What are the Predictors of Return to Work for People With Elbow, Wrist, and Hand Conditions? A Systematic Review.

Purpose Conditions affecting the elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand can cause debilitating pain and loss of function in the working population. While there is knowledge about intervention options for this region of the body, there is limited research on systematically identifying the predictors of return to work in this population. Methods A systematic literature review identified all English-language studies that assess predictors of return to work for people with elbow, wrist, and hand conditions from 2009 to 2021 using PRISMA guidelines. Studies that examined exclusively shoulder injuries, randomized control trials, non-human studies, case studies, case reports, case series, and narrative reviews were excluded. Participants of included studies must have a health-related condition of the fingers, wrist, forearm, and elbow that is preventing work participation and must be 16 years and older. Included studies must be observational, longitudinal, and include a return to work outcome. Results Nineteen out of 170 studies were included. Average time away from work varied between seven to 304 days. Positive predictors of early return to work include: demographics, type of injury, type of treatment, work status, physical factors, psychological factors, use of self-reported outcome measures, and self-reported pain. Conclusion Five clinician recommendations were developed based on the findings of our systematic review. Clinicians should consider the type of work, use of outcome measures, psychological factors, hospitalization, and salary. These recommendations are intended to influence the behavior of clinicians when determining prognosis for return to work of people with elbow, wrist, and hand conditions.

Study on the Association between Tail Lesion Score, Cold Carcass Weight, and Viscera Condemnations in Slaughter Pigs.

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between tail lesions, cold carcass weight, and viscera condemnations in an Irish abattoir. The following data were collected at the evisceration point from every third pig slaughtered over 7 days: farm identification, sex, tail lesion score, viscera inspection outcome, and cold carcass weight. Tail lesions were scored according to a 5-point scale. Disease lesions responsible for lung (pleurisy, pneumonia, and abscess), heart (pericarditis), and liver (ascariasis) condemnation were recorded based on the decision of the veterinary inspector (VI). Data on 3,143 pigs from 61 batches were available. The relationship between disease lesions, tail lesion score, and cold carcass weight was studied at individual carcass level, while the relationship between disease lesions and tail lesion score was studied at both carcass and batch level. Tail lesions (score ≥1) were found in 72% of the study population, with 2.3% affected by severe tail lesions (scores ≥3). Pleurisy (13.7%) followed by pneumonia (10.4%) showed the highest prevalence, whereas the prevalence of ascariasis showed the greatest variation between batches (0-75%). Tail lesion score, pleurisy, pleuropneumonia, and pericarditis were associated with reductions in carcass cold weight (P ≤ 0.05) ranging from 3 to 6.6 kg. Tail lesion score was associated with condemnations for pleurisy, pneumonia, and pleuropneumonia (P ≤ 0.05) at a batch level. VI shift was associated with condemnations for pneumonia, pleuropneumonia, and pericarditis (P ≤ 0.05) at a carcass level and with pneumonia at a batch level. Sex was not associated with viscera condemnations but males were more likely to be affected by tail lesions. The relationship between overall tail lesion score and the lung diseases at batch level supports the relationship between poor health and poor welfare of pigs on farms. The inclusion of tail lesion scores at post-mortem meat inspection should be considered as a health and welfare diagnostic tool.

Good animal welfare makes economic sense: potential of pig abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool.

During abattoir meat inspection pig carcasses are partially or fully condemned upon detection of disease that poses a risk to public health or welfare conditions that cause animal suffering e.g. fractures. This incurs direct financial losses to producers and processors. Other health and welfare-related conditions may not result in condemnation but can necessitate 'trimming' of the carcass e.g. bruising, and result in financial losses to the processor. Since animal health is a component of animal welfare these represent a clear link between suboptimal pig welfare and financial losses to the pig industry.Meat inspection data can be used to inform herd health programmes, thereby reducing the risk of injury and disease and improving production efficiency. Furthermore, meat inspection has the potential to contribute to surveillance of animal welfare. Such data could contribute to reduced losses to producers and processors through lower rates of carcass condemnations, trimming and downgrading in conjunction with higher pig welfare standards on farm. Currently meat inspection data are under-utilised in the EU, even as a means of informing herd health programmes. This includes the island of Ireland but particularly the Republic.This review describes the current situation with regard to meat inspection regulation, method, data capture and utilisation across the EU, with special reference to the island of Ireland. It also describes the financial losses arising from poor animal welfare (and health) on farms. This review seeks to contribute to efforts to evaluate the role of meat inspection as a surveillance tool for animal welfare on-farm, using pigs as a case example.

Clinical assessment skills and the use of monitoring equipment.

The relationship between nursing and technology remains contested. This article debates whether technology--in particular the monitoring of cardiac function, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, blood pressure and temperature--helps to provide better nursing care or whether it hinders nurses from developing their clinical assessment skills, and prevents them from providing humanistic and holistic care.