No abstract

Due to the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the high risk of cross-contamination and the overload of hospital facilities have resulted in a real urgency for restricting dental emergency patient flow. In this context, the objectives of the current work were to 1) measure the ability of a triage-based management strategy to limit patient admission and 2) evaluate the success rate of both on-site and remote emergency management regarding symptom relief and pain control over a 1-mo period. We included all patients contacting the dental medicine department for an emergency consultation during the lockdown, between April 1 and April 30, 2020 ( N = 570). Following a telephone consultation and based on preestablished admission guidelines, a decision was made at baseline (T0) to either admit the patient for treatment or perform remote management by providing advice and/or drug prescription. Patients were then followed up systematically at 1 wk and 1 mo. Management failure was defined as the need for emergency admission for patients managed remotely since T0 and for new emergency admission for those admitted at T0. The global follow-up rate of patients with a complete data set was 91.4% ( N = 521). Of included patients, 49.3% could be managed without admission for emergency reasons for 1 mo. The proportion of successful management was 71.8% and 90.2% at 1 mo for remote and on-site management, respectively. To conclude, the proposed triage-based emergency management strategy with systematic follow-up was a good compromise between limiting patient admission and ensuring effective symptom relief and pain control. The strategy can be useful in situations where regulation of the emergency patient flow is required.

BackgroundMany factors influence the return to work of workers with chronic low back pain (CLBP). They have been said to vary according to socio-professional group. This study first aimed to compare prognostic factors influencing the return to work of CLBP healthcare workers (HCWs) and other workers (non-HCWs) after rehabilitation coupled with an occupational intervention. The second objective was to improve the evolution of indicators such as clinical examination, psychosocial impact and pain impact.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2012, a cohort of 217 CLBP workers (54.8 %-women; mean age = 41.3 ± 9.5 years, 118 non-HCWs; 99 HCWs mainly from the public sector) was included in an ambulatory rehabilitation program (standard physiotherapy or intensive network physiotherapy) coupled with an occupational intervention. Workers completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination at baseline and after 24 months’ follow up. Physical, social and occupational data was collected at the same time. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate prognostic factors for return to work and compare the two worker populations.ResultsThere was no difference between groups for the rate of OP (occupational physician) intervention or type of physiotherapy. 77.3 % of workers returned to work after 2 years following inclusion. To be an HCW (OR 0.1; 95 % CI [0.03–0.34]), to have less than 112 sick- leave days (OR 1.00; 95 % CI [0.93–1.00]), a small fingertip-floor distance (OR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.93–0.99]), a low anxiety/depression score (OR 0.97; 95 % CI [0.95–1.00]), a low impact of CLBP on daily life (OR 0.96; 95 % CI [0.93–1.00]), and on quality of life (OR 0.98; 95 % CI [0.95–1.00]) at baseline were statistically associated with return to work after 2 years of follow up. Only the profession (workplace) was statistically associated with return to work after 2 years of follow up using multivariate analysis.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first cohort study concerning predictive factors of RTW among CLBP workers after 2 years of follow up. Interventions in the work environment did not seem to predict job retention significantly. But only 50 % of the employees in both groups (HCW and non-HCW) had one intervention at their workplace after 2 years. This study underlined the fact that the type of physiotherapy with a well-trained physiotherapist used to take care of CLBP could not impact on the RTW forecast. To develop these initial results, it might be interesting to study the comparison between private and public sectors and to randomize the physiotherapeutic intervention.

No abstract