“Simulation”, “deliberate practice”, “rehearsal” have been used to describe safe acquisition and practice of skills before patient contact. Simulation resources are being introduced as a General Medical Council mandate. Individual simulators have shown multi-level evidence but there is no guidance to form a simulation curriculum. We devised a pilot arthroscopy course based on a 4-stage model. Stage 1: session covering anatomy, equipment, and skills required; Stage 2: practice on low fidelity simulators (Arthroscopic Skills Acquisition Tools (ASATs), ArthroBox, Synthetic Knee); Stage 3: practice on high fidelity simulators (Cadaveric Knee, Virtual Reality); Stage 4: assessment on performance intra-operatively. This study sought feedback on Stages 1–3 with the aim that the feedback will help identify how trainees wish to use simulators. Five arthroscopic simulators were used in this one-day pilot course. Prior to commencing, participants were asked which simulator they felt would help them the most. Feedback on each stage, and individual simulator (Likert scale), and how trainees would like to be trained was prospectively collected. Seven orthopaedic juniors took part. All felt the high-fidelity simulators will be the most useful. All stages were ranked with equal importance, whilst cadaveric, plastic, VR, Arthrobox and lastly ASATs ranked in order of realism respectively. For cadaveric arthroscopy trainees wished the trainers to be there all the time (6/7), whilst for VR all trainees wanted their trainers part of the time. We have shown that junior trainees value a structured method of skills acquisition and have identified that high fidelity simulation requires trainers to be present to provide relevant feedback. Such feedback mechanisms need to be incorporated in any curriculum so that simulation tools are not seen as a standalone training method.
The majority of hip fracture patients receive operative treatment, although the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) 2012 suggest 2.6% were treated conservatively. One of only a few published reports on the outcomes of these patients has demonstrated that mortality rates beyond 30 days remain comparable to patients receiving surgery. We have assessed the outcomes of conservatively managed patients in our unit. Patients treated conservatively at our hospital between 2010 and 2012 inclusive were identified using the NHFD. Data collection included mobility status, ASA grade, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), mortality (30 days and 1 year) and pain scores. The study group (N=31) had a mean age 85, mean ASA was 4 and mean NHFS mortality risk 21.3%. Morbidity included one case of pneumonia and one infection from another source, however there were no pressure sores or VTE. Three patients later received surgery once their health had improved. Pain control was achieved in 91% patients (21/23) and although mobility decreased, 34.8% of patients were able to mobilise with either two aids or a frame. Given the selection bias for conservative treatment in unwell patients, the higher mortality figure is not unexpected. Although the 30 day mortality data is higher than the national average for operative management, those patients surviving 30 days have a mortality similar to those managed operatively. Despite mobility decreasing from the pre-admission status, a significant number of patients were pain free and could mobilise. Therefore conservative management can produce acceptable results in these patients.
Enhanced recovery programmes have improved outcomes following elective arthroplasty surgery. Most studies assess whole advanced recovery programmes. There are few studies assessing the role of patient education. We therefore assessed our outcomes. As part of our enhanced recovery programme at Wrexham Maelor Hospital, all patients are offered the chance to attend ‘joint school’, a preoperative education class. Not all patients attend these sessions allowing comparison of outcomes in these two groups using our prospectively collected database of outcome measures. Between April 2009 and March 2013, 915 patients underwent elective hip or knee arthroplasty. Revision cases were excluded, leaving 567 knee replacements, 315 hip replacements and 27 unicompartmental knee replacements. In patients undergoing knee replacement, those attending joint school had shorter length of stay (4.38 vs 4.85 days, p=0.145) and better Oxford Knee Score at 6 months (p=0.026) and two years (p=0.035). Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty had a statistically significantly shorter length of stay (3.64 vs 4.54 days, p=0.011); increased frequency of mobilising on the day of surgery (28.1% vs 22.6%, p=0.203) and higher Oxford Hip Scores (non-significant) if they attended joint school. Our retrospective analysis demonstrates that preoperative education for patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty produces significantly shorter lengths of stay. There are also effects on mobilisation and outcome scores. These effects are also seen in knee arthroplasty. These results will have clinical and financial implications. Assessing cost of saved bed days alone, joint school saves the trust over £10,000 per year.
Failure of non-operative management was deemed as non-union or poor patient tolerance of halo, and occurred in 4 patients (17%). All four had type II odontoid peg fractures, and had transarticular screw fixation. One postoperative complication of screw fracture was recorded.
