Low back pain (LBP) was the fifth most common reason for an emergency department (ED) visit in 2020-2021 in Australia, with more than 145,000 presentations [1]. One-third of these patients were subsequently admitted to hospital. The current annual admission rates for spinal conditions are high in Australia, at 465 per 100,000 population, compared to 219 in the United Kingdom, 197 in the Netherlands, and 142 in Canada [2]. Admission rates following LBP presentations to ED are higher in Australia [3,4] than have been reported in the United States [5]. The potential contributors to high admission rates are differences in case mix [6], patient expectations of hospital admission when experiencing high levels of distress [7], and lack of alternative pathways for prompt pain management. These hospitalizations pose a significant burden on the health care system. In Australia, for example, admitted patient care of LBP lasts an average of 9 days and costs Aus $15,000 (US $10,000) per admission [8].

Most patients admitted to the hospital with a primary LBP diagnosis do not have a serious underlying condition and there is evidence that admissions carry the risk of harm. Our recent medical record review of 1982 admissions found that 57% of inpatients with provisionally diagnosed musculoskeletal LBP in ED were discharged with this same diagnosis [9]. Bed rest, as typically occurs with traditional hospital admission, is not recommended in LBP guidelines [10] as it can delay recovery. A recent study showed that 23% of LBP admissions had opioid-related complications and other serious events such as falls in hospital (4%) and hospital-acquired infections (1.4%) [11]. These patients could be diverted to more cost-effective and safer alternate clinical pathways.

Virtual hospitals have been proposed as a potential clinical pathway for people with LBP [12], to facilitate early discharge. Interviews with people admitted for acute LBP have identified that returning home as soon as possible is a key patient priority; however, patients fear a lack of support if discharged home [13]. There is also evidence from other conditions that virtual hospitals are cost-effective. Systematic reviews of “early supported discharge” have been shown to safely reduce the length of the hospital stay in adults with a range of medical conditions [14]. A recent US trial of virtual hospital admission for mixed acute medical conditions showed 38% lower costs for virtual hospital patients compared to traditional admissions, and reduced use of laboratory tests, imaging, and consultations [15]. The virtual hospital cohort had higher levels of patient satisfaction and lower rates of adverse events [15].

We currently lack alternatives to traditional hospital admission for patients with musculoskeletal LBP who present to Australian EDs and require acute clinical care. A virtual hospital has been implemented in Sydney Local Health District, Australia for COVID-19–positive patients and other patient cohorts [16], caring for over 16,000 patients to date [17]. In the virtual hospital, clinicians use technologies for remote patient monitoring and management [12]. Monitoring via daily clinician contact is designed to reduce representation to the ED while providing clinical support and pain management until the patient is able to link in with and attend outpatient services. Given the higher rates of potentially serious pathology in this cohort (compared to primary care), it is also a form of safety netting, allowing prompt escalation if required. Physical activity monitoring is designed to substitute regular reminders to mobilize as would be delivered on a traditional ward and encourage patients to slowly upgrade physical activity. A virtual hospital service, however, is yet to be formally evaluated in patients with musculoskeletal LBP.

Alongside the diagnostic challenge of LBP, is the difficulty of discharging patients home when safe mobility is not yet achieved. Some patients may still require short-term traditional hospital admission to allow for effective analgesia to facilitate mobility. Hence, in this study, we will evaluate the effectiveness of an early-supported discharge virtual hospital model of care, with traditional hospital length of stay as the primary outcome.

The main aims of the Back@Home study are to assess the effectiveness of a virtual hospital model of care for LBP on health service outcomes (eg, length of admission), patient-reported outcomes (eg, satisfaction with care), and costs. The secondary aims are to evaluate the acceptability and appropriateness of the virtual hospital model of care for LBP, as well as the feasibility and fidelity of our multifaceted implementation strategy.

This is a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type-I study [18]. This study design will allow us to assess the effectiveness of a new virtual hospital model of care for LBP on health services outcomes while assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the new model and our multifaceted implementation strategy, as described by Curran et al [18]. We have used the guidance for conducting implementation trials by Pearson et al [19] and Proctor et al [20] to design this study.

