The interest in day-case hip arthroplasty is increasing; however, there are conflicting results regarding readmission risk, and little is known about patients’ attitude towards day-case surgery. We aimed to investigate differences in 30-day readmission rates between day-case patients and single-overnight-stay patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and explore patients’ attitude towards day-case surgery. From the Danish National Patient Register we identified 29,486 THAs (1353 day-case THAs and 28,133 single-overnight-stay THAs) performed between 2010 and 2020. Day-case surgery was defined as discharge on the day-of-surgery. Overnight admissions within 30 days of surgery were considered readmissions. Differences in readmission rates between day-case and single-overnight-stay patients were investigated using logistic regression adjusted for patient characteristics and year of surgery. In a single-center descriptive study, 2395 hip arthroplasty patients from 2016 to start-2023 answered a questionnaire on patient characteristics, attitude towards day-case surgery and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). The overall 30-day readmission rate was 4.4% (CI: 4.2–4.6%) with no difference between day-case (4.4%) and single-overnight-stay THAs (4.4%) (odds-ratio: 1.2 [CI: 0.91–1.6]). In the descriptive study answers to the question whether patients were interested in being discharged on the day of surgery, were: “Yes” = 41%, “Do not know” = 20%, “No” = 39%. Patients responding “No” had lower preoperative PROM-scores, were older (“No” = 70.2 y vs. “Yes” = 65.3 y), and more often female (“No” = 72% vs. “Yes” = 52% female). Based on nationwide data from 2010–2020, day-case THA patients were not more likely to be readmitted compared to single-overnight-stay patients. However, most patients were not positive towards day-case surgery. While surgeons may consider day-case surgery to be safe, patients are not intuitively positive, indicating an attitude mismatch. To achieve high success rate and patient satisfaction in day-case surgery, shared-decision making initiatives within day-case surgery are needed

Purpose and background. Lower back pain is a leading cause of disability and a common condition seen by osteopaths. Evidence and advice for the safest lifting posture vary, as do healthcare practitioners' attitudes towards back pain. The aim of this study was to understand osteopaths' beliefs about safe lifting postures, their attitudes towards back pain, and to compare these findings with published data from physiotherapists and manual handling advisors. Methods and results. A cross-sectional electronic survey was used to invite a sample of UK osteopaths to select images that best represent their perception of safe lifting posture (straight or rounded back), and to complete the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ, Appendix 1). Data was analysed to assess lifting posture selection and relationship to back pain attitudes. 46 (85.2%) out of 54 osteopaths selected straight back posture as safest, these participants had significantly more negative attitudes to back pain injury (i.e. higher Back-PAQ scores), than the 8 osteopaths who selected a rounded back posture (p = 0.007). Data from 266 physiotherapists and 132 manual handling advisors revealed an overall agreement about straight back lifting posture, however revealed differences in Back-PAQ attitude between the professions. Conclusion. Despite a lack of evidence base and inconsistent recommendations, osteopaths in this survey and other healthcare practitioners believe that straight back lifting posture is the safest. Practitioners' attitudes vary and are known to influence their patients' attitudes and recovery behaviour. Further research is recommended to identify reasons for different beliefs, and their impact on advice-giving and patient outcomes. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding for the research: None

Background. Phone based Physiotherapy is a topical area of investigation. Salisbury, (2013) states it may be as effective as usual care. It is also suggested that satisfaction is similar, but more specific attitudes have not been investigated. This study aims to retrospectively investigate the attitudes of PD vs usual care patients and to identify any differences in the attitudes of spine pain vs peripheral pain patients. Methods and Results. Questionnaires including 6 attitude questions (3 negatively, 3 positively worded) scored between 0–10 were completed by 197 physiotherapy patients discharged between 6 and 12 months previously. n=99 had received usual care, n=19 only PD care and n=79 both PD and usual care. N=61 had been treated for back or neck pain and n=136 had peripheral pain. Overall patients who had received some PD care were more likely to strongly agree (score 8–10) with the positive statements and strongly disagree (score 0–2) with the negative ones than patients who had not had some PD care. Spine patients who had never had PD were more likely to strongly agree with the negative statements than non-spines, but this was only the case with 1-in-3 negative statements in spine patients who had received PD. Compared to spine pain patients who had never had PD care, spine patients who had received PD were far more likely to strongly disagree with negative statements about PD than non-spine patients. Multiple other interesting trends exist. Conclusion. Spine pain patients' attitudes to PD care may differ from non-spine pain patients

Purpose and background. Pain related distress is associated with poor low back pain outcomes, and is challenging for practitioners to address. This study investigated osteopaths' beliefs about the relationship between chronic pain (CP) and distress (D). The research aimed to explore how patient's distress is understood and managed by osteopath educator clinicians with an interest in the field. Methods and results. A qualitative research design using a constructivist grounded theory analytical approach was used to analyse semi-structured interviews. A purposive sample of seven osteopaths working at the British School of Osteopathy (BSO) with experience with CP-D was recruited. Data collection and analysis were carried out simultaneously. Audio-recording, verbatim-transcriptions, memos-writing and diary-keeping were used to develop themes and theory. Three main themes were identified: osteopaths understanding of the CP-D presentation, evaluation and assessment of the CP-D patient, the role of the osteopath and therapist-patient interaction in CP-D treatment. Three sub-themes were developed for each theme. Conclusions. Osteopaths recognized the relationship between CP-D. They considered the management of this presentation complex and challenging due to extensive clinical uncertainty. Osteopaths considered the therapist-patient interaction as a crucial vehicle for evaluating the individual patient presentation along with understanding patient's biopsychosocial factors and readiness to change, however a lack of rigor was identified with this process. Challenges related to evaluation were mainly related to patient characteristics and osteopath's lack of training. Further work is required to develop better evaluation and intervention strategies as well as understanding patient's attitudes to the relationship between CP and D. Conflict of interest: None. Sources of funding: None

The objective of this study was to examine patients’ use of the Internet to obtain medical information, their opinions on the quality of medical Web sites and their attitudes towards Internet-based consultations. The study made use of a questionnaire given to 398 patients, aged 10 to 95 years (mean 55 years), visiting the orthopaedic outpatient clinics of a London district general hospital over a 2 week period. The major outcome measures were; 1) the rate of Internet use by patients, 2) the perception of the quality of medical websites, 3) future intentions and attitudes towards internet-based consultations, and 4) concurrence between information obtained from Web sites and advice given by the orthopaedic surgeon in the clinic. Results were considered significant at p< 0.05. The Chi. 2. test was used to compare proportions. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were used to quantify correlation. From 369 respondents (response rate 91%), 55.3% of patients had accessed the Internet. Of these 52.0% had obtained medical information from this source. Access was linearly correlated with age (r. 2. =0.975, p< 0.01) and was also related to social status. Of the 12.3% of patients who had researched their particular orthopaedic condition, 20% reported that the advice received from the surgeon in the clinical contradicted that obtained from the Internet. A total of 37.5% of patients would undergo an Internet-based consultation, whilst a further 25.5% would consider this, depending on the medical condition in question. This is the first detailed UK study examining patient attitude towards Web-based medical learning. Over half of the patients were willing to access the Internet for medical information, with younger patients more likely to undertake this activity. As the commercial advantages of a captive patient population become apparent, there is the potential for inaccurate or misleading information, that has not undergone peer review, to be disseminated over the Internet The increased use of medical Websites by patients raised important issues regarding the need for quality control, which orthopaedic surgeons and their institutions both need to address. This also impacts significantly upon the changing nature of the surgeon-patient relationship

Aims

This study assesses patient barriers to successful telemedicine care in orthopaedic practices in a large academic practice in the COVID-19 era.

Summary. Cognitive testing scores do not correlate with physical braking performance. Psychological questioning shows patients are more dependent on driving than a control group. Introduction. Returning to driving after surgery is a multifaceted issue. There are the medical aspects to consider- whether the patient is medically fit to drive. The term ‘medically fit to drive’ can encompass a range of issues which fall to doctors to solve, including the psychological and mental wellbeing. Groups whose governance involves patients or driving do not issue sound advice for patients or doctors to follow. Investigation of aspects affecting a driver's ability to control their vehicle in a safe manner could go towards providing an evidence base for guidance to be issued in the future. Methods. A custom force assessment rig was used to gather peak force and reaction time measurements from a group of patients waiting for, or having undergone lower limb surgery. A bespoke questionnaire that investigated patient's attitudes towards returning to driving; their behaviours and concerns was issued. Other mobility questions were also issued to these patients, including the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS). The final tests (Stroop task, tower of Hanoi, and the opposite worlds test [OWT]) were aimed at assessing a patient's neurological function, in an attempt to investigate the effect of post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) on driving ability. These data were compared against a control cohort. Results. No significant differences were observed in the physical results between cohorts. However, significant differences between the control cohort and patient cohort were observed in a number of tests. The tower of Hanoi was the only significantly different neurological test (p=0.027). The Stroop task and OWT were not significantly different (p=0.103, p=0.131 respectively). There were significant differences in many of the psychological and mobility questions posed (reliance on driving [p<0.001], keenness to return [p=0.014], anxiety about being unable to drive [p=0.019], depression at being unable to drive [p=0.011], worries that driving would cause them pain [p<0.001], and confidence in using public transport [p=0.002]). Activity rankings also had a significant difference, with driving becoming a higher priority in the patient group (p=0.002). There were no significant differences between cohorts in physical testing, but LEFS was significantly different (p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between physical testing and neurological function, so we cannot prove nor disprove that neurological deficits affect physical function. Psychological variables and physical function did not correlate, but LEFS was correlated to a number of psychological variables. Conclusions. Due to the insignificance of correlations between neurological function tests and physical function, further work is recommended to conclusively determine whether there is a link or not. Different and/or additional neurological test batteries should be also considered, for example the CANTAB. Future studies should stratify cohorts based on surgical indication. Extension of the psychological research could identify the most popular goals or activities for those returning from surgery, potentially creating targets for the rehabilitation process

Collecting outcome scores in paper form is fraught with difficulty. We have assessed the feasibility of and patient’s attitude towards entering scores using a touchscreen. A touchscreen was installed in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. If relevant, patients were asked to complete either an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) using the screen. Patients were given written instructions and their hospital number by the receptionist who had no further input. Scores were completed with two identifiers. A paper questionnaire was used to assess computer experience and attitude towards the touchscreen. Results: 1377 patients, average age 51 successfully completed a score in the first 12 months. 1/3 were over 60. 93% correctly entered their hospital number and date of birth, falling to 85% in patients over 70. All patients were identifiable. The average time to complete the scores was 4 minutes rising with age. Of 170 patients completing the questionnaire, 1/3 had little or no experience of computers and 1/3 were over 60. 93% of patients were willing to repeat the score using the touchscreen to monitor progress. 2/3 found it easier to use than expected. Only 10% would prefer a paper score. These results were maintained among patients over 60. Only 2 were unable to complete the score and 80 % of those potentially eligible did so. The remainder were called to clinic before the touchscreen was free. Conclusion: Orthopaedic outcome scores can be collected in very large volumes using a touchscreen. Data is then in an immediately usable form. The method is acceptable to the patients, independent of age and computer experience. Even in the oldest patients the accuracy is higher than for paper versions of the score. Combined with operative data, this simple method has the potential to provide a very powerful audit tool indeed