Advanced health assessment forum on managing acute low back pain

Assignment overview

Create a discussion board post and peer responses on the assessment and primary care management of low back pain in adults, drawing on the Aquifer Family Medicine “45-year-old male with low back pain” case and current guidelines. The task evaluates your ability to translate case-based learning into concise, clinically focused discussion that reflects advanced health assessment reasoning.

Assignment brief (discussion board)

Course / module context

• Example course: Advanced Health Assessment / Primary Care Management

• Example code: NU610, NURS 612, or equivalent graduate nursing assessment course​

• Assessment type: Online discussion board post and peer responses linked to the Aquifer low back pain case.​

Task description

Write an initial discussion post that analyses the presentation of a 45-year-old adult with acute low back pain using an assessment-focused lens. Integrate subjective and objective data, highlight red-flag screening, and propose an initial management strategy that is consistent with recent low back pain guidelines. Then respond to two peers by comparing and refining diagnostic reasoning and management choices in light of the evidence.​

Detailed instructions

Part 1: Initial discussion post

Target length: 400–500 words.

Address the following points in a single, well-structured post:

1. Focused history and red-flag screening

   • Summarise key elements of the history of present illness for acute low back pain, including onset, location, duration, character, radiation, aggravating and relieving factors, severity, and functional impact.​

   • Identify at least five red-flag questions you would ask this patient and indicate whether the Aquifer case data suggest concern for serious pathology such as malignancy, fracture, infection, or cauda equina syndrome.​

2. Targeted physical examination priorities

   • Outline the main musculoskeletal and neurologic examination components you would perform, including inspection, palpation, range of motion, gait, reflexes, strength testing, and straight leg raise.​

   • Briefly explain how abnormal findings from these manoeuvres could shift your working diagnosis or prompt urgent investigation.​

3. Diagnostic impression and need for imaging

   • State your primary working diagnosis for this case (for example, non-specific mechanical low back pain) and list two plausible differential diagnoses supported by the case details.​

   • Justify whether imaging is indicated at this stage by linking to current guideline recommendations on low back pain in primary care, including when to avoid early imaging.​

4. Initial management and patient education

   • Propose a brief initial management plan that includes first-line pharmacologic options (such as NSAIDs or acetaminophen), non-pharmacologic strategies (activity advice, physical therapy, self-management education), and follow-up timing.​

   • Describe two or three key education points you would share with this patient about prognosis, warning signs, and ways to reduce recurrence risk.​

Support at least two aspects of your discussion with recent peer-reviewed literature or guidelines (2018–2026). Use in-text citations in Harvard style.

Part 2: Peer responses

Target length: 150–200 words per response (two responses; 300–400 words total).

For each peer response:

• Comment on how your colleague applied red-flag criteria and whether you agree with their threshold for imaging or referral.​

• Suggest one additional assessment question, exam manoeuvre, or management option that could strengthen their approach, with brief reference to evidence where appropriate.

• Acknowledge an element of their reasoning that aligns with current guidelines and explain why it is clinically sound.​

Avoid simple agreement or repetition of content. Focus on refining diagnostic and management thinking.

Discussion rubric

1. Clinical assessment and reasoning (40%)

• Clear summary of focused history and red-flag screening tailored to low back pain in a middle-aged adult.​

• Logical link between history, examination priorities, and diagnostic impressions.

• Accurate differentiation between non-specific mechanical pain and more serious causes, supported by case details and guideline concepts.​

2. Evidence-informed management (30%)

• Management plan aligns with current recommendations for acute or subacute low back pain in primary care, including judicious use of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic strategies.​

• Justification for ordering or withholding imaging reflects established criteria and recognises potential harms of unnecessary tests.​

• Patient education messages are realistic, clear, and consistent with evidence about prognosis and self-management.​

3. Quality of peer engagement (20%)

• Responses to peers extend the discussion through constructive critique, alternative suggestions, or clarification of evidence rather than repetition.

• Comments remain respectful, specific, and focused on improving clinical judgement and patient care decisions.

4. Scholarly writing and referencing (10%)

• Writing is clear, coherent, and organised, with a professional academic tone appropriate for graduate nursing study.

• In-text citations and reference list follow Harvard style, with recent peer-reviewed sources supporting key points.

Low back pain in primary care often reflects non-specific mechanical causes, so a structured history and examination help separate benign presentations from those that require urgent investigation. Focused questions about trauma, night pain, weight loss, fever, neurologic change, and bowel or bladder dysfunction guide decisions about imaging and referral. Simple measures such as NSAIDs or acetaminophen, early mobilisation, and targeted physical therapy usually form the foundation of management, provided red flags are absent and the patient receives clear education about prognosis and self-care strategies. Guideline-based restraint in ordering imaging reduces cost, radiation exposure, and the risk of incidental findings that do not change treatment but may increase anxiety.

References

1. Oliveira, C.B. et al. (2019) ‘Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: An updated overview’, <i>European Spine Journal</i>, 28(11), pp. 2681–2692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06222-1​

2. Corp, N. et al. (2021) ‘Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: A systematic review of guidelines’, <i>European Journal of Pain</i>, 25(2), pp. 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1679​

3. Qaseem, A., Wilt, T.J., McLean, R.M. and Forciea, M.A. (2017, reaffirmed 2020) ‘Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: A clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians’, <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i>, 166(7), pp. 514–530. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2367​

4. Skelly, A.C. et al. (2018) ‘Noninvasive nonpharmacological treatment for chronic pain: A systematic review’, <i>Comparative Effectiveness Review</i> No. 209, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/nonpharma-treatment-pain/research​