What should be documented for an anterior shoulder dislocation? A Delphi study.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Niels van der Naald, Lukas P E Verweij, Michel P J Van Den Bekerom, Lucia F J Walraven, David Nico Baden
{"title":"What should be documented for an anterior shoulder dislocation? A Delphi study.","authors":"Niels van der Naald, Lukas P E Verweij, Michel P J Van Den Bekerom, Lucia F J Walraven, David Nico Baden","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2024-214347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Standardised consensus-based documentation following anterior shoulder dislocation in the ED might improve clinical quality, reduce heterogeneity in research and reduce workload. The aim of this study was to determine important elements and the extent of variability for the ED documentation following anterior shoulder dislocation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An expert panel of physicians who perform the documentation (emergency physicians) of diagnosis and management of anterior shoulder dislocation and those who may read it (orthopaedic surgeons and general practitioners) was recruited in a three-round Delphi design between May and November 2022. Important elements were identified for history, physical examination, additional examinations, reduction technique and miscellaneous. These were rated on a 0-9 Likert scale. Consensus was reached when ≥80% scored 7-9. Another, independent, outcome was high variability in opinion, defined as at least one score between 1 and 3 and one score between 7 and 9 on an item after the third round.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The expert panel consisted of 22 emergency physicians, 5 general practitioners and 3 orthopaedic surgeons. In the first round, 85 elements were identified, and consensus on importance was reached in 22 out of the 85 elements: <i>medical history</i> (5 out of 30), <i>physical examination</i> (5 out of 18), <i>additional examinations</i> (5 out of 9), <i>reduction</i> (5 out of 17) and <i>miscellaneous</i> (2 out of 11). High variability in importance was seen in 79 (93%) out of the 85 elements after the third round.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A consensus on 22 out of the 85 elements was reached and could be included in the ED documentation on anterior shoulder dislocation. Regardless of this consensus, high variability was observed in almost all the elements, highlighting the difference in opinions. Nevertheless, these elements could facilitate more concise communication among healthcare professionals and could facilitate homogenous datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214347","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Standardised consensus-based documentation following anterior shoulder dislocation in the ED might improve clinical quality, reduce heterogeneity in research and reduce workload. The aim of this study was to determine important elements and the extent of variability for the ED documentation following anterior shoulder dislocation.

Methods: An expert panel of physicians who perform the documentation (emergency physicians) of diagnosis and management of anterior shoulder dislocation and those who may read it (orthopaedic surgeons and general practitioners) was recruited in a three-round Delphi design between May and November 2022. Important elements were identified for history, physical examination, additional examinations, reduction technique and miscellaneous. These were rated on a 0-9 Likert scale. Consensus was reached when ≥80% scored 7-9. Another, independent, outcome was high variability in opinion, defined as at least one score between 1 and 3 and one score between 7 and 9 on an item after the third round.

Results: The expert panel consisted of 22 emergency physicians, 5 general practitioners and 3 orthopaedic surgeons. In the first round, 85 elements were identified, and consensus on importance was reached in 22 out of the 85 elements: medical history (5 out of 30), physical examination (5 out of 18), additional examinations (5 out of 9), reduction (5 out of 17) and miscellaneous (2 out of 11). High variability in importance was seen in 79 (93%) out of the 85 elements after the third round.

Conclusion: A consensus on 22 out of the 85 elements was reached and could be included in the ED documentation on anterior shoulder dislocation. Regardless of this consensus, high variability was observed in almost all the elements, highlighting the difference in opinions. Nevertheless, these elements could facilitate more concise communication among healthcare professionals and could facilitate homogenous datasets.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信