Local corticosteroid injection versus placebo for carpal tunnel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a very common clinical syndrome manifested by signs and symptoms of irritation of the median nerve at the carpal tunnel in the wrist. Direct and indirect costs of CTS are substantial, with estimated costs of two billion US dollars for CTS surgery in the USA in 1995 alone. Local corticosteroid injection has been used as a non-surgical treatment for CTS many years, but its effectiveness is still debated. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of corticosteroids injected in or around the carpal tunnel for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome compared to no treatment or a placebo injection. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search Methods. The searches were 7 June 2020 and 26 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of adults with CTS that included at least one comparison group of local injection of corticosteroid (LCI) into the wrist and one group that received a placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. improvement in symptoms at up to three months of follow-up. Our secondary outcomes were 2. functional improvement, 3. improvement in symptoms at greater than three months of follow-up, 4. improvement in neurophysiological parameters, 5. improvement in imaging parameters, 6. requirement for carpal tunnel surgery, 7. improvement in quality of life and 8. ADVERSE EVENTS: We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials with 994 participants/hands with CTS. Only nine studies (639 participants/hands) had useable data quantitatively and in general, these studies were at low risk of bias except for one quite high-risk study. The trials were conducted in hospital-based clinics across North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. All trials used participant-reported outcome measures for symptoms, function and quality of life. There is probably an improvement in symptoms measured at up to three months of follow-up favouring LCI (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to -0.59; 8 RCTs, 579 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Up to six months this was still evident favouring LCI (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.28; 4 RCTs, 234 participants/hands; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably an improvement in function measured at up to three months favouring LCI (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.38; 7 RCTs, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in median nerve DML at up to three months of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.37 ms, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.02; 6 RCTs, 359 participants/hands; very low-certainty evidence). The requirement for surgery probably reduces slightly in the LCI group at one year (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, measured at up to three months of follow-up using the Short-Form 6 Dimensions questionnaire (scale from 0.29 to 1.0; higher is better) probably improved slightly in the LCI group (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 111 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were uncommon (low-certainty evidence). One study reported 2/364 injections resulted in severe pain which resolved over "several weeks" and 1/364 injections caused a "sympathetic reaction" with a cool, pale hand that completely resolved in 20 minutes. One study (111 participants) reported no serious adverse events, but 65% of LCI-injected and 16% of the placebo-injected participants experienced mild-to-moderate pain lasting less than two weeks. About 9% of participants experienced localised swelling lasting less than two weeks. Four studies (229 participants) reported that they experienced no adverse events in their studies. Three studies (220 participants) did not specifically report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Local corticosteroid injection is effective for the treatment of mild and moderate CTS with benefits lasting up to six months and a reduced need for surgery up to 12 months. Where serious adverse events were reported, they were rare.

Medical Safety Huddles in Rehabilitation: A Novel Patient Safety Strategy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation process, outcomes, and lessons learned in the implementation of medical safety huddles, a novel patient safety monitoring strategy that promotes physician engagement with patient safety. DESIGN: Single-center observational study. SETTING: Brain and spinal cord injury rehabilitation program at an urban, academic adult rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians associated with the program (N=18). INTERVENTIONS: Weekly physicians' safety huddles were implemented to review, anticipate, and address patient safety issues. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures were the number and nature of identified and anticipated patient safety incidents, actions taken, and physician attendance during huddles. The number of adverse events in the program before and after huddle implementation were secondary measures. RESULTS: Over a 7-month period, average physician attendance at medical huddles was 76.0%. There were 1.0±0.8 patient safety incidents and 3.2±2.1 anticipated patient safety issues identified in each weekly huddle. Most patient safety incidents identified were clinical administrative and clinical process related, which differed from information gathered from the organization's preexisting patient safety monitoring strategies. A total of 79 actions, or 3.3±1.8 actions per huddle, were taken in response to improve patient safety for the program. Adverse events decreased from 31.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.0-35.3) to 22.9 per month (95% CI, 19.3-26.5) after implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Medical safety huddles are a novel strategy to engage physicians in patient safety and organizational quality improvement. They have the potential to enhance organizational anticipation of safety risks by supplementing existing methods. Other rehabilitation settings may wish to consider implementing and evaluating similar huddles into their existing patient safety and quality improvement frameworks.

Using SBAR to communicate falls risk and management in inter-professional rehabilitation teams.

This study implemented and evaluated the adapted Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) tool for use on two inter-professional rehabilitation teams for the specific priority issue of falls prevention and management. SBAR has been widely studied in the literature, but rarely in the context of rehabilitation and beyond nurse-physician communication. In phase one, the adapted SBAR tool was implemented on two teams with a high falls incidence over a six-month period. In phase two, process and outcome evaluations were conducted in a pre-post design comparing the impact of the intervention with changes in the rest of the hospital, including the perceptions of safety culture (as measured by the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture); effective team processes, using the Team Orientation Scale; and safety reporting, including falls incidence, severity and near misses. This study suggests that the adapted SBAR tool was widely and effectively used by inter-professional rehabilitation teams as part of a broader program of safety activities. Near-miss and severity of falls incidence trended downward but were inconclusive, likely due to a short time frame as well as the nature of rehabilitation, which pushes patients to the limit of their abilities. While SBAR was used in the context of falls prevention and management, it was also utilized it in a variety of other clinical and non-clinical situations such as transitions in care, as a debriefing tool and for conflict resolution. Staff found the tool useful in helping to communicate relevant and succinct information, and to "close the loop" by providing recommendations and accountabilities for action. Suggestions are provided to other organizations considering adopting the SBAR tool within their clinical settings, including the use of an implementation tool kit and video simulation for enhanced uptake.

Post-earthquake Haiti: the critical role for rehabilitation services following a humanitarian crisis.

The earthquake that occurred in Haiti on 12 January 2010 resulted in massive infrastructure damage, and created one of the largest single-day loss of life events in modern history. Despite the tragic mortality rates, many people with catastrophic injuries including spinal cord injuries and amputations survived due to swift emergency responses by local and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The outcome however is that Haiti now has a considerable cohort of people who live with important disabilities. In this 'perspectives in rehabilitation' we share our experiences of working in post-earthquake Haiti, and highlight that this event has raised awareness of the critical importance of providing rehabilitation services during and after a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude.

Implementation of a safety framework in a rehabilitation hospital.

This patient safety initiative was implemented at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, a fully affiliated hospital of the University of Toronto that operates in-patient and outpatient facilities on five sites. A working group was created to engage the leaders and employees in defining and implementing our "ideal" safety culture. A subset of this group became the Research Team, mandated to do the "discovery work" with external groups and internal stakeholders to provide valuable input for designing the safety culture model. This involved identifying the key components required to support a safety culture, testing this model with findings from the academic literature and best in class organizations and identifying the who, what, when, where and how of each key component. Future activities will focus on the integration of safety into existing programs, initiatives and policies, seeking feedback from staff, patients and families, and evaluating the effectiveness of our intervention and the extent of the culture change.

Effectiveness of an Adapted SBAR Communication Tool for a Rehabilitation Setting.

Effective communication and teamwork have been identified in the literature as key enablers of patient safety. The SBAR (Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation) process has proven to be an effective communication tool in acute care settings to structure high-urgency communications, particularly between physicians and nurses; however, little is known of its effectiveness in other settings. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an adapted SBAR tool for both urgent and non-urgent situations within a rehabilitation setting. In phase 1 of this study, clinical staff, patient and family input was gathered in a focus-group format to help guide, validate and refine adaptations to the SBAR tool. In phase 2, the adapted SBAR was implemented in one interprofessional team; clinical and support staff participated in educational workshops with experiential learning to enhance their proficiency in using the SBAR process. Key champions reinforced its use within the team. In phase 3, evaluation of the effectiveness of the adapted SBAR tool focused on three main areas: staff perceptions of team communication and patient safety culture (as measured by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture), patient satisfaction (as determined using the Client Perspectives on Rehabilitation Services questionnaire) and safety reporting (including incident and near-miss reporting). Findings from this study suggest that staff found the use of the adapted SBAR tool helpful in both individual and team communications, which ultimately affected perceived changes in the safety culture of the study team. There was a positive but not significant impact on patient satisfaction, likely due to a ceiling effect. Improvements were also seen in safety reporting of incidents and near misses across the organization and within the study team.

Nerve Injuries.

In brief Peripheral nerve injuries are brief common active patients because many sports subject nerves to compression and traction. Patients generally present reporting weakness and paresthesia in the distribution of the damaged nerve. The most common injured nerves are the median and carpal tunnel, ulnar at the elbow, peroneal at the fibular head, long thoracic, and the suprascapular. Several of the less common nerve injuries can also be related to activity. The fact that nerve regrowth is slow often mandates patient, conservative treatment that consists of protection and activity modification.