Introduction. Idiopathic scoliosis is a lateral curvature of the spine >10° as measured on a frontal plane radiograph by the Cobb angle. Important variables in assessing the risk of curve progression include a young age at presentation, female sex, a large amount of growth remaining, the rate of growth, the curve magnitude, and the curve location. Curves >20° have an inherently low risk of progression. Surgery is indicated for curves >50° or rapidly progressing curves. The timing of surgery is paramount in order to intervene in cases where rapid progression is evident to prevent further deterioration. There is a greater likelihood for more complex surgery to be required in major curves. At present, there are severe restrictions on resources to cater for patients with scoliosis. As a result, patients spend excessive periods on waiting lists prior to having their procedure. The aim of this study is to analyse the progression of curves of patients while on the waiting list and assess the cost implications of curve deterioration. Methods. A retrospective analysis of 40 cases of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis performed from between 2007-2010 was carried out. All radiographs at the time of being placed on the waiting list and the time of admission were reviewed to assess the Cobb angle. The radiographs were analysed independently by three spinal surgeons to determine what level of surgical intervention they would recommend at each time point. The final procedure performed was also recorded. A cost analysis was carried out of all of the expenses that are incurred as part of scoliosis surgery, including length of hospital stay, intensive care admission, spinal monitoring, implant cost, and the requirement for multiple procedures. Results. The average time on the waiting list was 12 months (range 6 – 16 months). Comparison of radiographs at the time of listing and time of admission revealed a deterioration of the Cobb angle by an average of 12°. The average Cobb angle at time of surgery was 78° (range 55° - 96°). Analysis of cost implications revealed an increase in cost based on implant requirements, length of stay and intensive care admission estimated at 25%. Conclusion. The results of this study demonstrate that there is a significant deterioration of scoliosis curvature in patients while on the waiting list. The consequence of this progression results in longer operative time, increased requirement for intensive care beds, an increase in requirements for additional levels of pedicle instrument, and a prolonged length of stay. The implications of the deterioration in curvature result in an increase in overall cost estimated at 25%.
Waitemata DHB serves a population of approximately 500,000. There are 396 general practitioners who refer to the services. Approximately 400 patients are referred per month. Budget constraints mean not all patients referred can be seen and various Ministry of Health guidelines and Health and Disability Commission rulings help to determine which patients will be seen. All referrals to the service are assessed by one surgeon. There are specific requirements for referral of patients with certain complaints. Assistance is given to the general practitioner in organising the more specialist investigations. Help is given to GPs by telephone for patient management particularly of the simpler conditions. Approximately a quarter of patients referred are referred back to the GP. MRI and CT scans are arranged of which half are returned. Time must be allocated within the department to allow this specialist liaison with GPs to occur.
Funding for the health service is limited and this inevitably leads to rationing. However, the allocation of funding to different specialities and clinical areas often has no rational basis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the health status of patients on the orthopaedic waiting list. The SF-36 was used as a postal questionnaire and sent to all adult patients on the elective orthopaedic waiting list at our hospital. Demographic data was collected and patients were grouped by intended operation. The health domains of the SF-36 were adjusted for demographic variables and compared to population norms using non-parametric statistical methods. The SF-36 was sent to 1586 patients and 1155 responded (73%). Analysis was undertaken for hip replacement (n=194), knee replacement (n=291), knee arthroscopy (n=232), foot and ankle (n=147) and cruciate ligament reconstruction (n=46). All diagnostic groups had significantly worse (p<
0.05) scores for all domains of health when compared to population norms. Patients awaiting joint replacement had worse disability (p<
0.001) than other groups, particularly for pain and physical function. Patients over 40 years awaiting arthroscopy had disability approaching these levels and those awaiting ACL reconstruction had poor physical function. In general, patients awaiting foot or ankle surgery had better health than other diagnostic groups but still had significant reductions when compared to normal. Health scores were not related to the Townsend index for social deprivation, indicating equity of access within the health service. Patients awaiting hip and knee replacement have worse health than others on the waiting list. The SF-36 could be a useful tool if priority on waiting lists were to be determined by pain and disability rather than waiting time.
