Aims. National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. Methods. We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD. Results. The highest MCD adherence was demonstrated by the most recently established registries. The first-generation registries in Scandinavia collect data for 60% of MCD fields, second-generation registries (UK, other European, and Australia and New Zealand) collect for 75%, and third-generation registries collect data for 85% of MCD fields. Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age; sex; surgery date/time of operation; surgery type; and death during acute admission). Two fields were collected by most (16/17; 94%) registries (date/time of presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), and five more by the majority (15/17; 88%) registries (type, side, and pathological nature of fracture; anaesthetic modality; and discharge destination). Three core fields were each collected by only 11/17 (65%) registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living; cognition on admission; and bone protection medication prescription. Conclusion. There is moderate but improving compatibility between existing registries and the FFN MCD, and its introduction in 2022 was associated with an improved level of adherence among the most recently established programmes. Greater interoperability could be facilitated by improving consistency of data collection relating to prefracture function, cognition, bone protection, and follow-up duration, and this could improve international collaborative benchmarking, research, and quality improvement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1013–1019

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care. Methods. We compared all ten established national hip fracture registries: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland; Australia and New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden; Norway; Denmark; and Spain. We tabulated all questions included in each registry, and cross-referenced them against the 32 questions of the MCD dataset. Having identified those questions consistently used in the majority of national audits, and which additional fields were used less commonly, we then used consensus methods to establish a revised MCD. Results. A total of 215 unique questions were used across the ten registries. Only 72 (34%) were used in more than one national audit, and only 32 (15%) by more than half of audits. Only one registry used all 32 questions from the 2014 MCD, and five questions were only collected by a single registry. Only 21 of the 32 questions in the MCD were used in the majority of national audits. Only three fields (anaesthetic grade, operation, and date/time of surgery) were used by all ten established audits. We presented these findings at the Asia-Pacific FFN meeting, and used an online questionnaire to capture feedback from expert clinicians from different countries. A draft revision of the MCD was then presented to all 95 nations represented at the Global FFN conference in September 2021, with online feedback again used to finalize the revised MCD. Conclusion. The revised MCD will help aspirant nations establish new registry programmes, facilitate the integration of novel analytic techniques and greater multinational collaboration, and serve as an internationally-accepted standard for monitoring and improving hip fracture services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):721–728

Aims. Hand trauma, consisting of injuries to both the hand and the wrist, are a common injury seen worldwide. The global age-standardized incidence of hand trauma exceeds 179 per 100,000. Hand trauma may require surgical management and therefore result in significant costs to both healthcare systems and society. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common following all surgical interventions, and within hand surgery the risk of SSI is at least 5%. SSI following hand trauma surgery results in significant costs to healthcare systems with estimations of over £450 per patient. The World Health Organization (WHO) have produced international guidelines to help prevent SSIs. However, it is unclear what variability exists in the adherence to these guidelines within hand trauma. The aim is to assess compliance to the WHO global guidelines in prevention of SSI in hand trauma. Methods. This will be an international, multicentre audit comparing antimicrobial practices in hand trauma to the standards outlined by WHO. Through the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), hand surgeons across the globe will be invited to participate in the study. Consultant surgeons/associate specialists managing hand trauma and members of the multidisciplinary team will be identified at participating sites. Teams will be asked to collect data prospectively on a minimum of 20 consecutive patients. The audit will run for eight months. Data collected will include injury details, initial management, hand trauma team management, operation details, postoperative care, and antimicrobial techniques used throughout. Adherence to WHO global guidelines for SSI will be summarized using descriptive statistics across each criteria. Discussion. The Hand and Wrist trauma: Antimicrobials and Infection Audit of Clinical Practice (HAWAII ACP) will provide an understanding of the current antimicrobial practice in hand trauma surgery. This will then provide a basis to guide further research in the field. The findings of this study will be disseminated via conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):361–366

