Search

Purpose: To characterize hand-to-elbow injuries in male and female collegiate sports over 10 academic years. Methods: This study describes hand-to-elbow injuries in 8 men's and 8 women's collegiate sports reported to the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) Injury Surveillance Program for the 2004–2005 to 2013–2014 academic years. Injury and surgery rates per 1,000 athlete exposures were calculated for NCAA-sanctioned events by sport, division, season, and setting. Results: There were 6,663 hand-to-elbow injuries, corresponding to a national estimate of 14,872 injuries per year. Injury rates were nearly 4 times higher during competition compared to practice: 1.56 per 1,000 athlete exposures for competition (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51 to 1.62) and 0.42 per 1,000 athlete exposures (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.44) for practice. The injury rate for pre-season competition was 8 times higher (95% CI: 7.40 to 8.72) than that for in-season practice: 2.21 per 1,000 athlete exposures (95% CI: 2.10 to 2.33) for pre-season competition versus 0.28 per 1,000 athlete exposures (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.29) for in-season practice. Men's ice hockey, baseball, and wrestling had the highest injury rates (1.04, 0.98, and 0.84 injuries per 1,000 athlete exposures, respectively). Hand and finger contusions (9%), wrist sprains (9%), and thumb ulnar collateral ligament tears (7%) were the most common injuries. Injury rates increased significantly (There were 6,663 hand-to-elbow injuries, corresponding to a national estimate of 14,872 injuries per year. Injury rates were nearly 4 times higher during competition compared to practice: 1.56 per 1,000 athlete exposures for competition (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51 to 1.62) and 0.42 per 1,000 athlete exposures (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.44) for practice. The injury rate for pre-season competition was 8 times higher (95% CI: 7.40 to 8.72) than that for in-season practice: 2.21 per 1,000 athlete exposures (95% CI: 2.10 to 2.33) for pre-season competition versus 0.28 per 1,000 athlete exposures (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.29) for in-season practice. Men's ice hockey, baseball, and wrestling had the highest injury rates (1.04, 0.98, and 0.84 injuries per 1,000 athlete exposures, respectively). Hand and finger contusions (9%), wrist sprains (9%), and thumb ulnar collateral ligament tears (7%) were the most common injuries. Injury rates increased significantly (P =.016) over the study period, but surgery rates did not. Conclusions: The overall NCAA hand-to-elbow injury rate increased over the study period, and specific high- and low-risk settings (competition and practice, respectively), seasons (pre-season and post-season, respectively), and sports (men's ice hockey, baseball, and wrestling relative to men's and women's soccer and women's lacrosse) were found for these injuries. [[Athletic Training & Sports Health Care. 2020;12(4):159–166.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures has not been evaluated in clinical practice. We hypothesized that adhering to the distal radial fracture radiographic clinical practice guideline (CPG) improves outcomes and reduces costs.Methods: We reviewed 266 patients with distal radial fractures treated at 1 institution. Based on CPG radiographic parameters (Recommendation 3), care was rated as "appropriate" or "inappropriate." QuickDASH (an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] questionnaire) scores were collected. The direct costs of distal radial fracture care were determined. Descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests were used to evaluate demographic characteristics and outcomes across groups. QuickDASH scores, grouped by postoperative time interval, were analyzed using linear mixed effect models to predict outcome trends.Results: In this study, 145 patients in the operative treatment group and 121 patients in the nonoperative treatment group were included. Of the 145 patients in the operative treatment group, 6 underwent an inappropriate surgical procedure, limiting any analyses of that group. Of the 121 patients in the nonoperative treatment group, 68 were treated inappropriately. For the patients in the nonoperative treatment group, appropriate care provided a significant outcome benefit by 1 year; the median QuickDASH score was 10.1 points for the appropriate treatment group and 19.5 points for the inappropriate treatment group (p = 0.05). The total direct costs for inappropriate nonoperative treatment were, on average, 60% higher than appropriate nonoperative treatment. In predictive models, patients with appropriate care in the operative treatment group and the nonoperative treatment group had better outcomes than patients with inappropriate nonoperative treatment at all time points after 29 days.Conclusions: When nonoperative distal radial fracture management was aligned with radiographic CPG criteria, patients in our cohort had improved patient-reported outcomes with lower costs.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe program requirements and scholarly outcomes for registered nurse (RN)-led research in US hospitals. BACKGROUND: Magnet® recognition emphasis on evidence-based practice and research has stimulated the growth of hospital-based nursing research programs. Hospital policies stipulating whether RNs can lead studies as principal investigators (Pis) varied among members of a regional nursing research consortium. METHODS: Members of the consortium conducted a national survey of hospitals regarding their requirements for RN-led research and associated scholarly outcomes. RESULTS: Most (87.1%) of the hospitals (N = 160) reported no minimum educational requirements for nurses to be Pis. Mentoring, training, and peer review/approval requirements differed between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. On average, hospitals reported an annual total of 4 studies initiated, 4 disseminated via podium or poster presentation, 1 published, and 2 funded. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide a prototype and benchmark information for nursing administrators planning to establish, evaluate, and/or expand nursing research programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe program requirements and scholarly outcomes for registered nurse (RN)-led research in US hospitals. BACKGROUND: Magnet® recognition emphasis on evidence-based practice and research has stimulated the growth of hospital-based nursing research programs. Hospital policies stipulating whether RNs can lead studies as principal investigators (Pis) varied among members of a regional nursing research consortium. METHODS: Members of the consortium conducted a national survey of hospitals regarding their requirements for RN-led research and associated scholarly outcomes. RESULTS: Most (87.1%) of the hospitals (N = 160) reported no minimum educational requirements for nurses to be Pis. Mentoring, training, and peer review/approval requirements differed between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. On average, hospitals reported an annual total of 4 studies initiated, 4 disseminated via podium or poster presentation, 1 published, and 2 funded. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide a prototype and benchmark information for nursing administrators planning to establish, evaluate, and/or expand nursing research programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents survey conducted to study nursing research program in U.S. hospitals where registered nurses (RNs) can be principal investigators (PIs). Article also emphases on availability of mentors in hospitals for research and various other requirements also their statuses in magnet or non-magnet hospitals.