Workshop, Assessment, and Validity Evidence for Tools Measuring Performance of Knee and Shoulder Arthrocentesis.

Introduction: Musculoskeletal concerns are common, yet residents at our institution lacked arthrocentesis training. We created a workshop to teach residents knee and shoulder arthrocentesis, developed simulated assessment scenarios (SASs) with tools to measure procedural proficiency, and collected validity evidence. Methods: A multidisciplinary group conducted a modified Delphi to define content for the workshop, SASs, and assessment tools. We defined minimum thresholds for competence in knee and shoulder arthrocentesis using the modified borderline-group method. We implemented the workshop and SASs in 2020 and 2021 and analyzed assessment tool scoring for statistical reliability and validity. Our program evaluation included SAS performance, participants' survey responses, and change in the number of arthrocenteses performed in the internal medicine (IM) resident primary care clinic. Results: Sixty-one residents (53 IM, eight physical medicine and rehabilitation [PM&R]) participated. Fifty-two (85%; 46 IM, six PM&R) completed the evaluation survey. We procured data from 48 knee and 65 shoulder SASs for validity evidence. All arthrocentesis SAS performances met the proficiency standard except one resident's shoulder SAS. Validity evidence revealed strong interrater reliability (α = .82 and .77 for knee and shoulder, respectively) and strong relational validity (p < .001 for both procedures). All participants rated workshop quality and usefulness as good or very good. The number of arthrocenteses performed at our institution's primary care clinic increased. Discussion: We created a workshop to teach residents arthrocentesis and assessment tools with strong validity and reliability evidence. The workshop was well regarded by residents, who applied their arthrocentesis skills during patient care.

Pain management in sport: therapeutic injections.

Corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, and platelet-rich plasma injections are commonly utilized when managing pain and injury in the athlete. Although there is ample scientific literature on these injection types, there is a paucity of evidence guiding the use of any of these modalities in a younger, athletic population. Injection strategies should be used as just one aspect of a detailed and athlete-specific return to sport and rehabilitation plan. More high-quality research is needed to determine the most appropriate and optimum injection use in the management of painful musculoskeletal conditions, including patient factors and injection formulations.

Injectable Corticosteroids in Sport.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature guiding all aspects of the use of injectable corticosteroids for painful musculoskeletal conditions, with a focus on the treatment of athletes. DATA SOURCES: An extensive search of the literature was completed including search terms of corticosteroid, steroid, athlete, and injection, among others. Additional articles were used after being identified from previously reviewed articles. MAIN RESULTS: Injections of corticosteroids for a variety of painful conditions of the extremities and the axial spine have been described. Numerous minor and major complications have been reported, including those with a high degree of morbidity. There is a dearth of published research on the use of corticosteroid injections in athletes, with most of the research on this topic focused on older, nonathlete populations. Generally, these injections are well tolerated and can provide short-term pain improvement with little or no long-term benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid injections should be used cautiously in athletes and only after a full consideration of the pharmacology, pathogenesis of disease, potential benefits, complications, factors specific to the athlete, and rules of athletic governing bodies. Corticosteroid injections are just one component of a comprehensive rehabilitation plan available to the physician providing care to athletes.