Management in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: differences between diagnostic groups

Arm, neck and/or shoulder complaints are common in western societies. In the Netherlands, general practice guidelines are issued on shoulder pain and epicondylitis only. Little is known about actual management of the total range of diagnoses. The objectives of the study are: to determine management in patients consulting the GP with a new episode of non-traumatic arm neck and shoulder complaints up to 6 months after the first consultation. To evaluate differences in management between patients with specific diagnoses versus non-specific diagnoses and between specific diagnostic groups. In a prospective cohort study in general practice. We recruited 682 eligible patients. Data on diagnosis, management, patient- and complaint-characteristics were collected. Co-occurrence of treatment options was presented in scaled rectangles. After 6 months, additional diagnostic tests had been performed in 18% of the patients, mainly radiographic examination (14%). Further, 49% had been referred for physiotherapy and 12% to the medical specialist. Patients with specific diagnoses were more frequently referred for specialist treatment, and patients with non-specific diagnoses for physiotherapy. Corticosteroid injections (17%) were mainly applied specific diagnoses (e.g. impingement syndrome, frozen shoulder, carpal tunnel and M. Quervain). Frequencies of prescribed medication (51%) did not differ between specific and non-specific

Kinesiophobia in patients with non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: a prospective cohort study in general practice

BACKGROUND: Complaints of arm, neck and shoulder are common in Western societies. Of those consulting a general practitioner (GP) with non-traumatic arm, neck or shoulder complaints, about 50% do not recover within 6 months.Kinesiophobia (also known as fear of movement/(re)injury) may also play a role in these complaints, as it may lead to avoidance behaviour resulting in hypervigilance to bodily sensations, followed by disability, disuse and depression. However, in relation to arm, neck and shoulder complaints little is known about kinesiophobia and its associated variables.Therefore this study aimed to: describe the degree of kinesiophobia in patients with non-traumatic complaints of arm, neck and shoulder in general practice; to determine whether mean scores of kinesiophobia change over time in non-recovered patients; and to evaluate variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study set in general practice, consulters with a first or new episode of non-traumatic arm, neck or shoulder complaints (aged 18-64 years) entered the cohort. Baseline data were collected on kinesiophobia using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the 13-item adjusted version: TSK-AV, and on patient-, complaint-, and psychosocial variables using self-administered questionnaires. The mean TSK-AV score was calculated. In non-recovered patients the follow-up TSK-AV scores at 6 and 12 months were analyzed with the general linear mixed model. Variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The mean TSK-AV score at baseline was 24.8 [SD: 6.2]. Among non-recovered patients the mean TSK-AV score at baseline was 26.1 [SD: 6.6], which remained unchanged over 12- months follow-up period. The strongest associations with kinesiophobia were catastrophizing, disability, and comorbidity of musculoskeletal complaints. Additionally, having a shoulder complaint, low social support, high somatization and high distress contributed to the kinesiophobia score. CONCLUSION: The mean TSK-AV score in our population seems comparable to those in other populations in primary care.In patients who did not recover during the 12- month follow-up, the degree of kinesiophobia remained unchanged during this time period.The variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline appear to be in line with the fear-avoidance model

Course and prognosis of recovery for chronic non-specific low back pain: design, therapy program and baseline data of a prospective cohort study

Background: There has been increasing focus on factors predicting the development of chronic musculoskeletal disorders. For patients already experiencing chronic non-specific low back pain it is also relevant to investigate which prognostic factors predict recovery. We present the design of a cohort study that aims to determine the course and prognostic factors for recovery in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. Methods/Design. All participating patients were recruited (Jan 2003-Dec 2008) from the same rehabilitation centre and were evaluated by means of (postal) questionnaires and physical examinations at baseline, during the 2-month therapy program, and at 5 and 12 months after start of therapy. The therapy protocol at the rehabilitation centre used a bio-psychosocial approach to stimulate patients to adopt adequate (movement) behaviour aimed at physical and functional recovery. The program is part of regular care and consists of 16 sessions of 3 hours each, over an 8-week period (in total 48 hours), followed by a 3-month self-management program. The primary outcomes are low back pain intensity, disability, quality of life, patient's global perceived effect of recovery, and participation in work. Baseline characteristics include information on socio-demographics, low back pain, employment status, and additional clinical items status such as fatigue, duration of activities, and fear of kinesiophobia. Prognostic variables are determined for recovery at short-term (5 months) and long-term (12 months) follow-up after start of therapy. Discussion. In a routine clinical setting it is important to provide patients suffering from chronic non-specific low back pain with adequate information about the prognosis of their complaint

The Influence of Ergonomic Devices on Mechanical Load during Patient Handling Activities in Nursing Homes

Mechanical load during patient handling activities is an important risk factor for low back pain among nursing personnel. The aims of this study were to describe required and actual use of ergonomic devices during patient handling activities and to assess the influence of these ergonomic devices on mechanical load during patient handling activities. For each patient, based on national guidelines, it was recorded which specific ergonomic devices were required during distinct patient handling activities, defined by transferring a patient, providing personal care, repositioning patients in the bed, and putting on and taking off anti-embolism stockings. During real-time observations over similar to 60 h among 186 nurses on 735 separate patient handling activities in 17 nursing homes, it was established whether ergonomic devices were actually us Use of ergonomic devices was required according to national guidelines in 520 of 735 (71%) separate patient handling activities, and actual use was observed in 357 of 520 (69%) patient handling activities. A favourable ratio of nurses per patient was associated with a decreased duration of time spent in awkward back postures during handling anti-embolism stocking (43%), patient transfers (33%), and personal care of patients (24%) and also frequency of manually lifting patients (33%). Use of lift In wards in nursing homes with a higher number of staff less awkward back postures as well as forceful lifting were observed during patient handling activities. The use of ergonomic devices was high and associated with less forceful movements and awkward back postures. Both aspects will most likely contribute to the prevention of low back pain among nurses