Search

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a well-recognized treatment for many shoulder conditions, including rotator cuff arthropathy, primary glenohumeral joint arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis, and can be used in both trauma and revision settings. Over the past 10 years, its popularity in New Zealand has been increasing, with a 6%-7% annual growth rate during this period. Stemless RSA designs have the following proposed advantages: They can preserve humeral bone stock, they can limit periprosthetic fractures, and they can be indicated in patients with abnormal diaphyseal humeral anatomy. To date, only 1 study has evaluated the outcomes of the Lima SMR Stemless implant. We present our data with an aim to report how the stemless reverse arthroplasty compares to a conventional stemmed implant. We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients treated at a single institution between 2015 and 2020. The endpoint was defined as final follow-up at a minimum of 2 years. Patients were excluded from the final analysis if they underwent revision. Thirty-three patients were identified as having undergone stemless RSA. Thirty patients had patient-reported outcome measures and radiographs at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Three patients had undergone revision within 2 years. The same sample size of stemmed RSAs (n = 33) was selected for comparison. A total of 60 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 30 underwent stemless RSA and 30 underwent stemmed RSA. The demographic characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable except age at operation, which showed a statistically significant difference (P =.001): 77 years (stemmed) vs. 65 years (stemless). The mean Oxford Shoulder Score was 40.1 in the stemless group vs. 40 in the stemmed group. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 72.9 in the stemless group vs. 79 in the stemmed group. Patient-reported outcome measures, pain scores, and satisfaction ratings were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups. In terms of radiographic data, subsidence was observed in 2 patients in the stemless RSA group but the patients had no clinical symptoms. Also in the stemless RSA group, 1 patient had an acromial stress fracture and 1 patient had a superficial wound infection successfully treated with oral antibiotics. In terms of revisions in the stemless RSA group, 1 patient underwent revision owing to chronic infection, 1 underwent revision as a result of a periprosthetic fracture after a fall, and 1 underwent revision for gross instability. The early results of sRSA are promising, and the stemless implant shows similar outcomes to a conventional stemmed implant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients have reported a broad range of unmet needs in their receipt of clinical care at the end of life. Therefore, enhancing the quality of end-of-life care through patient-centred healthcare interactions is warranted. Aim: The aim of this rapid umbrella review was to synthesise previous literature reviews that have examined: (1) patient preferences for patient-centred end-of-life care; (2) barriers and enablers to patient-centred end-of-life care; (3) interventions designed to enhance patient-centred end-of-life care; and (4) patient-centred models of end-of-life care. Design: A rapid umbrella review was conducted and informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological guidance for conducting umbrella reviews. Data sources: Three academic databases were searched for relevant literature in May 2022: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria encompassed literature reviews that examined the topic of patient-centred care for any adult patients in end-of-life care. Results: A total of 92 literature reviews were identified. Findings suggest that there is often a discrepancy between patient preferences and the provision of care. These discrepancies have been associated with a range of barriers at the patient, staff and system levels. Common interventions included education and training for staff which were often met with improved patient outcomes. Patient-centred models of care were underrepresented across the literature. Conclusions: This review highlighted a need for healthcare systems to support staff in providing a patient-centred end of life experience through the development of a co-designed patient-centred model of care, supplemented by professional development and a systematic approach to identifying and documenting patient preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore nurses' and family members' perspectives of family care at the end of life, during restricted visitation associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Background: To minimise the transmission of COVID‐19, stringent infection prevention and control measures resulted in restricted hospital access for non‐essential workers and visitors, creating challenges for the provision of family‐centred care at the end of life. Design: Qualitative descriptive approach based on naturalistic inquiry. Methods: At a large public hospital in Melbourne, Australia, individual semi‐structured interviews were undertaken with 15 registered nurses who cared for patients who died during restricted visitation associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic, and 21 bereaved family members. COREQ guidelines informed analysis and reporting. Results: Five themes developed from the data: (i) impact of visitor restrictions, which describes uncertain, ambiguous and arbitrary rules, onerous and inconsistent requirements; (ii) nurse‐family communication; (iii) family‐centred care and interrupted connections; (iv) well‐being and negative emotions; and (v) suggestions for a better way, such as moving away from the black and whiteness of the rules, prioritising communication, compassion and advocacy. Conclusions: Negative consequences for communication and the patient‐family connection at the end of life were felt deeply. The evolving COVID‐19 rules that were frequently revised and applied at short notice, and the subsequent consequences for clinical practices and care were felt deeply. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Technology‐facilitated communication, innovation and increased resources must be prioritised to overcome the challenges described in this study. A family‐centred approach to care and emphasising the patient‐family connection at the end of life is fundamental to minimising trauma and distress associated with future public health emergencies. Patient or Public Contribution: Bereaved family members contributed their first‐hand experience. Members of the health service's patient experience team ensured the research was conducted in accordance with health service guidelines for patient and public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]