More than 20 million UK citizens have MSK conditions, and post-pandemic the backlog awaiting access to MSK services has increased. The most prevalent MSK condition is low back pain (LBP), and getUBetter has been recommended by NICE as one of five digital health technologies for helping manage LBP. Purpose: Evaluate impact of getUBetter on a community MSK waiting list. Mixed methods approach used. All patients on community MSK waiting list sent a postal invite for getUBetter. Number of downloads and frequency of use recorded, and users emailed questionnaire exploring outcomes and satisfaction. Rate users removed themselves from the waiting list compared with non-users. Of 14,500 invitations, 657(4.5%) patients downloaded getUBetter, 395(60.1%) used it once and 138(21%) ≥3 times. Seventeen (7%) of 239 patients canvassed responded to questionnaire, 17% reported improved pain, 21% reported improved confidence and had been helped back to work. Twenty-five percent better understood their condition and 43% needed no other treatment. Seventy-five percent were critical of limited content, with chronic osteoarthritis mentioned. 69.6% of users removed themselves from the waiting list. This was 29.6% above the rate for non-users.Purpose/Background
Methods/Results
The aim of this study was to
Report the clinical scores of patients placed on the waiting list for joint arthroplasty in Tauranga (CPAC, Oxford hip and knees scores, WOMAC and SF-12) Compare the scores for this cohort to those of patients reaching threshold for joint arthroplasty published internationally. Compare scores obtained between the scoring tools and establish accuracy of correlation in this population In this prospective study all patients complete Oxford hip or knee scores, SF-12, and WOMAC scores. An initial subset of patients (457) who had been entered onto the waiting list prior to May 2005 also completed CPAC scores. A literature search for published studies using Oxford, WOMAC, SF-12 and SF-36 scoring tools was performed using Medline and PubMed databases. Four hundred and fifty seven waiting list patients completed all 4 scores. Results, including correlation between scoring systems and comparisons with international data are reported. We found significant variation between internationally accepted scores and the CPAC scoring system. Current waiting list Oxford scores for Tauranga patients are significantly worse than those published in the literature although when including the entire group the difference is small. 2.04 (1.34–2.74 95% CI). After rescoring, patients reaching the certainty threshold, (cTT), and active review threshold, (aTT), have scores that are much worse than those in the published literature.
In the local group 17 (2.6%) knees have so far been revised in the same period of time. Of these 10 have been for deep infection, 3 for aseptic loosening, 3 for instability, and 1 for soft tissue impingement.
We report on two patient groups questioned about travelling for surgery outside of their base hospital to cut waiting times. Firstly 30 patients travelled approximately 50–60 miles to have hip replacements. After surgery we asked them their thoughts regarding an unknown surgeon, self and relatives expenses and any inconvenience. Five (17%) were anxious about taking part and 3 (10%) incurred extra expense (transport was provided). Eight (27%) stated that relatives incurred extra expense and 5 (17%) stated relatives had difficulty visiting. All were not concerned about having their operation carried outside of the local area by a new surgeon. Asking the question as: how keen were you on having the surgical team you first met at your local hospital to do your joint replacement? responses were: 1 not keen (4%), 25 not bothered (83%) and 4 very keen (13%). Three (10%) stated that relatives had to take time off work to visit them. All patients thought that the idea of reducing waiting lists by doing the operation in a private hospital was good. We felt their response was perhaps too positive and decided to look at a local preoperative group. Our preoperative group involved thirty patients. Four (13%) were anxious about taking part in a waiting list initiative and 10 (33%) were worried about extra expense. Seven (23%) were worried about their relatives extra expense and 6 (20%) would be discouraged if their relatives had difficulty visiting. Fourteen (47%) raised concern about having their operation carried outside of the local area by a new surgeon. Fourteen were keen to have treatment from their original surgeon. None felt that relatives having to take time off work to visit them was a problem. All patients thought that reducing waiting lists by doing the operation early in another hospital was a good idea. We conclude that patients are accepting of waiting list initiatives if their preoperative wait can be decreased.
Despite a variety of reports to the contrary it was felt by the Christchurch Orthopaedic group that the “wait” on the orthopaedic waiting list has been escalating rapidly to the point that a routine operation is now in the order of approximately 3 years from the time of GP referral. A review of the time taken for GP referrals to be assessed by an Orthopaedic Surgeon was undertaken. The waiting lists from October 98 to May 02 were analysed, in addition to the operation outputs from the Burwood Hospital elective theatre records over the same period. Time taken from referral to be seen, time taken from been placed on the waiting list to receive an operation and volume of elective procedures were evaluated. A breakdown was made of those removed from the list vs those operated on. A major reduction in the waiting list over the last three years was secondary to 1/3 of the people on the list (1177) been “culled”. This was initiated in January 1999 and completed by January 2001. Since January 1999, 2538 patients had received their operations. The waiting list had dropped from 3303 to a low of 1164. It has since climbed to 2036. That waiting longer than 12 months for surgery, initially 64%, had dropped to 29% and has climbed back up to 40%. The figures have climbed dramatically since the waiting list initiative for arthroplasty was discontinued. The culling of the list has been responsible for removal of 1/3 of people off the original list without having an operation and has given a false sense of success in reducing the waiting list to various political interests. The criteria set for culling people assessed as requiring an operation has been set arbitrarily There is twice the number of patients waiting to see an orthopaedic surgeon than 2 years ago of which a proportion are requiring reassessment to be deemed eligible for an operation that they have already been assessed as requiring. The waiting list initiative was effective as an addition to the regular DHB lists in maintaining the lists at a manageable level. Even if all those culled represented a group that no longer required their operation the current list cannot be considered to have such a group as they have all been recently reviewed and are in genuine need. There is an apparent lack of concern and denial over the current escalation in the numbers on the waiting list, and no plan instituted to address it.
The New Zealand health score was developed by the New Zealand government to ensure that patients with the greatest needs were given priority. It allows explicit rationing of health care by clinical priority rather than waiting time (the current UK system). The scoring system has not been validated against an accepted measure of health status and the aim of this study was to compare the New Zealand score with the SF-36. Patients on the orthopaedic waiting list for hip or knee replacement were sent postal questionnaires to collect demographic data and complete an SF-36 and New Zealand score. 581 patients were sent questionnaires. The response rate was 72% and data was available on 243 knee replacement and 168 hip replacement patients. For patients awaiting hip replacement there was good correlation between the NZ and all health domains of the SF-36 (correlation coefficient: 0.19 – 0.62). In contrast, there was poor correlation between the NZ score and the SF-36 for patients awaiting knee replacement with only physical function having a significant correlation (coefficient 0.25). Breakdown of the NZ score into pain and function components did not improve the correlation with SF-36 scores for these patients. The New Zealand clinical priority scoring system correlates well with health status, as measured by the SF-36, for patients with hip arthritis awaiting hip replacement. However, the NZ score does not correlate with the SF-36 for patients awaiting knee replacement. This system is now being used by some centres in the UK for waiting list management but has been introduced without comparison to any well-established measures of health status. Its use for the prioritisation of patients who require knee replacement should be questioned.
Long waiting times and a growing demand on services for joint replacement surgery (JRS) prompted the Victorian Department of Human Services to fund a University of Melbourne/Melbourne Health partnership to develop and implement an osteoarthritis (OA) hip and knee service delivery and prioritisation system for those who may require JRS. The service delivery model consists of a multidisciplinary team providing, comprehensive early assessment, evidence-based interventions, including support for patient self-management, continuity of care processes, and prioritisation for both surgical assessment and JRS. Prioritisation occurs via clinical assessment and the Hip and Knee Multi-Attribute Prioritisation Tool (MAPT), a patient, clinician, or proxy-administered 11-item questionnaire, resulting in a 100-point scale ranking of need for surgery. The Hip and Knee MAPT was developed using intensive consultation with surgeons, state-of-the-art clinimetrics and with input from patients, hospital management groups. Ninety-six surgeons contributed to the developing the final scoring system. Over 4000 patients per year are entering the system across 14 hospitals in Victoria. Under the supervision of the orthopaedics unit, musculoskeletal coordinator (MSC), typically an experienced physiotherapist or nurse, as part of the multidisciplinary team, undertakes early comprehensive assessment, referral and prioritisation of patients with hip or knee OA referred to orthopaedic outpatient clinics. In addition, the MSC coordinates the monitoring and management of patients on the orthopaedic surgery waiting list. The processes enable patients who are most needy (via higher MAPT score and clinical assessment) to be fast-tracked to orthopaedic surgery; conversely those patients with lower scores receive prompt conservative management. Time to first assessment and waiting times to see a surgeon for many patients have reduced from 12+ months to weeks. Patients seen by surgeons are more likely to be ready for surgery and have had more comprehensive non-operative optimisation. Patients placed on the surgical waiting list receive quarterly reassessments and evidence of deterioration is used as a basis for fast-tracking to surgery. The OWL system is a whole of system(tm) approach informed by patients needs and surgeons needs. Clinicians have developed confidence in the clinical relevance of the MAPT scores. Uptake of the OWL model of care has been very high because it facilitates better care and better patient outcomes.
The aim was to determine the knowledge patients have about Total Hip Joint Replacement, their expectations from it and to evaluate the degree of disability from their hip and co-morbidities. A total of eighty questionnaires were posted to two groups of patients. The survey consisted of open ended questions. They were also requested to complete Hospital for Special Surgery Hip Replacement Expectation Survey. Patients awaiting a Total Hip Joint replacement were assessed using Harris Hip Score and Index for Coexistent Disease. Response rate was 81%. Average Harris hip score of 44.96 for the group on the waiting list for THJR.16 of 29 patients fell between mild to severe ICED. Questions to ascertain patient’s knowledge of THJR its risks and complications were open ended. 32–67% either expressed being unaware or answered incorrectly to these questions. Analysis of the Expectation survey revealed that over 75%of patients in both groups rated 15 of the 18 items as being an important expectation. The three items rated low/not applicable in expectation were related to employment, sexual activity and use of support for mobilizing. This survey reveals a population waiting for a THJR possessing inadequate and unacceptable levels of knowledge about it while having high expectations of improvement in their quality of life. Unmet expectations can form grounds for complaints and even recourse to medico legal action. The expectations of the patients waiting for a THJR should be discussed and realistic goals set.
The practice of selecting patients with a low ASA(American Society of Anesthesiologists) grade to have joint replacement performed at remote centres such as DTCs (Diagnosis and Treatment Centres) and by teams of visiting surgeons is becoming more commonplace. This leaves NHS Hospitals with a patient population skewed towards the higher ASA grades. This study was undertaken to identify the extra burden that this may place on a District General Hospital. All patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty at Blackpool Victoria Hospital in the year 2002 were identified. Of 191 patients, 132 were classified as ASA grade I or II. 59 patients (31%) were classified as ASA grade III or IV. The immediate postoperative complication rate for the patients with ASA grade III and IV was found to be 25%. All complications were treated appropriately and all patients had a satisfactory outcome at 6 weeks. The reported immediate postoperative complication rate for hip and knee replacement ranges from 3–6%. It is clear from these figures that removal of fitter patients from waiting lists will effectively increase the complication rate following arthroplasty in NHS Hospitals. We feel that the Government has not identified the extra care involved in treating these higher risk patients.
