Yellow Flags

2022 ◽  
Vol 5 (01) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Keyword(s):  
Yellow Flags

Patients with shoulder pain referred to specialist care; treatment, predictors of pain and disability, emotional distress, main symptoms and sick-leave: a cohort study with a six-months follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 775-783
Author(s):  
Kaia B. Engebretsen ◽  
Jens Ivar Brox ◽  
Niels Gunnar Juel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Sick Leave ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Emotional Distress ◽  
Outpatient Clinic ◽  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Specialist Care ◽  
Yellow Flags

AbstractObjectivesRecommendations for referral of patients with shoulder pain from primary to specialist care are mainly clinical. Several patients are referred without meeting these criteria for referral, whereas some are referred for a second opinion although surgery is not recommended. The aims of this study were to describe a shoulder pain cohort in specialist healthcare according to demographic data, clinical, and psychological factors; evaluate changes in pain and disability, distress and main symptoms from baseline to six-month follow-up; and to assess predictors of pain and disability, changes in the main symptoms and sick-leave at six-months. Results were compared to previous randomised trials conducted at the same clinic in patients with subacromial shoulder pain.MethodsThis prospective study included 167 patients from an outpatient clinic in specialist healthcare with shoulder pain for more than 6 weeks. Clinical (pain duration, intensity, pain sites), sociodemographic (age, gender, educational level, work status) and psychological variables (emotional distress (HSCL-10), fear of pain, screening of “yellow flags”, health-related quality of life) were collected. Shoulder pain and disability (SPADI-score) were assessed and the patients were asked about their outcome expectation and to predict their status of their shoulder problem the next month. They underwent a clinical interview, a clinical assessment of shoulder function and orthopaedic tests for diagnostic purposes. After six months they received a questionnaire with main variables.ResultsOf the 167 patients (55% women), 50% had symptoms for more than 12 months and 37 (22%) were on sick-leave. Characteristics were in general comparable to patients previously included in clinical trials at the same department. The SPADI-score was 46 (23) points. Mean emotional distress was within the normal range (1.7 (SD 0.6)). More than 80% had received treatment before, mainly physiotherapy in addition to the GPs treatment. One hundred and thirty-seven patients (82%) were re-referred to physiotherapy, 74 (44%) in the outpatient clinic specialist healthcare, and 63 (38%) in primary care. One hundred and eighteen (71%) answered the follow-up questionnaire. Mean change in SPADI-score was 10.5 points (95% CI (6.5–14.5)), and 29% of the patients improved more than the smallest detectable difference (SDD). The percentage sick-listed was 19.5%, and mean change in main symptoms (−9 to +9) was 3.4 (SD 3.9). The subgroup of patients receiving physiotherapy in outpatient specialist care did not show any significant change in the main variables. The prediction models suggested that a lower level of education, more fear of pain and a high baseline SPADI-score, predicted a higher SPADI-score at follow-up. A high baseline HSCL-10 score was the only significant predictor for a high HSCL-10 score. At follow-up, less pain at rest predicted more change in main symptoms and more yellow flags (a higher score on the Örebro screening test) predicted sick-leave.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of a cohort study, patients with persistent shoulder pain referred to an outpatient specialist clinic had similar baseline characteristics but shorter treatment duration, inferior clinical results and predictors somewhat different compared with previous clinical trials conducted at the same clinic. The study raises some questions about the effectiveness of the routines in daily clinical practice, the selection of patients, the treatment duration and content.

scholarly journals Common Health Problems, Yellow Flags and Functioning in a Community Setting

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhiannon Buck ◽  
Maria C. Barnes ◽  
Debbie Cohen ◽  
Mansel Aylward
Keyword(s):  
Community Setting ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Yellow Flags

scholarly journals Risk Factors for Pressure Injuries in Adult Patients: A Narrative Synthesis

2022 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 761
Author(s):  
Man-Long Chung ◽  
Manuel Widdel ◽  
Julian Kirchhoff ◽  
Julia Sellin ◽  
Mohieddine Jelali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Pressure Injury ◽  
Yellow Flags ◽  
Independent Risk Factors

Pressure injuries remain a serious health complication for patients and nursing staff. Evidence from the past decade has not been analysed through narrative synthesis yet. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other reviews/sources were screened. Risk of bias was evaluated using a slightly modified QUIPS tool. Risk factor domains were used to assign (non)statistically independent risk factors. Hence, 67 studies with 679,660 patients were included. In low to moderate risk of bias studies, non-blanchable erythema reliably predicted pressure injury stage 2. Factors influencing mechanical boundary conditions, e.g., higher interface pressure or BMI < 18.5, as well as factors affecting interindividual susceptibility (male sex, older age, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, diabetes, hypotension, low physical activity, existing pressure injuries) and treatment-related aspects, such as length of stay in intensive care units, were identified as possible risk factors for pressure injury development. Health care professionals’ evidence-based knowledge of above-mentioned risk factors is vital to ensure optimal prevention and/or treatment. Openly accessible risk factors, e.g., sex, age, BMI, pre-existing diabetes, and non-blanchable erythema, can serve as yellow flags for pressure injury development. Close communication concerning further risk factors, e.g., anemia, hypoalbuminemia, or low physical activity, may optimize prevention and/or treatment. Further high-quality evidence is warranted.

Neuroimaging utilization and findings in headache outpatients: Significance of red and yellow flags

Cephalalgia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (12) ◽  
pp. 1841-1848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan P Young ◽  
Muhamad Y Elrashidi ◽  
Paul M McKie ◽  
Jon O Ebbert
Keyword(s):  
Imaging Study ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
History Of ◽  
Red Flag ◽  
Neuroimaging Study ◽  
Yellow Flags

Background Neuroimaging for headache commonly exceeds published guideline recommendations and may be overutilized. Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of all outpatient community patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester who underwent a neuroimaging study for a headache indication in 2015. We assessed the neuroimaging utilization pattern, clinical application of red flags, and concordance with neuroimaging guidelines. Results We identified 190 outpatients who underwent 304 neuroimaging studies for headache. The median age was 46.5 years (range 18–91 years), 65% were female, and most reported no prior history of headache (n = 97, 51%). A minority of patients had prior brain imaging studies (n = 44, 23%) and neurological consultations for headache (n = 29, 15%). Few studies were ordered after consultation with a neurologist (n = 14, 7%). Seventy-seven percent of patients were documented to have a “red flag” justifying the imaging study. Abnormal neuroimaging findings were found in 3.1% of patients with warning flags (5/161); carotid dissection (n = 3) and reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome (n = 2). An estimated 35% of patients were imaged against guidelines. Conclusions The prevalence of serious causes of headache in a community practice was low despite the presence of a documented red flag symptom. Inadequate understanding or application of red flags may be contributing to recommendations to image patients against current guidelines. Interventions to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging of patients with headache need to be designed and implemented.

Yellow Flags

2006 ◽  
pp. 2675-2679
Author(s):  
Chris J. Main
Keyword(s):  
Yellow Flags

Avoiding anchoring bias in unexplained chronic pain: an unexpected diagnosis of synovial osteochondromatosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. e240462
Author(s):  
Rehana Murani ◽  
Ranita Harpreet Kaur Manocha
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Synovial Osteochondromatosis ◽  
Unexplained Pain ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
History Of ◽  
Yellow Flags

Unconscious biases may influence clinical decision making, leading to diagnostic error. Anchoring bias occurs when a physician relies too heavily on the initial data received. We present a 57-year-old man with a 3-year history of unexplained right thigh pain who was referred to a physiatry clinic for suggestions on managing presumed non-organic pain. The patient had previously been assessed by numerous specialists and had undergone several imaging investigations, with no identifiable cause for his pain. Physical examination was challenging and there were several ‘yellow flags’ on history. A thorough reconsideration of the possible diagnoses led to the discovery of hip synovial osteochondromatosis as the cause for his symptoms. Over-reliance on the referral information may have led to this diagnosis being missed. In patients with unexplained pain, it is important to be aware of anchoring bias in order to avoid missing rare diagnoses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document