Traditionally, informed consent for clinical
research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information
Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time
as they need to discuss the study information with their friends
and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This
system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what
happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency? This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed
consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken
may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment
required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent
following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips
for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries
and emergencies. Cite this article:
Many hospitals do not have a structured process
of consent, the attainment of which can often be rather ‘last-minute’
and somewhat chaotic. This is a surprising state of affairs as spinal
surgery is a high-risk surgical specialty with potential for expensive
litigation claims. More recently, the Montgomery ruling by the United
Kingdom Supreme Court has placed the subject of informed consent
into the spotlight. There is a paucity of practical guidance on how a consent process
can be achieved in a busy clinical setting. The British Association
of Spinal Surgeons (BASS) has convened a working party to address
this need. To our knowledge this is the first example of a national
professional body, representing a single surgical specialty, taking such
a fundamental initiative. In a hard-pressed clinical environment, the ability to achieve
admission reliably on the day of surgery, in patients at ease with
their situation and with little likelihood of late cancellation,
will be of great benefit. It will reduce litigation and improve
the patient experience. Cite this article:
Health economic evaluations potentially provide
valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators,
and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions
about the care of patients. The highest quality research should
be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access
to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses
are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar
to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial
national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit
the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum
guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency
of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments
are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the
interpretation of results. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types
of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments
for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current
reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these
types of studies to Cite this article:
The effective capture of outcome measures in
the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s
investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in
the Crimean war in the 1850s. Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes
data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself. With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value
based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store
and interpret data. Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British
Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry.
Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole
surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000
patients have been entered onto the database. There has been significant publicity regarding the collection
of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores.
Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves,
with many more entered by the surgical teams. Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced
by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results
be reported and in what forum? Cite this article:
The limitations and benefits of patient-reported
outcome measures, in defining the merits of arthroplasty surgery,
are discussed. Cite this article:
Trauma and Orthopaedic care has been through
a rapid evolution over the past few decades. This Editorial discusses
some of the advances. Cite this article:
The extent and depth of routine health care data
are growing at an ever-increasing rate, forming huge repositories
of information. These repositories can answer a vast array of questions.
However, an understanding of the purpose of the dataset used and
the quality of the data collected are paramount to determine the
reliability of the result obtained. This Editorial describes the importance of adherence to sound
methodological principles in the reporting and publication of research
using ‘big’ data, with a suggested reporting framework for future Cite this article:
We explore the limitations of complete reliance
on evidence-based medicine which can be diminished by confounding
issues and sampling bias. Other strategies which may be reasonably
invoked are discussed. Cite this article:
Cite this article:
Continuing professional development (CPD) refers
to the ongoing participation in activities that keep a doctor up
to date and fit to practise once they have completed formal training.
It is something that most will do naturally to serve their patients
and to enable them to run a safe and profitable practice. Increasingly,
regulators are formalising the requirements for evidence of CPD,
often as part of a process of revalidation or relicensing. This paper reviews how orthopaedic journals can be used as part
of the process of continuing professional development. Cite this article:
The importance for observing the intention-to-treat
approach in clinical studies is explained. Cite this article:
