Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 9 - 9
1 Feb 2013
Gbejuade H Bakare S Mackinnon H Verborg S
Full Access

With modern day easy access to information, many health staff may be presumptuous of patients' level of understanding of medical terms and abbreviations. A recent audit of consent forms in Orthopaedic trauma in our department showed that doctors used abbreviations in 21% of consent forms; this was seen to increase to 48% during the re-audit. The findings motivated us to conduct this study to evaluate the level of patients' understanding of commonly used abbreviations/terminologies.

This questionnaire-based study recruited patients from both our elective and Trauma Orthopaedic units. Patient age, gender, medical and educational backgrounds were all randomised. Patients' understanding of 24 abbreviations/terminologies, selected from consent forms, patients' discharge letters and verbal communication with patients, were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed. Patients' perspectives were also sought.

All 182 patients who participated were proficient in English language. Most patients(80.2%) understood the term “physio,” however only 3.8% could correctly interpret “DHS”. 10% of patients understood “TKR,” 8.2% understood “THR” and 3.8% understood “NOF”. Interestingly, although 61.5% understood “DVT,” only 8.2% understood “PE” with most interpreting it as physical education/exercise. Only 8.2% related “MI” to any form of cardiac pathology. Almost all patients confirmed the use of unfamiliar abbreviations by health staff during communication.

Our study revealed that patients were not conversant with many abbreviations used in Orthopaedics. There is a need for greater awareness amongst doctors and other health staff about the indiscriminate use of abbreviations. From patients' perspective, interpretation should be given when using abbreviations or avoid their use altogether.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 85-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 120 - 120
1 Feb 2003
Wade RH Moorcroft CI Ogrodnik P Verborg S Thomas PBM
Full Access

A study was undertaken of externally fixed tibial fractures in which a fracture stiffness of greater than 15Nm/° was used to define when the frame was removed were included 37 patients were studied; 20 (54%) non-smokers and 17 (46%) smokers. The two groups were comparable (ANOVA p=0. 35) for other factors.

Mean healing times in the non-smokers was 15. 5 weeks and in smokers was 21. 2 weeks (t-test p=0. 05).

We encourage all patients with tibial fractures to stop smoking by quoting an increase of treatment time of six weeks.