A national screening programme has existed in the UK for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) since 1969. However, every aspect of screening and treatment remains controversial. Screening programmes throughout the world vary enormously, and in the UK there is significant variation in screening practice and treatment pathways. We report the results of an attempt by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) to identify a nationwide consensus for the management of DDH in order to unify treatment and suggest an approach for screening. A Delphi consensus study was performed among the membership of BSCOS. Statements were generated by a steering group regarding aspects of the management of DDH in children aged under three months, namely screening and surveillance (15 questions), the technique of ultrasound scanning (eight questions), the initiation of treatment (19 questions), care during treatment with a splint (ten questions), and on quality, governance, and research (eight questions). A two-round Delphi process was used and a consensus document was produced at the final meeting of the steering group.Aims
Methods
Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign. A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a ‘priority score’ (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups.Aims
Methods
To monitor the performance of services for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in Northern Ireland and identify potential improvements to enhance quality of service and plan for the future. This was a prospective observational study, involving all infants treated for DDH between 2011 and 2017. Children underwent clinical assessment and radiological investigation as per the regional surveillance policy. The regional radiology data was interrogated to quantify the use of ultrasound and ionizing radiation for this population.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to assess the quality of life of patients on the waiting list for a total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary aims were to assess whether length of time on the waiting list influenced quality of life and rate of deferral of surgery. During the study period (August and September 2020) 843 patients (THA n = 394, KA n = 449) from ten centres in the UK reported their EuroQol five dimension (EQ-5D) scores and completed a waiting list questionnaire (2020 group). Patient demographic details, procedure, and date when listed were recorded. Patients scoring less than zero for their EQ-5D score were defined to be in a health state “worse than death” (WTD). Data from a retrospective cohort (January 2014 to September 2017) were used as the control group.Aims
Methods
We wished to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled
trial of parathyroid hormone (PTH) supplements to aid healing of
trochanteric fractures of the hip, by an open label prospective
feasibility and pilot study with a nested qualitative sub study.
This aimed to inform the design of a future powered study comparing
the functional recovery after trochanteric hip fracture in patients
undergoing standard care, We undertook a pilot study comparing the functional recovery
after trochanteric hip fracture in patients 60 years or older, admitted
with a trochanteric hip fracture, and potentially eligible to be
randomised to either standard care or the administration of subcutaneous
PTH for six weeks. Our desired outcomes were functional testing
and measures to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the
study.Aims
Patients and Methods
Satisfaction with care is important to both patients
and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely
used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS
as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient
satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending
the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator
of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals
undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university
hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements
and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response. Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval
(CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR
2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI
2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would
recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined
with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17),
drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation
in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar,
this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different
to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and
TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department
should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the
Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to
our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery. Cite this article:
