no on-road assessment required P SDSA results Pass (n = 61) 5 36 20 0.001* Fail (n = 59) 24 29 6 UFOV results Processing speed Pass (n = 97) 18 55 24 0.02* Fail (n = 26) 13 11 2 Divided attention Pass (n = 59) 10 33 16 0.22 Fail (n = 62) 19 33 10 Selective attention Pass (n = 82) 11 49 22 0.001* Fail (n = 39) 18 17 4 Overall risk category Pass (n = 80) 12 46 22 0.007* Fail (n = 41) 17 20 4 SDSA = Stroke Drivers Screening Assessment. UFOV = Useful Field of View. * P values of < 0.05 were considered significant and indicate an association between rehabilitation physicians’ recommendations and results of off-road assessments.

Stacey R George

Objective: To determine perceptions of barriers to admission to subacute care from acute hospital care, and barriers to subsequent discharge from subacute care.Design, participants and setting: Web-based survey of key stakeholders using Likert scales and closed questions. Prompts were emailed repeatedly to potential participants in Australia between 15 May and 24 July 2009. Participants were physicians working in inpatient rehabilitation medicine and aged care units, as well as senior hospital managers with responsibility for patient flow.Main outcome measures: Perceived admission and discharge barriers in subacute care.Results: Half of the 101 respondents reported barriers to admission to subacute hospitals as moderate, severe or extreme, and 81% reported a similar grading of severity for barriers to discharge. There was no relationship between these perceptions and whether respondents worked only in the public hospital system (barriers to access: χ2 = 0.02 [df = 1; P = 1.0]; and barriers to discharge: χ2 = 0.0 [df = 1; P = 1.0]). The most commonly reported barriers to admission were: availability of beds (61% of respondents); physical, environmental and equipment inadequacies (62% of respondents); and allied health or nursing staff issues (55% of respondents). The most commonly reported barriers to discharge included: waiting for a more appropriate setting of care (76% of respondents) and funding for home modifications, equipment or carers (55% of respondents). There was no relationship between respondents’ position and their reporting of various admission (χ2 = 6.2; df = 8; P = 0.6) or discharge barriers (χ2 = 13.8; df = 12; P = 0.3).Conclusion: There is a strong perception among key stakeholders in subacute care that there are major barriers to patient admission and discharge. Redistributing proposed funding for inpatient subacute beds to measures for overcoming these barriers is likely to improve patient flow though the whole hospital system.

Peter W New MB BS, MClinEpi, FAFRM(RACP) · Peter A Cameron MB BS, MD, FACEM · John H Olver MB BS, MD, FAFRM(RACP) · Johannes U Stoelwinder MB BS, MD, FRACMA

Objective: To determine the prevalence of major depression among people entering treatment for methamphetamine use.Design, setting and participants: The study was a cross-sectional survey involving 41 specialised drug and alcohol treatment agencies in Brisbane and Sydney. Services provided by these agencies included residential rehabilitation, detoxification and counselling. Participants were 400 people entering treatment for methamphetamine use who were recruited from participating treatment agencies between January 2006 and November 2007. Participants underwent a structured, face-to-face, 1.5-hour interview. Assessment instruments included the Composite International Diagnostic Interview and the Short Form 12.Main outcome measure: Diagnosis of a major depressive episode in the year prior to the study.Results: The prevalence of major depression in the year prior to the study was 40% (95% CI, 35%–44%). A noteworthy post-hoc observation was that a further 44% of participants met the symptom criteria for major depression but were excluded from a diagnosis because their symptoms were better accounted for by psychoactive substance use. Both major depression and these latter cases of “substance-induced depression” were associated with severe symptoms of depression, high levels of disability and suicidal ideation.Conclusion: Most people entering treatment programs for methamphetamine use have levels of depression that require clinical management. Making a diagnosis of major depression in the context of heavy methamphetamine use is problematic because of substance-induced symptoms of depression.

Rebecca McKetin BSc(Psych)(Hons), PhD · Daniel I Lubman FRANZCP, FAChAM, PhD · Nicole M Lee BSc(Hons), MAPS, PhD · Joanne E Ross BSc(Hons), PhD · Tim N Slade BSc(Psych), PhD

To the Editor: A middle-aged male night-shift driver experienced dizziness, vomiting, sudden onset of limb weakness, and then collapsed and became delirious. He had no past history of renal impairment or hypertension. At presentation in an emergency department, he was hypertensive (blood pressure, 220/140 mmHg) and hyperglycaemic. An upper motor neurone pattern of persistent dysarthria and left hemiparesis was evident. An electrocardiograph and transthoracic echocardiogram confirmed sinus rhythm and left ventricular hypertrophy. Magnetic resonance angiography of the brain showed subacute basal ganglia haemorrhage (Box) and an anterior communicating artery aneurysm. Renin levels were elevated at 124.7 mU/L (reference range, 4.5–46.0 mU/L) but renal artery stenosis was absent on ultrasound. Evaluation of an elevated initial normetadrenaline level of 1610 pmol/L (reference range, < 900 pmol/L) with a diagnostic algorithm1 suggested that phaeochromocytoma was unlikely. Hypertension, proteinuria, suboptimal renal function, inactive urine sediment and normal fasting blood glucose suggested hypertensive nephropathy. Antihypertensives were initiated to mitigate the risk of further stroke, nephropathy and cardiomyopathy. Results of an electroencephalogram were normal. Further history revealed that the patient had nicotine dependence with occasional amphetamine and cannabis exposure. Before admission, he had an estimated intake of 1–2.5 bottles of cough mixture episodically (600–1500 mg of pseudoephedrine). A pattern of ingesting excessive amounts of various brands of over-the-counter combination pseudoephedrine and codeine cough mixture developed over 20 years, and he suffered cravings when abstaining. He visited various pharmacies, provided identification, was repeatedly cautioned, but rarely consulted doctors. A Naranjo score2 of 7 indicated a probable adverse drug reaction to pseudoephedrine, resulting in a disabling hypertensive haemorrhagic stroke. During 2.5 months of inpatient rehabilitation, he regained full independence in self-care and mobility. His unstable employment was interdependent with pseudoephedrine misuse. He accepted counselling regarding constructive, non-pharmacological coping strategies for social stressors. Financial, legal and housing difficulties complicated his discharge plan. He planned to return to work as a driver. Pseudoephedrine is associated with a modest elevation in blood pressure3 and hypertensive crises.4 Intracerebral haemorrhage associated with pseudoephedrine usage is anecdotally reported.5 Dependence and chronic psychoses have been reported6,7 but their prevalence is unknown. Night-shift workers, students, recreational or self-medicating users, and athletes are potentially vulnerable to misuse. Project STOP is an initiative of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (http://www.projectstop.com.au/index.html) to curb diversion of pseudoephedrine-containing medications from retail pharmacies into illegal amphetamines. However, it is not mandatory and the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee has rejected the Pharmacy Guild’s proposal to enhance Project STOP’s capabilities using an electronic messaging tool for pharmacists (NotifyRx, RelayHealth, Atlanta, Ga, USA) to regulate codeine sales (excluding cough mixtures). In contrast, New Zealand authorities now restrict the supply of pseudoephedrine to prescription only. A concerted effort from all relevant parties, including tighter regulation or legislation, is essential for harm minimisation. We urge regulatory bodies to review the effectiveness of current practice. Magnetic resonance angiogram of the patient’s brain showing likely hypertensive right basal ganglia haemorrhage

Ajay Bharatula · Peter W New

The prevalence of cardiovascular disease, a major cause of disease burden in Australia and other developed countries, is increasing due to a rapidly ageing population and environmental, biomedical and modifiable lifestyle factors. Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs have been shown to be beneficial and effective, rates of referral, uptake and utilisation of traditional hospital or community centre programs are poor. Home-based CR programs have been shown to be as effective as centre-based programs, and recent advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) can be used to enhance the delivery of such programs. The Care Assessment Platform (CAP) is an integrated home-based CR model incorporating ICT (including a mobile phone and the internet) and providing all the core components of traditional CR (education, physical activity, exercise training, behaviour modification strategies and psychological counselling). The mobile phone given to patients has an integrated accelerometer and diary application for recording exercise and health information. A central database, with access to these data, allows mentors to assess patients’ progress, assist in setting goals, revise targets and give weekly personal feedback. Mentors find the mobile-phone modalities practical and easy to use, and preliminary results show high usage rates and acceptance of ICT by participants. The provision of ICT-supported home-based CR programs may enable more patients in both metropolitan and remote settings to benefit from CR.

Marlien Varnfield MSc · Mohanraj K Karunanithi BEng, MBiomedEng · Antti Särelä MSc · Elsa Garcia MEng · Anita Fairfull BSpPath · Brian F Oldenburg BSc(Hons), MPsychol, PhD · Darren L Walters MB BS, MPhil, FRACP

To the Editor: The recent review by Hayes and colleagues1 does not sufficiently emphasise practical approaches to managing the later stages of Parkinson disease (PD). Nazem and colleagues2 reported active suicidal or death ideation in 30% of patients with PD of mild-to-moderate severity, and an overall rate of major depression of 27.6%. They found that psychiatric symptoms and disorders, especially major depression, rather than PD-related variables, predicted suicidal or death ideation. Only half of the depressed patients were being treated with an antidepressant. Screening for psychiatric disorders should occur on assessment. Skilled counselling is required, and carers need to be well supported, particularly if the patient has intermittent suicidal ideation and a strong wish for the end of life. Clozapine is the only antipsychotic shown to be effective for treating psychosis in patients with PD.3 If the psychosis is schizophrenia-like, with persistent bizarre delusions and florid hallucinations causing agitation, clozapine can be prescribed in Australia by a registered psychiatrist and the patient can be registered with the clozapine monitoring service. If the patient is started on a very low dose (6.25 mg daily) that is only very gradually increased, side effects can be minimised. Successful use of clozapine enables remission of the psychosis and optimal treatment of motor symptoms. Mild hallucinations may be tolerated without specific treatment while the patient retains insight. In an open-label study of patients with mild hallucinations comparing no treatment with quetiapine therapy (or clozapine therapy in a minority of cases),4 the rate of progression to hallucinations without insight, or delusional psychosis, was significantly slowed. Hely and colleagues5 have argued that pathological processes in addition to Lewy body disease may have a role in the appearance of dementia, as age is a better correlate than PD duration. If it is clear that the dementia is a PD dementia, or dementia with Lewy bodies, a cholinesterase inhibitor such as rivastigmine could be prescribed. As rivastigmine is not subsidised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Australia for this indication, a private prescription could be provided in the first instance, and if there was a likelihood of significant Alzheimer disease associated with PD, an authority prescription would be justified. Hely and colleagues pointed out that, in the later disease stages of PD (at 20 years), less than 50% of patients still see their neurologist. However, the quality of life for PD patients in nursing-home care could still be significantly improved by specialist review by members of a multidisciplinary team on an inpatient, outpatient or outreach basis.

David S Tofler

To the Editor: A recent article by O’Donnell and colleagues1 claimed contradictory results to a previous study which found that compensation was associated with worse health and return-to-work outcomes after injury.2 Their findings were similar to those of the previous study until they excluded a group of non-compensable patients because they had accessed private health insurance. The authors argued that “private health insurance was similar to other compensation agencies in that patients in this group had their health care costs met”. Using this argument, all patients would be compensable, as Australia has a universal health care system in which all Australians have their health care costs met. There is no precedent in the literature for such an exclusion. Compensation bodies provide additional payments beyond health costs, including payment for pain and suffering and income replacement. They also involve patients in a complex process with many features thought to influence outcomes (eg, the adversarial nature of making compensation claims and delays in receiving payments). We believe that the exclusion of private patients from the non-compensable group in the study by O’Donnell et al was incorrect and reduced the already small study sample, limiting the capacity to identify differences across groups. Furthermore, O’Donnell and colleagues found that compensable patients had higher anxiety levels at 24 months, until a supplementary analysis showed that, after controlling for stressful interactions with compensation agencies, compensation itself became non-significant. Surely stressful interactions are one of the mechanisms by which any compensation effect might be mediated. To say that an association is not significant once the mechanism of the effect is allowed for is akin to stating that smoking is not carcinogenic once the carcinogens are allowed for. O’Donnell and colleagues appear to be stating that simple access to compensation is not harmful, with which we agree, but fail to consider the complexities of compensation involvement. Both studies1,2 share a common limitation — that of comparing victims of transport-related injury with victims of other injury types. A recent study confirmed compensation and lawyer involvement as predictors of worse outcomes in a study of compensable and non-compensable transport-related trauma.3 A true understanding of the effect of compensation requires comparison of patients of comparable injury circumstances (eg, road trauma) and different compensation systems. Studies are clearly needed to establish a better understanding of the complexities of compensation delivery and the impact on outcomes. O’Donnell and colleagues’ conclusions have the potential to mislead compensation authorities and other stakeholders who should be focused on addressing this issue.

Belinda J Gabbe · Ian A Harris · Alex Collie · Peter A Cameron

To the Editor: In their recent study, O’Donnell and associates1 examined the effect of compensation, and the clinically vexing problem of interaction with insurance companies, on recovery after hospitalisation for trauma in Victoria. They concluded that access to compensation might not be associated with a poor outcome per se. We agree that the relationship between compensation and health outcomes is complex, but believe there are a number of conceptual and methodological issues that undermine their findings. First, as they note, this sample of injured people might not be representative of those making an insurance claim. In an earlier study of motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales,2 less seriously injured victims who only attended their general practitioner or spent less than a day in hospital comprised as much as 70% of those seeking compensation. Furthermore, the article by O’Donnell and colleagues provides no description of any differential attrition with respect to factors that may be associated with poorer psychosocial outcomes (such as previous psychiatric disorders), other than sex and acute hospital factors. The outcome measurement characteristics change in the course of the analyses, potentially undermining power to detect any differences. For example, the quality-of-life and disability measures become dichotomised using norms in the population for the modelling, rather than as scores in the baseline characteristics as in Boxes 2 and 3. This approach has the potential to conceal true differences between the groups because of regression to the mean and baseline differences in both groups. The main problem relates to the possibly post-hoc exclusion of privately insured subjects from one group. We do not believe that private health insurance can reasonably be considered to be “compensation”. It can provide money to cover the cost of inpatient treatment and very limited outpatient services, but provides no more recompense and retribution for injury than Medicare. Older and wealthier Australians disproportionately hold private health insurance. This group is likely to differ on a number of factors, many of which are associated with better psychosocial outcomes. Although the authors have evaluated some demographic factors, this is likely to have introduced some potentially significant confounding. Thus there is little justification for the removal of this group from the non-compensable group alone. We would be interested to see an analysis after the removal of subjects with private health insurance from both groups. This would allow a more rigorous examination of the effect of one factor — actual insurance compensation — on recovery outcomes.

Nicholas S Glozier · Matthew Large

To the Editor: O’Donnell and colleagues seek to extend and improve on previous research into the relationship between compensation status of injuries and medium-term health outcomes.1 Improvements are needed because much of the empirical analysis in this area has had major methodological limitations.2 Their analysis uses an impressive array of mental health measures to probe the “compensation effects”. However, several aspects of the study design raise questions. First, with very few exceptions, the transport accident compensation scheme in Victoria covers all injuries arising from transport accidents. It is therefore unclear how a quarter of patients in the non-compensable group could have suffered injuries due to motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) yet have fallen outside the scheme. Second, the purpose of control variables in a multivariate model is to address potential confounders of the relationship between the predictor of interest (MVA compensability) and the outcomes (measures of health status at 24 months). Using significant univariate differences between the predictor of interest and other covariates as the basis for selecting control variables is statistically inappropriate, and this approach may have affected the results of the regression analyses. Third, a key study finding is that significant differences in health outcomes were detected between MVA-compensable and non-compensable patients at 24 months after injury. These then “all but disappeared” when the non-compensable group was altered by shifting three patients who had accessed Transport Accident Commission compensation over to the MVA-compensable group and dropping 54 patients who had accessed “other forms of compensation”. The result casts the spotlight on the removed group. It suggests that their mean health status at 24 months was relatively high. But who were they? Little information is provided, other than that nearly two-thirds (36/57) had private health insurance and were dropped for this reason. (In our view, private health insurance should not be construed as compensation, because policies tend to be highly selective about services covered and generally do not provide payment for lost income or non-economic losses.) Another possible explanation, not addressed, is that with only 88 patients left in the non-compensable group, the multivariate analyses lacked power to find differences. The relationship between compensation availability and injury recovery is complex. Policy interest in the relationship looks set to increase in the next few years, as the federal government explores the merits of a national disability scheme.3,4 In this environment, the need for rigorous research and reliable findings will be greater than ever. O’Donnell and colleagues’ welcome contribution to the evidence base should stimulate further debate about how best to disentangle the effects of injury compensation systems on the health outcomes of Australians who call upon them.

David M Studdert · Harold Luntz · Genevieve Grant

To the Editor: As noted by O’Donnell and colleagues,1 there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that provision of compensation is associated with poor recovery after injury. Most of this evidence arises from international workers compensation jurisdictions. However, two recent Victorian studies have examined health and work outcomes in compensable and matched non-compensable groups after transport injury.1,2 Despite examining broadly similar patient groups and using broadly similar outcome measures, the two articles reach very different conclusions. There has been substantial community reaction to these findings. Gabbe and colleagues’ suggestion that compensation is associated with poor recovery2 provoked public criticism of its methodology from the Law Institute of Victoria, and a prominent plaintiff legal firm released a public statement3 3 days after publication of the study by O’Donnell et al. There is a disconnection in conceptualisation of this issue between the research community and those involved in compensation regulation and policy. Researchers are focusing on the question “Does compensation lead to poor health outcomes?”, while the more nuanced policy question attracting the attention of many injury compensation regulators is “Which, if any, aspects of the compensation scheme have a positive or negative impact on health, vocational and social outcomes?”. Close inspection of the published literature suggests that there are individual components of compensation systems that may have a negative impact on outcome, including the provision of payments for pain and suffering4 and the provision of income benefits.5 There are also examples of compensation organisations acting to improve outcomes via their broader remit as government regulators. For example, the Transport Accident Commission was a major driver of the reorganisation of the Victorian state trauma system, which has resulted in a significant reduction in mortality after road trauma.6 O’Donnell and colleagues1 note the complex relationship between compensation and health outcomes, with particular reference to patient characteristics. The compensation schemes themselves are also highly complex. However, there has been very little research effort directed towards identifying the impact of specific scheme components on patient outcome. In Victoria, the two major injury compensation regulators have funded the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research to address this issue. This level of interaction between policymakers and researchers is needed to improve outcomes for those injured in transport- and work-related accidents.

Alex Collie · Niki Ellis

In reply: We thank the authors of the above letters for their comments. Our response will focus only on the major themes raised. We note the concerns about excluding people with private health insurance. The issue here is not whether having health care costs met by private health insurance is the same as having motor vehicle accident (MVA) compensation entitlements. Rather, it is whether access to private insurance payments for health care is the same as not having any compensation at all. We argue that injury patients with private insurance have access to a broader range of health care services and providers than those in the public system, and can access these services more quickly because they avoid long public sector waiting lists. The suggestion that patients who are dependent on public health care in the 2 years following injury (non-compensable patients) receive the same health care as those who have private insurance is unjustified. Most studies to date have not considered other schemes such as private insurance, ignoring the potential impact they may have on health outcomes. We recognise that there may be demographic differences between patients who are involved with other schemes such as private health insurance, and these factors may contribute to outcomes. In noting the inherent limitation in this approach, we nonetheless argue that there are also limitations to including these patients, and therefore an analysis that excludes privately insured patients is a valid addition to the literature on compensation. In response to the point raised by Gabbe and colleagues, we note that our analysis showing that “stressful interaction with the compensation agency” accounted for variance in anxiety scores was designed to investigate potential mechanisms that may explain why anxiety was higher in the MVA-compensable group. We did not conduct the analysis to argue that this group was not more anxious than the non-compensable group. They were more anxious. Glozier and Large were concerned that differential attrition may affect comparisons between the two groups. To clarify, there were no significant baseline differences between completers and non-completers on any measure. Their second issue relates to the removal of patients with private health insurance from the analyses. To clarify, we removed anyone who indicated at 24 months that they had accessed private or other forms of compensation, regardless of their original compensation classification. Studdert and colleagues were concerned that we used univariate differences to identify control variables. We adopted this process to replicate the statistical methodology used by Gabbe et al,1 in an attempt to replicate their findings. In conclusion, our study illustrates the complexity of compensation research and the importance of carefully defining populations — a point that has not yet been adequately addressed. Indeed, a recent review of the literature argues that most compensation research is methodologically limited.2 We agree that there are limitations to our methodology, as there are in previous studies, and recognise that conducting this kind of research is inherently difficult. We welcome the establishment of the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research, noted by Collie and Ellis, and its support of this challenging and complex research.

Meaghan L O’Donnell · Mark C Creamer · Richard A Bryant · Alexander C McFarlane · Derrick Silove

To the Editor: Engaging patients in cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a program of secondary prevention measures, is crucial to improving outcomes after myocardial infarct.1 Rates of participation in CR by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Aboriginal) people are extremely low.2,3 We conducted a qualitative study on barriers to CR use from November 2007 to March 2008 with 15 Aboriginal cardiac patients (seven women and eight men, aged 31–74 years) living in Perth, Western Australia. Six had participated in some outpatient CR sessions; nine had not. Participants were interviewed face-to-face using a semistructured interview guide, with questions exploring their views and experiences of CR, barriers to use and suggestions for improvement. Recurring themes included challenges associated with extended family responsibilities and sociocultural inappropriateness of the program. These themes, along with less commonly discussed issues of poor knowledge of CR and the connection between colonialism and health services, reflect findings from previous studies.2,4,5 However, two new themes — media heart health messages and the younger age of the affected Aboriginal population — highlight further factors influencing participation (Box 1). We found that some patients feel constantly reminded of, and therefore come to expect, poor health outcomes, due to dire statistics repeated in the media. While the dominant theme in the Australian media of Aboriginal fatality and futility has been discussed,6 heart health messages are often disempowering, negatively affecting motivation to engage with health programs. This is likely reinforced by regular attendance at funerals for Aboriginal people, who die very prematurely from cardiovascular disease (CVD). This highlights the need for a shift in media and public health campaigns from “shock” headlines and statistics to a focus on strengths and successes, inspiring the groups involved and supporting them to make changes. Younger Aboriginal participants also spoke about feeling isolated in CR sessions among non-Aboriginal people who were 20–30 years older than them. The age demographic of CR program attendees generally reflects CVD epidemiology in the wider community, but the burden of CVD occurs at much younger ages in the Aboriginal population.7 This widening differential7 demands rethinking of how CR should work for this very different demographic group (Box 2). CR programs addressing the needs of younger people may improve receptivity and opportunities for primary prevention in the family and broader community. Although these two themes were reported by a small number of patients, further research into issues for Aboriginal patients with CVD is warranted. Importantly, it will contribute to understanding of how younger Aboriginal people think about their health, and feel motivated and supported by wider society to do something about it. 1 Quotes from Aboriginal cardiac patients reflecting barriers to participating in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs ... even with the newspaper, every second page has something to do with the heart ... Turn the radio on, “oh, there’s this new survey about heart conditions”. And I don’t want to know about it! Don’t tell me! ... I don’t want to be told the negatives ... it’s all you used to hear of all the stories regarding the heart. (Aboriginal patient 10) I didn’t like it [the CR program] because everybody else was at least twice my age. I was like the youngest one there and it was just a turn-off for me ... I’d feel more comfortable if people my own age were there for a start, you know? (Aboriginal patient 11) Aboriginal people don’t use [CR and health services] ... as a matter of course because the discrimination that took place in Australia against Aboriginal people ... instead it remained in the psyche of the Aboriginal people that mainstream services are only there for other people. They’re not there for you. (Aboriginal patient 9) 2 Recommendations from Aboriginal patients for improving cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs Offer CR programs out of working hours Have opportunistic drop-in sessions rather than allocated times Make CR programs more appealing to younger clients Hold CR programs in Aboriginal community health centres Build trust and relationships with patients (the importance of yarning) Develop programs for use at home by the whole family Tailor lifestyle and diet advice to modern Aboriginal family situations Have both male and female Aboriginal health staff delivering CR if possible Target youth with heart health education messages Refocus public health messages away from being negative and fear-based to being positive and strength-based Encourage Aboriginal patients to attend CR sessions together (buddy system)

Kate P Taylor · Julie S Smith · Lyn Dimer · Mohammed Ali · Narelle Wilson · Tyra R Thomas · Sandra C Thompson

Objective: To update evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures published in the Journal in 2003.Data sources: Systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE for articles published from October 2001 to June 2008, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (most recent issue searched — Issue 2, 2008).Study selection: Randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of all aspects of acute-care hospital treatment and rehabilitation for proximal femoral fractures among participants aged 50 years or older with proximal femoral fractures not associated with metastatic disease or multiple trauma.Data extraction: All studies were reviewed independently by two assessors, who recorded individual study results, and an assessment of study quality and treatment conclusions was made according to Cochrane Collaboration protocols. If necessary, a third review was performed to reach consensus.Results: 128 new studies were identified and 81 met our inclusion criteria. Recommendations for time to surgery, thromboprophylaxis, anaesthesia, analgesia, prophylactic antibiotics, surgical fixation of fractures, nutritional status, mobilisation and rehabilitation have been updated. Also, recommendations regarding surgical wound closure, management of postoperative delirium, osteoporosis treatment and hip protectors have been added. The guidelines include the current National Health and Medical Research Council grades of recommendations for clinical guidelines.Conclusions: Significant changes in recommendations have been made, particularly in relation to surgery, rehabilitation and tertiary prevention. Hip fracture should be treated according to the most up-to-date evidence to achieve the best possible outcomes and optimal use of limited resources.

Jenson C S Mak MB BS, FRACP, FAFRM(RACP) · Ian D Cameron MB BS, PhD, FAFRM(RACP) · Lyn M March MB BS, PhD, FRACP

High-functioning pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) have only recently been widely recognised; they are diagnosed mainly in children. Key features are impaired social cognition and communication; obsessive interests, routines or activities; and social or occupational dysfunction. There are scant data about the prevalence of high-functioning PDDs in adults, and it is possible that many Australian adults with these conditions are undiagnosed. A specialist multidisciplinary approach is used for both children with PDDs and adults with other neuropsychiatric disabilities, and has the potential to help adults with high-functioning PDDs. Increased awareness and diagnosis of these conditions should not limit career or personal goals of individuals with PDDs but should aid them in finding happy and productive careers and lives.

Sarah J Abrahamson MB ChB, FAFRM, GradDipClinEpi · Peter G Enticott BAppSci(Hons), PhD · Bruce J Tonge MD, MRCPsyc, FRANZCP

To the Editor: On behalf of the Australian Association of Musculoskeletal Medicine (AAMM) and the Australasian Faculty of Musculoskeletal Medicine (AFMM), we would thank Briggs and Buchbinder for raising the topic of back pain as a National Health Priority Area (NHPA) for debate.1 The AAMM and its teaching arm, the AFMM, have been arguing for years that higher priority should be given to the management of low back pain, and we certainly support the arguments for making back pain an NHPA. We agree that back pain is a major burden on society, and that coordinated action that includes all stakeholders is required. Currently, members of the AAMM and AFMM are involved in contributing to the Australian Core Competencies in Musculoskeletal Basic and Clinical Science project,2 which aims to standardise the undergraduate teaching in musculoskeletal medicine around Australia. As well as supporting undergraduate initiatives, the AAMM and AFMM have been the significant providers of postgraduate education for doctors around Australia over the past 20 years, being engaged in activities that include the development of evidence-based guidelines and university-based postgraduate diploma and masters programs.3 It is then very disappointing to read disparaging comments about doctors with a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. Briggs and Buchbinder assert that one potential disadvantage of making back pain a health priority is that it may provide “justification for those with . . . vested interests to promote clinically ineffective interventions”. The example they cite is a questionnaire survey of Victorian doctors in 2004, highlighting that a self-reported interest in low back pain or musculoskeletal medicine, or both, was strongly associated with back pain management beliefs and practices that are contrary to the best available evidence.4 The title of the Spine journal article4 is mischievous and misleading. The article implies that members of the AAMM have poorer knowledge about low back pain than doctors with no special interest in back pain. The real facts are that no attempt was made by the authors to specify what training or continuing medical education doctors had received, or whether they were members of the AAMM.

Victor J Wilk · Michael J Yelland · Michael B Oei

To the Editor: In the recent article by Briggs and Buchbinder, the authors propose that one advantage of including back pain as a National Health Priority Area (NHPA) is that it will increasingly encourage the management of back pain in accordance with best-practice clinical care guidelines.1 The emergency department (ED) is a key point of presentation for people with back pain. Research suggests that optimal management of low back pain incorporates multidisciplinary input, ensuring the provision of adequate analgesia and rational use of further investigations.2,3 On the basis of such data, we devised an interactive decision-support tool for completion by ED staff. The “Low Back Pain Assessment and Treatment” (LBPAT) guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary team of nursing, medical, physiotherapy and pharmacy staff, based on accepted evidence-based standards of practice already in use.4 Use of these guidelines enables rapid assessment of “red flags” that may require further investigation and treatment. The guidelines include a flow diagram divided into three pain-management options for patients with mild, moderate or severe pain, with prompts for referral to physiotherapy and neurosurgery. The LBPAT guidelines indicate which imaging studies and blood tests may be required and when, as directed by findings. Information to assist discharge planning, including follow-up by a physiotherapist and general practitioner, and provision of information, is included. Once they were developed, we evaluated the effectiveness of the LBPAT guidelines in improving ED clinical practice. A retrospective case-record study of patients presenting to the ED and identified from International classification of diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) codes (for back pain or low back pain) was undertaken before implementation of the guidelines (October–December 2006; 87 patients), immediately after implementation (May–August 2007; 96 patients), and about a year later (July–August 2008; 28 patients). Uptake of the LBPAT guidelines was only 47%–50% in both postimplementation periods. However, adherence to pain management guidelines improved significantly after implementation (59% [57/96] compared with 46% [40/87]; P = 0.02), and was maintained a year later (57% [16/28]). Use of aperients in patients who were coprescribed opiates was much improved in the period immediately after implementation (40% [27/68] compared with 16% [11/69]; P < 0.001) and 1 year later (70% [14/20]). Postimplementation data suggested a reduction in unnecessary blood tests (ie, no red flags requiring further investigation). For patients discharged from the ED, discharge planning and continuity of care did not improve immediately after implementation, but were greatly improved 1 year later. If back pain is included as an NHPA, use of a clinical decision tool such as the LBPAT guidelines is one potential method of preserving resources and improving patient outcomes in cases of back pain in the ED setting.

Stephanie K Vaughan · Julie L Gawthorne · Andrew S Finckh · Susan A Welch

In reply: The two preceding letters highlight that there are many stakeholders with an interest in back pain in Australia. Many craft groups are involved with the provision of postgraduate education and have contributed to the musculoskeletal core competencies initiative. Vaughan and colleagues describe promising results from using a clinical decision tool for acute back pain in an emergency department. On a national scale, implementation of such a tool in all emergency departments may significantly improve outcomes and reduce costs. Making back pain a national priority would provide unique opportunities to rigorously study these types of approaches. A timely illustration of our concern about vested interests potentially promoting ineffective or unproven interventions1 is the lively debate centred on the recently published United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance for the early management of persistent non-specific low back pain.2 The recommendation that injections of therapeutic substances into the back for non-specific low back pain should not be offered, as the evidence of effectiveness is lacking, led to the forced resignation of the president of the British Pain Society because of his refusal to denounce the guidelines he helped to formulate.3 To suggest that the title of the Spine journal article is misleading and mischievous is patently incorrect, as the title, “Doctors with a special interest in back pain have poorer knowledge about how to treat back pain”, simply summarises the main study findings.4 Based on 3831 responses from general practitioners in New South Wales and Victoria, collected in 1997, 2000 and 2004, doctors who reported a special interest in low back pain were significantly more likely to believe that patients with acute low back pain should be prescribed complete bed rest until the pain goes away (relative risk [RR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.53–2.33); that they should not return to work until they are almost pain-free (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31–1.83); and that lumbar spine x-rays are useful in their work-up (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.21–1.52). We also reject the suggestion that we made disparaging remarks about doctors with a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. After adjusting for the presence of special interests in back pain, there were no important differences in back pain beliefs between those with and without a special interest in musculoskeletal medicine. While we cited a survey that found that Australian Association of Musculoskeletal Medicine (AAMM) members see a high caseload of patients with back pain,5 we made no claims about the knowledge base of AAMM members.

Rachelle Buchbinder · Andrew M Briggs