This study will be conducted at 3 public hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The hospitals have a combined 169,000 ED attendances per year, with 650,000 total “bed days” available annually, averaging 1530 inpatients per day [21].

To identify the study population, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms-Australian (SNOMED-CT-AU) diagnosis codes will be used to select patients in the ED aged 16 years and older with a primary discharge diagnosis related to musculoskeletal LBP. Those with an ED diagnosis code of a “serious” LBP condition (eg, vertebral fracture, spinal abscess, and cauda equina syndrome) will be excluded. We will then use inpatient discharge diagnosis codes (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification [ICD-10 AM]) to classify the LBP admissions as “serious” or “musculoskeletal” (ie, nonspecific LBP and lumbosacral radicular pain). Only data from admissions where inpatient discharge diagnosis codes are musculoskeletal LBP admissions will be evaluated.

Patients who presented to the ED with a primary diagnosis related to musculoskeletal LBP and were discharged without admission into a short stay or inpatient unit will be included in the data analysis to determine rates of hospital admission.

Patients with LBP requiring admission in ED short stay or inpatient units will be assessed by senior ED staff. Eligible patients will be referred to the “Back@Home” virtual LBP service by the ED medical officer, in consultation with local rheumatology or general medicine admitting teams. The eligibility criteria for the virtual hospital are people aged 16 years and older diagnosed with musculoskeletal LBP, with or without radicular pain, requiring a higher level of clinical support above standard discharge home (see Figure 1).

Back@Home, a service run by Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPA) Virtual Hospital, will provide virtual “Hospital in the Home” care, including home visits, video calls, and remote monitoring. Eligible patients already admitted to the inpatient ward will also be referred to “Back@Home” to facilitate earlier discharge. Patients will be remotely monitored from home, and have 24/7 access to hospital-based clinicians through a “virtual” care center. An escalation pathway will be available if a patient’s condition deteriorates at home, and traditional admission, expedited imaging, or intervention is deemed necessary.

Medical care will be provided by virtual hospital physicians and nurses, with consultations from rheumatology specialists provided as required. All patients will be virtually assessed and treated by a physiotherapist, with additional assessments provided by occupational therapists, psychologists, and social workers as required.

Videoconferencing calls will be used to collect clinical observations and provide care. If required, patients will receive home visits from a physiotherapist [17]. The need for home visits will be decided by the multidisciplinary team (physician, nurse, and physiotherapist) during daily clinical reviews, in response to patient needs. If a patient appears to not be coping well at home and is at risk of ED representation, a home visit will be scheduled.

Remote monitoring of physical activity, such as step count, will be enabled via an activity tracker. The wearable device used (Garmin Vivovit 4) is a validated method of recording sleep cycles and sedentary and active time in community settings [22,23]. Patients will be able to report activity measures to their virtual physiotherapist during daily video calls, assisting in goal setting and behavioral health coaching.

Care will be provided through a variety of technologies as appropriate. SMS, telephone calls, videoconferencing calls (Zoom; Zoom Video Communications), patient information sheets emailed directly to patients, as well as access to the “Physitrack” smartphone app for the provision of health information content and exercise programs.

Traditionally admitted patients will receive usual clinical care, with a referral for physiotherapy mobility assessment if required, as per standard ward protocols. They will be eligible for referral to Back@Home to facilitate early supported discharge, if appropriate.

The implementation strategy will last for 3 months at each site. The “Knowledge to Action Framework” [24] (see Figure 2) was used to guide a research program to develop and evaluate the implementation of Back@Home. The framework structure includes identifying a clinical problem, and then developing evidence-based potential solutions while adapting these to the local context, evaluating the solution, and monitoring outcomes.

Semistructured interviews with hospital clinicians regarding perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation have informed the current design of the model of care [7]. Based on clinicians’ input, the Back@Home model of care will incorporate the loan of internet-enabled devices, health care interpreters, and written resources translated into community languages to facilitate more equitable access to care for marginalized groups. Feedback was provided by the Director of Aboriginal Health and the Aboriginal Cultural Support Team. Consultation on the model was also provided by ED medical officers, rheumatology, general medicine, and allied health departments, as well as nurse practitioners and social workers.

We will explore additional local barriers to implementation, design, and implement strategies to address these barriers, and monitor clinical practice and clinician behavior change. The evaluation will determine the effectiveness of the model of care, and if found effective, we will develop strategies to maintain health care system changes (see Figure 1).

To increase the uptake of the Back@Home model of care, we plan to use several implementation strategies that have been previously shown to be effective in changing professional behavior. First, staff training will be delivered by Back@Home investigators (MJT, ER, MM, and OH) at scheduled staff education sessions attended by physiotherapists, nurses, registrars, trainees, and consultants in ED and general medicine. Sessions will last 15 minutes and be delivered before implementation and at 1 and 3 months post implementation. Training will describe the process of referral to virtual care, deliver updates on implementation progress, and provide a forum to raise concerns or questions. Second, key local opinion leaders [25], in the form of “staff champions” will be provided with training. These staff will remind all clinical staff about Back@Home as an option for patients with musculoskeletal LBP requiring admission and will be identified by wearing a badge with the Back@Home logo. The ED primary care physiotherapist will play a key role in championing the Back@Home model of care. Third, a summary card containing admission criteria and contact details for the virtual hospital will be provided to relevant staff, which can be attached to staff lanyards for easy access (if permitted). This printed material will be used to reinforce the content of educational sessions [26,27]. Fourth, a monthly email update will be sent to ED, general medicine, and rheumatology staff regarding the length of hospital stay and rates of admission to traditional hospitals. Audit and feedback strategies have been shown to be effective in influencing health professionals’ behavior [28], and in supporting back pain model of care implementation strategies [29].

This investigation will be conducted in full compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval has been granted by the Ethics Review Committee of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (protocol X21-0278 and 2021/ETH10967). A waiver of consent has been approved for routinely collected data sourced from electronic medical records. Study data will be fully deidentified, to protect patient, clinician privacy, and confidentiality. Informed consent will be collected for all patient-reported outcomes. No compensation will be offered for participation.

The virtual hospital model of care was developed with the assistance of semistructured interviews with clinicians from several disciplines across 3 metropolitan hospitals. Clinicians from the departments of physiotherapy, rheumatology, and emergency medicine participated in a co-design process with researchers and administrators at RPA Virtual Hospital at Sydney Local Health District.

An economic evaluation will be undertaken from the health system perspective. Costs associated with implementing Back@Home virtual care and patients’ health service use will be measured, using a combination of electronic medical records and financial trial records. Intervention-related costs include the development of training materials and salaried time of staff attending training workshops, changes in workload for staff delivering virtual care and costs related to information technology support and maintenance of the virtual network. Health service costs will be measured using Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority national weighted activity units for admitted inpatient hospital and ED presentations; prescription and over-the-counter medications using the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and pharmacy prices. All costs will be reported in Australian dollars. Where necessary, costs will be converted to 2023 prices using the health consumer price index published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Costs and effects will be discounted where appropriate.

We plan to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside this time series analysis with data from the intervention site. Similar to the time series model for health service outcomes, a generalized linear model with a gamma distribution and logarithmic link function will be used for the segmented regression analysis of health care costs. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated for the health services outcomes: length of stay and hospital admissions. This will be presented as incremental costs per bed day avoided and incremental cost per hospital admission avoided. Nonparametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications will be used to estimate the 95% CIs around the incremental cost and effect pairs for both health services outcomes. These will be presented on an incremental cost-effectiveness plane. We also plan to explore the cost-effectiveness using the patient outcomes from this study. If the patient outcomes analysis shows noninferiority as hypothesized, we will perform a cost-minimization analysis by comparing the cost between the control and intervention phases.