Background. BANDAIDE aka Back and Neck Discomfort relief with Altered behaviour, Intelligent Postures, Dynamic movement and Exercises (ISBN - 0995676933) is a concise self-help booklet containing strengthening exercises and illustrated information to enable patients self-manage their back and neck pain. The aim of this preliminary audit was to determine patient opinion on BANDAIDE. Institutional audit approval was obtained – No. 8429. Methods and Results. BANDAIDE was distributed to 40 patients, who were asked to evaluate the booklet using the Usefulness Scale for Patient Information Material (USE). USE consists of nine positive statements which are subdivided into three sub-domains; cognition, emotional and behavioural. The cognition sub-domain assesses the knowledge obtained from the material, the emotional sub-domain evaluates the effects of the material on an individual's ability to cope with the illness and the behavioural sub-domain assesses ability to self-manage. Responders were required to rate the extent to which they agreed with each of the nine statements on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 denotes ‘completely disagree’ and 10 denotes ‘completely agree’. Each subsection is on a scale of 0–30, with a higher score suggesting better usefulness. 23 participants provided their opinions of BANDAIDE through the USE. For the three sub-domains, the mean ratings for cognition, emotional and behavioural were 27.2, 24.7, and 26.4 respectively. Conclusions. This preliminary audit suggests that BANDAIDE provides coherent advice that enables a patient to self-manage their back and neck pain. Nevertheless, the opinions of a larger cohort should be pursued to obtain more robust conclusions. Conflict of Interest: George Ampat sells the BANDAIDE booklet online through Amazon and other platforms. S Rhodes and J Sims are employed by Talita Cumi Ltd, of which Bandaide is a trading name. Shantanu Kundu is a medical student and has no conflict of interest. Sources of funding: No funding was obtained

Aims. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery during the global pandemic. Secondary objectives were to determine if there was a change in infection and complication profile with changes introduced in practice. Methods. This UK-based multicentre retrospective national audit studied foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between 13 January and 31 July 2020, examining time periods pre-UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23 March to 11 May 2020), and post-lockdown. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included. A total of 43 centres in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland participated. Variables recorded included demographic data, surgical data, comorbidity data, COVID-19 and mortality rates, complications, and infection rates. Results. A total of 6,644 patients were included. Of the operated patients, 0.52% (n = 35) contracted COVID-19. The overall all-cause 30-day mortality rate was 0.41%, however in patients who contracted COVID-19, the mortality rate was 25.71% (n = 9); this was significantly higher for patients undergoing diabetic foot surgery (75%, n = 3 deaths). Matching for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities, the odds ratio of mortality with COVID-19 infection was 11.71 (95% confidence interval 1.55 to 88.74; p = 0.017). There were no differences in surgical complications or infection rates prior to or after lockdown, and among patients with and without COVID-19 infection. After lockdown the COVID-19 infection rate was 0.15% and no patient died of COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 infection was rare in foot and ankle patients even at the peak of lockdown. However, there was a significant mortality rate in those who contracted COVID-19. Overall surgical complications and postoperative infection rates remained unchanged during the period of this audit. Patients and treating medical personnel should be aware of the risks to enable informed decisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(4):216–226

The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) is a clinically led web based audit used to inform national policy guidelines. The aim of this audit was to establish the accuracy of completion of NHFD v13.0 theatre collection sheets, identify common pitfalls and areas of good practice, whilst raising awareness of the importance of accuracy of this data and the manner in which it reflects performance of CAH Trauma & Orthopaedic unit in relation to national guidelines. Our aim was to improve completion up to >80% by the operating surgeon and improve overall accuracy. The methodology within both cycles of the audit were identical. It involved reviewing the NHFD V13.0 completed by the operating surgeon and cross-checking their accuracy against clinical notes, operation notes, imaging, anaesthetic charts and A&E admission assessment. Following completion of cycle 1 these results were presented, and education surrounding V13.0 was provided, at the monthly trust audit meeting. At this point we introduced a sticker onto the pre-operative checklist for Hip fractures. This included time of admission and reason for delay. We then completed a re-audit. Cycle-1 included 25 operations, 56% (n=14) had a completed V13.0 form. Of these 21% (n=3) were deemed to be 100% accurate. Cycle-2 included 31 operations (between April – June 21) 81% (n=25) had a completed intra-operative from and showed an increase in accuracy to 56% (n=14). Through raising awareness, education and our interventions we have seen a significant improvement in the completion and accuracy of v13.0. Although 100% accuracy was not achieved its clear that education and intervention will improve compliance over time. Through the interventions that we have implemented we have shown that it is possible to improve completion and accuracy of the NHFD V13.0 theatre collection sheet locally and feel this could be implemented nationally

Introduction. VTE is a possible complication of foot and ankle surgery, however there is an absence of agreement on contributing risk factors in the development of VTE. The primary outcome of this study was to analyse the 90-day incidence of symptomatic VTE following foot and ankle surgery and to determine which factors may increase the risk of VTE. Methods. This was a national, multi-centre prospective audit spanning a collection duration of 9 months (2022/2023). Primary outcomes included incidence of symptomatic VTE and VTE related mortality up to 90 days following foot and ankle surgery and Achilles tendon rupture, and analysis of risk factors. Results. In total 11,363 patients were available for analysis. 5,090 patients (44.79%) were elective procedures, 4,791 patients (42.16%) were trauma procedures (excluding Achilles ruptures), 398 patients (3.50%) were acute diabetic procedures, 277 patients (2.44%) were Achilles ruptures undergoing surgery and 807 patients (7.10%) were Achilles ruptures treated non-operatively. There were 99 cases of VTE within 90 days of admission across the whole group (Total incidence = 0.87%), with 3 cases of VTE related mortality (0.03%). On univariate analysis, increased age and ASA grade showedhigher odds of 90-day VTE, as did previous cancer, stroke, history of VTE, and type of foot and ankle procedure / injury (p<0.05). However, on multivariate analysis, the only independent predictors for 90-day VTE were found to be the type of foot and ankle procedure (Achilles tendon rupture = Odd's Ratio 11.62, operative to 14.41, non-operative) and ASA grade (grade III/IV = Odd's Ratio 3.64). Conclusion. The incidence of 90-day post procedure VTE in foot and ankle surgery in this national audit was low. Significant, independent risk factors associated with the development of 90-day symptomatic VTE were Achilles tendon rupture management and high ASA grade

Objectives. The primary aim was to determine the differences in COVID-19 infection rate and 30 day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery between different treatment pathways over the two phases of the UK-FALCON audit, spanning the first and second national lockdowns. Design. Multicentre retrospective national audit. Setting. This was a combined retrospective (Phase 1) and prospective (Phase 2) national audit of foot and ankle procedures in the UK in 2020. Participants. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period included from 46 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were categorised as either a green pathway (designated COVID-19 free) or blue pathway. Results. 10,846 patients were included, 6,644 from phase 1 and 4,202 from phase 2. Over the 2 phases the infection rate on a blue pathway was 1.07% (69/6,470) and 0.21% on a green pathway (9/4,280). In phase 1, there was no significant difference in the COVID-19 perioperative infection rate between the blue and green pathways in any element of the first phase (pre-lockdown (p = .109), lockdown (p = .923) or post-lockdown (p = .577)). However, in phase 2 there was a significant reduction in perioperative infection rate when using the green pathway in both the pre-lockdown (p < .001) and lockdown periods (p < .001). There was no significant difference in COVID-19 related mortality between pathways. Conclusions. There was a five-fold reduction in the perioperative COVID-19 infection rate when using designated COVID-19 green pathways; however the success of the pathways only became significant in phase 2 of the study. The study shows a developing success in using green pathways in reducing the risk to patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery

In 2007, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was conceived in the United Kingdom (UK) as a national audit aiming to improve hip fracture care across the country. It now represents the world's largest hip fracture registry. The purpose of the NHFD is to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fracture care, at an institutional level, that reflect the evidence-based clinical guidelines and quality standards developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. No national program currently exists, equivalent to the NHFD, in Canada despite evidence suggesting that national audit programs can significantly improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fractures at our Canadian academic tertiary referral center using the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and benchmarks used by the NHFD. In doing so, we aimed to compare our performance to other hospitals contributing to the NHFD database. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients who presented to our Canadian center for surgical management of a hip fracture between August 2019 to September 2020. Fracture types included intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric, and femoral neck fractures treated with either surgical fixation or arthroplasty. Cases were identified from the affiliate institute's Operatively Repaired Fractures Database (ORFD). The ORFD prospectively collects patient-level data extracted from electronic medical records, operating room information systems, and from patients’ discharge summaries. All applicable data from our database were compared to the established KPI and benchmarks published by the NHFD that apply to the Canadian healthcare system. Six hundred and seven patients’ data (64.5% female) were extracted from the ORFD, mean age 80.4 ± 13.3 years. The NHFD contains data from 63,284 patients across the entire UK. The affiliate institute performed inferiorly compared to the NHFD for two KPIs: prompt surgery (surgery by the day following presentation with hip fracture, 52.8% vs. 69%) and prompt mobilization after surgery (mobilized out of bed by the day after operation, 43.0% vs. 81.0%). However, more patients at the affiliate institute were not delirious when tested postoperatively (89.6% vs. 68.4%). There was no significant difference in the average length of stay (12.23 days versus 13.5 days) or in 30-day mortality rate (8.4% versus 8.3%). More than half of all KPI's and benchmarks for patients receiving a hip fracture surgery at our tertiary referral center in Canada ranked significantly lower than patients receiving a hip fracture surgery in the UK. These findings indicate that perhaps a national audit program should be implemented in Canada to improve aspects of hip fracture care, at an institutional level. Following evidence-based clinical guidelines and using standardized benchmarks would encourage change and foster improvement across Canadian centres when necessary

To evaluate the performance of this institution in its delivery of care to elderly patients with a hip fracture over an 11-year period and to establish recommendations to improve practice. Regular prospective audits of a cohort of 50 patients have been undertaken between 1990 and 2000. A larger and more comprehensive retrospective audit of 100 patients was performed in 2001. Goals were set regarding time to admission, time to surgery and to discharge in close accordance with the best practice guidelines devised by the Royal College of Physicians in 1989. There has been an alarming decline in standards in key areas. Time from A& E to admission: at best 78% of patients within 3 hours, 4% in 2001. Time from admission to surgery: at best 89% within 24 hours, 31% in 2001. Persistence of significant morbidity for patients delayed to surgery for non-medical reasons: 65% of these patients developed a post operative complication and 20% died within 30 days of admission. Delay to discharge: at best 13 acute bed days, now 18 (2001). Current practice is less than ideal. Clinical governance involves a dual responsibility – of the clinician to maintain high standards and of the management to provide adequate resources. Both need addressing to reverse the current trend

Objective. Guidelines published by the British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) and Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS) recommend urgent MRI imaging and intervention in individuals suspected of having CES. The need for an evidence based protocol is driven by a lack of 24/7 MRI services and centralisation of neurosurgery to tertiary centres, compounded by CES's significant medico-legal implications. We conducted an audit to evaluate the pathway for suspected CES in BCUHB West between 2018 and 2021. Methods. A retrospective audit of patients managed for suspected CES between 01/11/2018 and 01/05/2021 was performed, using the SBNS/BASS guidelines as the standard. Results. A total of 252 patients received an emergency MRI for suspected CES between 2018 and 2021. 99% of patients were scanned in compliance with SBNS/BASS standards. Radiological evidence of CES was found in 18% of patients. 33% of emergency scans were performed by out-of-hours services. 4% of patients had repeated scans within the same 6-month period. The majority of referrals originated from Orthopaedics surgeons (78%), or staff in the Emergency Department (8%). 92% of ambulatory patients were not admitted to hospital. During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, referrals increased from 2.5 to 3.5 per week. Conclusion. SBNS/BASS standards were largely met, avoiding life changing disability and medico-legal consequences. The department should continue to follow SBNS/BASS guidance on the management of individuals with suspected CES. Challenges regarding the use of repeated scans should be addressed to avoid unnecessary costs. Introduction of new early recognition guidelines and Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) has likely driven an increase in suspected CES referrals, and subsequent MRI demand. This audit should be utilised as an ongoing tool to ensure best practice continues, and to implement simple measures which may improve compliance with the pathway

Objectives. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery during the global pandemic. Secondary objectives were to determine if there was a change in infection and complication profile with changes introduced in practice. Design. Multicentre retrospective national audit. Setting. UK-based study on foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between the 13. th. January to 31. st. July 2020 – examining time periods pre- UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23. rd. March to 11. th. May 2020) and post-lockdown. Participants. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period included from 43 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Main Outcome Measures. Variables recorded included demographics, surgical data, comorbidity data, COVID-19 and mortality rates, complications, and infection rates. Results. 6644 patients were included. In total 0.52% of operated patients contracted COVID-19 (n=35). The overall all cause 30-day mortality rate was 0.41%, however in patients who contracted COVID-19, the mortality rate was 25.71% (n=9); this was significantly higher for patients undergoing diabetic foot surgery (75%, n=3 deaths). Matching for age, ASA and comorbidities, the OR of mortality with COVID-19 infection was 11.71 (95% CI 1.55 to 88.74, p=0.017). There were no differences in surgical complications or infection rates prior to or after lockdown, and amongst patients with and without COVID-19 infection. After lockdown COVID-19 infection rate was 0.15% and no patient died of COVID-19 infection. Conclusions. COVID-19 infection was rare in foot and ankle patients even at the peak of lockdown. However, there was a significant mortality rate in those who contracted COVID-19. Overall surgical complications and post-operative infection rates remained unchanged during the period of this audit. Patients and treating medical personnel should be aware of the risks to enable informed decisions

There is high morbidity and mortality associated with infection following orthopaedic procedures. In accordance to local guidelines, most hospitals follow a set protocol for surgical prophylaxis, which expects a compliance rate of 100%. A new protocol was introduced to the orthopaedic department of a teaching hospital in August 2013, changing from a cephalosporin, with potential C. difficile risk, to teicoplanin and gentamicin, within 30 minutes of incision. Our aim was to audit how well the protocol was followed across 3 different time periods. Data was collected for 3 different time periods following the introduction of the new protocol (August-November 2013, April-May 2014 & November 2014) on the choice of antibiotic. Both elective and trauma cases were included. After each cycle, the data was presented to the orthopaedic surgical and anaesthetic departments to raise awareness and draw attention to the antibiotic prophylaxis posters in theatre. The 1st audit cycle (n=30) indicated that there was 0% compliance with the current protocol and 100% compliance with the previous protocol. The 2nd audit cycle (n=27) indicated that 0% complied with the current protocol, 54% complied with the previous protocol and that there was a combination of both protocols being used in 46% of the patients. Finally the 3rd audit cycle (n=33) indicated a 100% compliance rate in terms of antibiotic choice. However, only 9% were given the appropriate dose according to body weight and within the appropriate time based on the documented evidence. This audit demonstrates the value of auditing and then disseminating the findings to relevant departments to influence practice. Each audit cycle demonstrated a progressive uptake in compliance with the hospital trust's antibiotic prophylaxis policy. The last audit cycle highlighted discrepancy in dosage based on weights; a further intervention will be to provide ideal body weight (IBW) vs dose tables in all orthopaedic theatres to ensure the correct antibiotic dosage is given

Distal radius fractures (DRF) are very common injuries. National recommendations (British Orthopaedic Association, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)) exist in the UK to guide the management of these injuries. These guidelines provide recommendations about several aspects of care including which type of injuries to treat non-operatively and surgically, timing of surgery and routine follow-up. In particular, current recommendations include considering immobilizing patients for 4 weeks in plaster for those managed conservatively, and operating on fractures within 72 hours for intra-articular injuries and 7 days for extra-articular fractures. With increased demands for services and an ageing population, prompt surgery for those presenting with distal radius fractures is not always possible. A key factor is the need for prompt surgery for hip fracture patients. This study is an audit of the current standard of care at a busy level 2 trauma unit against national guidelines for the management of DRFs. This retrospective audit includes all patients presenting to our emergency department from June to September 2018. Patients over 18 years of age with a diagnosis of a closed distal radius fracture and follow-up in our department were included in the study. Those with open fractures were excluded. Data was retrieved from clinical coding, electronic patient records, and IMPAX Client (Picture archiving and communication system). The following data was collected on patients treated conservatively and those managed surgically:- (1)Time to surgery for surgical management; (2)Period of immobilization for both conservative and operative groups. 45 patients (13 male, 32 female) with 49 distal radius fractures (2 patients had bilateral injuries) were included. Patients had mean age 63 years (range 19 to 92 years) 30 wrists were treated non-operatively and 19 wrists treated surgically (8 K-wires, 10 ORIF, 1 MUA). Mean time to surgery in the operative group was 8 days (range 1 – 21 days, median 7 days). Mean time to surgery for intra-articular fractures was 7 days (range 1 – 21) and 12 days for extra-articular fractures (range 4 – 20). Mean immobilization period in those treated in plaster is 6 weeks (range 4 – 13 weeks, median 5.6 weeks). At busy level 2 trauma units with limited theatre capacity and a high volume of hip fracture admissions, time to surgery for less urgent injuries such as wrist fractures is often delayed. National guidelines are useful in helping to guide management however their standards are often difficult to achieve in the context of increasing populations in urban areas and an ageing population

Audit is an important part of surgical practice. Commissioners may use it as evidence of quality assurance. No comprehensive audit exists in spinal surgery. Usage of existing databases is disappointing. We developed an audit database which was comprehensive and gathered patient outcomes. The underlying principles were:. All patients having surgery should enter,. Duplicate data entry should be avoided. No effort should be required of the participating surgeons. Demographic data, OPCS codes, length of stay and other data were downloaded directly from the hospital information systems. A monthly printout of patients enrolled was provided to the audit coordinator. She was responsible for the collection of clinical outcomes at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after surgery. The initial audit involved the Northwest and Mersey Regions. Data from the hospital information systems (HIS) for two years were available for comparison. Unfortunately only two centres gathered clinical outcomes. We have continued to gather data. 380 patients have been enrolled. HIS data are available for all. With varying lengths of follow up, there are 1045 potential clinical outcomes available. Only 8 patients (2%; 8 outcomes, 0.76%) have been lost to follow up. Using this data we are able to compare outcomes between surgeons, between surgical procedures, and see changes over time. As far as we know we are the only centre in the UK able to do this. It is a valuable Clinical Governance tool. We believe that the principles underlying this audit are the only means to obtain comprehensive outcome audit in surgery

Introduction: Ankle diastasis injury occurs in up to 20% of ankle fractures. Various techniques have been used to treat syndesmosis injuries, but controversy remains and outcome is variable. In light of some recent cases of substandard syndesmosis fixations requiring revision, an audit of our results was undertaken. Method: Study type: Retrospective audit of radiographs and patient records. Data collection: patients were selected using an orthopaedic database search for operations coded as distal tib/fib ORIF or ankle ORIF. Study period: 12 months, July 2008 to July 2009 (currently data has been analyzed on the first 6 months only, the remaining 6 months will follow). Audit questions to be answered: How is ankle diastasis injury being managed? Are we reducing syndesmosis correctly? Should there be a revision to local policy?. Audit standard: Syndesmoses should be adequately reduced and fixation techniques employed should be in accordance with recommendations in standard Orthopaedic reference texts (Rockwood & Green, AO fixation manual 3). Results: 76 ankle ORIFs in July to December 2008 inclusive. Out of these, 16 had diastasis fixation (21%). 2 of the patients had a syndesmosis width over 6 mm indicating an inadequate reduction of the syndesmosis 1. Both of these required revision surgery. In total 70% of the post operative x-rays showed inadequate syndesmosis fixation or reduction. Discussion: The single most predictive indicator of a favourable function is accurate reduction of the syndesmosis 2. Substandard fixations are associated with poor long term outcomes. This raises the potential for litigation and the requirement for education and policy change. We have produced policy guidelines for theatre and circulated the information to all surgeons. A further audit will be carried out to assess the effectiveness of this in 6 months time. (The data will be available from this re-audit for presentation at the conference.)

The Scottish Hip Fracture Audit started in four hospitals in 1993. To date, all except two, hospitals doing hip fractures have been involved in the audit. Participation has been intermittent due to a lack of funds to pay for the audit staff. Nonetheless there are now 19,000 patients recorded on the database. This allows individual hospitals to compare their workload over time and to compare local data with national comparators. Unfortunately many of the outcome parameters involve soft end points such as the delay in operation or the proportion of patients who are sent for formal rehabilitation. Much of the data has simply confirmed what surgeons have always suspected. The injury is becoming more common, the patients are getting older and the patients are becoming less fit. Co-morbidities are frequent and the strongest predictor of mortality is the age of the patient at presentation. What the audit has done from a surgeon’s viewpoint is to define the general lack of resources devoted to this injury and to provide evidence which has been used in many hospitals particularly to increase the availability of operating time. Equally as no surprise comes the realisation that surgery is often the least part of the care of these patients. Evidence from the audit has allowed many hospitals to encourage greater participation by geriatricians in the overall care of these patients. The use of the specialist nurse in hip fractures who has responsibility for all aspects of care including follow up has been particularly useful and is recommended in all units. There are however, two huge problems arising from this data. The first, is that the existence of the data means there is something which can be measured and in consequence this has been used as a management tool to measure performance yet where hospitals have been found lacking, resources have not always been made available to improve performance. The second and newer problem relates to the existing anonymity of data. At present the system is very much like critical incident reporting in the airline industry and no surgeon, anaesthetist or hospital is individually identified in any of the published data. The Freedom of Information Act, which has recently come into force in the UK, may now make is possible for anyone to obtain individual named data on both doctors and hospitals. While threatening, this development now seems inevitable but may discourage full participation in future audit. In spite of these concerns individual clinicians remain enthusiastic about the audit and England, Wales and Northern Ireland have shown considerable interest in developing the audit into a UK wide system

Abstract. Background. University Hospital of Wales (UHW) went live as a Major Trauma Centre (MTC) on the 14th September 2020. New guidelines have been set up by the Wales Trauma Network. Aim. Prospective audit to see how many admissions, correct pathways were followed?. Materials & Methods. Prospective data collection prospective over a period of 3 months: starting from 8.11.2020 to 31.01.2021. Results. Spinal admissions represent around 22% of MTC admissions. The closing loop showed higher amount of admission (45 in comparison with the first audit 28). 42 patients had fractures where three had cord syndromes. 13 patients out of the 45 (29%) were managed operatively. After changing to MTC, more indirect referral from other hospitals representing 64% of total admission with one wrong referral (2.2%) that came to the MTC and could have been managed locally. On the other hand, repatriation rate has improved from 61% to 84%, however, repatriation time was longer than expected with >1 week represents 78%. Conclusions. Changing to MTC had a great impact with increased work load in the trust. Repatriation would be aimed for within 72 hours from treatment either conservative or postoperative. More attention should be paid towards the appropriate referral pathways to avoid wrong referral

Background. Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a spinal condition requiring emergency spinal surgery once diagnosed. The patient-reported symptoms are often subtle and none have been shown to be sensitive or specific in confirming CES. Magnetic resonance image (MRI) is the diagnostic gold standard, and guidelines recommend MRI access within 24-hours of symptom presentation. Limited sequence MRI scans (sagittal T2 sequences of the whole spine) have been shown to successfully identify patients with scan-positive CES despite reducing the duration of an MRI. The aim of this audit was to examine utilisation of same-day MRI requests by spinal practitioners from a newly operational same-day emergency care spinal unit over the two-year period. Methods and results. Data was routinely collected over the two-year period and retrospectively reviewed. Data extraction occurred for cases of suspected CES with a same-day scan. Data extraction included type of MRI scan (lumbar/ whole spine/ CES protocol); outcome (admission/ discharge); final diagnosis. After clinical examination, only 258 (24% of 1085) suspected CES cases were identified and scanned within 24 hours, 58% (n=149) of which were with CES limited sequence scans. Only 12% (n=30) demonstrated scan- positive CES resulting in surgery within 24-hours. MRI same-day requests increased between 2020 (n=81, 21%) and 2021 (n=177, 26%), although utilisation of limited sequence scans improved (n=39, 48% in 2020; n=109, 62% in 2021). Conclusion. Limited sequence MRI scans are a time- and cost-saving means of providing screening for those with suspected CES. Improved utility was demonstrated over the 2-year period by the spinal practitioners. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No sources of funding

There has been extensive research into neck of femur fractures in the elderly. Fragility non-hip femoral fractures share many of the same challenges [1]. Surgical management is complex, patients are frail and mortality rates have been reported as high as 38% [2]. Despite this, relatively little data is available evaluating the level of MDT care provided to non-hip femoral fractures. This audit aimed to evaluate the standard of MDT care provided for patients with non-hip femoral fractures according to the NHFD key performance indicators. The following fractures were included in the dataset: distal femoral, femoral shaft and peri-prosthetic femoral. Patients under 65 were excluded. Data was retrospectively collected using post-operative and medical documentation. Performance was assessed according to five key performance indicators:. Did orthogeriatrics review the patient within 72-hours?. Was surgery performed within 36-hours?. Was the patient weight bearing post-operatively?. Was a confusion assessment completed?. Was the patient discharged home?. 38 patients met the inclusion criteria. 84% of patients were seen by orthogeriatrics within 72 hours of admission. 32% of patients were operated on within 36-hours of admission, with time to theatre exceeding 36-hours in 92% of peri-prosthetic fractures. 37% of patients were not advised to full weight bear post operatively. 84% of patients received a confusion assessment whilst 61% of patients were discharged to their prior place of living. Our results suggest that non-hip femoral fractures do not receive the same standard of MDT care as neck of femur fractures. Greater prioritisation of resources should be given to this patient subset so that care is equivalent to hip-fracture patients. Time to surgery is a particular area for improvement, particularly in peri-prosthetic fractures, a trend that is mirrored nationally. Greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging full-weight bearing post-operatively to prevent post-surgical complications