Monitoring, implementation and reporting of interventions in a selection of trials assessing exercise therapy for the management of shoulder subacromial pain: a cross-sectional investigation.

OBJECTIVES: To review the reporting of monitoring and implementation of interventions in a selection of trials that assessed the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise in the management of shoulder subacromial pain. DESIGN: A review of trials assessing the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise in the management of patients with shoulder subacromial pain. METHODS: We included in our review a selection of 10 trials that were included in a Cochrane review and compared manual therapy and exercise intervention with another intervention. Trials were assessed independently by two reviewers using two checklists: the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the Health Behavior Change Consortium treatment fidelity (National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium/NIHBCC). RESULTS: TIDieR overall scores for individual trials ranged from 11.1% to 45% and fidelity scores ranged from 7% to 50%. On average, trials scored the following within each domain of NIHBCC: study design 51%; training of providers 8%; treatment delivery 15%; treatment receipt 14% and treatment enactment 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Little information about the monitoring, implementation and reporting of interventions was provided by trials and that is a barrier for implementing or replicating these interventions. The lack of information regarding the implementation of interventions needs to be taken into account when assessing whether effectiveness of interventions was impacted by their design or due to deviations from the protocol within trials.

Faculty of Prehospital Care, Royal College of Surgeons Edinburgh guidance for medical provision for wilderness medicine.

To support leaders and those involved in providing medical care on expeditions in wilderness environments, the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care (FPHC) of The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh convened an expert panel of leading healthcare professionals and expedition providers. The aims of this panel were to: (1) provide guidance to ensure the best possible medical care for patients within the geographical, logistical and human factor constraints of an expedition environment. (2) Give aspiring and established expedition medics a 'benchmark' of skills they should meet. (3) Facilitate expedition organisers in selecting the most appropriate medical cover and provider for their planned activity. A system of medical planning is suggested to enable expedition leaders to identify the potential medical risks and their mitigation. It was recognised that the scope of practice for wilderness medicine covers elements of primary healthcare, pre-hospital emergency medicine and preventative medicine. Some unique competencies were also identified. Further to this, the panel recommends the use of a matrix and advisory expedition medic competencies relating to the remoteness and medical threat of the expedition. This advice is aimed at all levels of expedition medic, leader and organiser who may be responsible for delivering or managing the delivery of remote medical care for participants. The expedition medic should be someone equipped with the appropriate medical competencies, scope of practice and capabilities in the expedition environment and need not necessarily be a qualified doctor. In addition to providing guidance regarding the clinical competencies required of the expedition medic, the document provides generic guidance and signposting to the more pertinent aspects of the role of expedition medic.