Pain, depression and the postoperative stiff shoulder.

BACKGROUND: The surgical repair of shoulder pathologies, including rotator cuff disease and acromio-clavicular joint arthritis, have undergone many technical advances. However the debilitating postoperative stiff shoulder remains a common and significant complication of these surgeries, occurring in 4.9 to 23.2 % of patients undergoing rotator cuff repairs. The pathology of the pathological postoperative stiff shoulder and its associated condition "frozen shoulder" are poorly understood and both lack formal objective clinical diagnostic criteria. Additionally, although factors associated with the development of idiopathic frozen shoulder have been well described, multiple studies looking at predictors of postoperative stiff shoulder have produced conflicting results. It has been hypothesised that increased pain in the postoperative period, and depression may be predictors of the development of postoperative stiff shoulder. METHOD: A prospective cohort study involving 132 consecutive participants. Preoperatively, participants undergoing arthroscopic subacromial decompression and/or excision of the distal clavicle and/or rotator cuff repair will complete questionnaires about their levels of shoulder pain using a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, and answer a Patient Health Questionnaire - 9 depression questionnaire. Postoperatively, the participants' pain levels will be self-assessed at two, five and seven days and weeks four, seven and ten. They will complete the depression questionnaire twice, at the time of their routine first and final postoperative appointments with the treating surgeon. At the final appointment, approximately three months postoperatively, the treating surgeon will clinically diagnose participants as having a postoperative stiff shoulder or not. Their shoulders' range of motion will be measured. The incidence of postoperative stiff shoulder will be determined, both pain and depression will be analysed as predictors for its development and incidences determined by different objective criteria will be compared. DISCUSSION: This trial will add to clinical understanding of the postoperative stiff shoulder by providing further insight into the incidence of this condition following shoulder surgery and assessing whether perioperative pain and depression can be used as clinical predictors of postoperative stiff shoulder or markers for possible early intervention. This study will also allow the comparison of incidences determined by different objective criteria in the same cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12613001271796. 17-11-2013.

A mixed method feasibility study of a patient- and family-centred advance care planning intervention for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process whereby values and goals are sensitively explored and documented to uphold patients' wishes should they become incompetent to make decisions in the future. Evidenced-based, effective approaches are needed. This study sought to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an ACP intervention informed by phase 1 findings and assessed the suitability of measures for a phase 3 trial. METHODS: Prospective, longitudinal, mixed methods study with convenience sampling. A skilled facilitator conducted an ACP intervention with stage III/IV cancer patients and invited caregivers. It incorporated the vignette technique and optional completion/integration of ACP documents into electronic medical records (EMR). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analysed separately, and the two sets of findings converged. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent consent rate with 30 patients and 26 caregivers completing the intervention. Ninety percent of patient participants had not or probably not written future care plans. Compliance with assessments was high and missing responses to items low. Small- to medium-sized changes were observed on a number of patients and caregiver completed measures, but confidence intervals were typically wide and most included zero. An increase in distress was reported; however, all believed the intervention should be made available. Eleven documents from nine patients were incorporated into EMR. ACP may not be furthered because of intervention inadequacies, busy lives, and reluctance to plan ahead. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 study we demonstrated feasibility of recruitment and acceptability of the ACP intervention and most outcome measures. However, patient/family preferences about when and whether to document ACP components need to be respected. Thus flexibility to accommodate variability in intervention delivery, tailored to individual patient/family preferences, may be required for phase 3 research.

Cancer caregivers advocate a patient- and family-centered approach to advance care planning.

CONTEXT: Cancer caregivers have important roles in delivering practical, emotional, and end-of-life support to patients; however, they express multiple unmet needs, particularly information on future care planning. Early regular communication and decision making may improve access to timely information, alleviate anxiety, reduce uncertainty, and improve coping strategies. OBJECTIVES: This study examines how cancer caregivers view advance care planning (ACP) to inform an ACP program in an Australian cancer center. METHODS: This study used a qualitative descriptive design with grounded theory overtones. Eighteen caregivers of patients from lung and gastrointestinal tumor streams participated in focus groups or semistructured interviews, which incorporated the vignette technique. RESULTS: Caregivers believe that, although confronting, ACP discussions can be helpful. Conversations are sometimes patient initiated, although caregivers may intend to sensitively broach conversations over time. Findings highlight the impact of caregiver hierarchies, adaptive family decision-making styles, and complex cultural influences on decision making. Some caregivers may develop subsidiary care intentions, based on "knowing" or overriding patients' desires. Hindrances on caregivers supporting patients' ACPs include limited information access, patient or caregiver resistance to engage in conversations, and ACPs association in oncology with losing hope. Many caregivers wanted professional support and further opportunities to obtain information, develop subsidiary plans, and help patients engage in ACP discussions. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the influence of cancer caregivers and family dynamics over ACP decisions and actualization of future care plans. A patient- and family-centered care approach to ACP, promoting shared decision making and caregiver support, is recommended. Given that caregivers may override and, plausibly, misinterpret patients' desires, caregivers' subsidiary planning warrants further investigation.