Elective Orthopaedics has been targeted by the UK Department of Health as a maximum six-month waiting time for operations could not be met. The National Orthopaedic Project was initiated as a consequence and Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs) and well established private hospitals were utilised to treat NHS long wait patients. We audited the primary total hip replacements performed in our hospital in 1998 and 2003 to compare the differences in the patient characteristics in particular age, length of stay and ASA grade.Introduction
Materials and methods
In 2002, one hundred and thirty nine patients had their names removed from the orthopaedic surgical waiting list at Taranaki Base Hospital for financial reasons. They fell below the “financially sustainable threshold” for access to publicly funded services. We wished to determine the status of these patients and the effects of this management decision. All patients were invited to attend clinic for assessment. They completed the SF-36 Health Survey and were interviewed regarding effects of not having surgery. In addition, hips were assessed using Harris Hip Scores and knees were assessed using Knee Society Scores. These standardised methods of assessment allowed comparisons to be made with overseas data. Our group of patients are experiencing significant impairment as a result of not being able to have surgery. A number of resulting medical and social problems were identified in the course of assessment. Patients also expressed a high level of discontent with the process. Removing patients who have been assessed and placed on an orthopaedic surgical waiting list is an inefficient means of utilising health resources. It has also been met with a high level of patient dissatisfaction.
Aims. This study aimed to investigate the estimated change in primary and revision arthroplasty rate in the Netherlands and Denmark for hips, knees, and shoulders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (COVID-period). Additional points of focus included the comparison of patient characteristics and hospital type (2019 vs COVID-period), and the estimated loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and impact on waiting lists. Methods. All hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties (2014 to 2020) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, and hip and knee arthroplasties from the Danish Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries, were included. The expected number of arthroplasties per month in 2020 was estimated using Poisson regression, taking into account changes in age and sex distribution of the general Dutch/Danish population over time, calculating observed/expected (O/E) ratios. Country-specific proportions of patient characteristics and hospital type were calculated per indication category (osteoarthritis/other elective/acute).
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to elective orthopaedic services. The primary objective of this study was to examine changes in functional scores in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Secondary objectives were to investigate differences between these groups and identify those in a health state ‘worse than death’ (WTD). In this prospective cohort study, preoperative Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS/OKS) were recorded for patients added to a waiting list for THA, TKA, or UKA, during the initial eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and repeated at 14 months into the pandemic (mean interval nine months (SD 2.84)). EuroQoL five-dimension five-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index scores were also calculated at this point in time, with a negative score representing a state WTD. OHS/OKS were analyzed over time and in relation to the EQ-5D-5L.Aims
Methods
The primary aim was to assess change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients as they waited from six to 12 months for a total hip (THA) or total or partial knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess change in joint-specific function, mental health, quality of sleep, number living in a state worse than death (WTD), wellbeing, and patient satisfaction with their healthcare. This prospective study included 142 patients awaiting a THA (mean age 66.7 years (SD 11.4); 71 female) and 214 patients awaiting KA (mean age 69.7 years (SD 8.7); 117 female). Patients completed questionnaires (EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire (EQ-5D), Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS), University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale, wellbeing assessment, and satisfaction with their healthcare) at six and 12 months while awaiting surgery.Aims
Methods
Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care. Questionnaires were sent to orthopaedic waiting list patients at the start of the UK’s first COVID-19 lockdown to capture key quantitative and qualitative aspects of patients’ health. A total of 888 respondents were divided into quintiles, with sampling stratified based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD); level 1 represented the ‘most deprived’ cohort and level 5 the ‘least deprived’.Aims
Methods
The primary aim of this study was to assess whether patients waiting six months or more for a total hip (THA) or knee (KA) arthroplasty had a deterioration in their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Secondary aims were to assess changes in frailty and the number of patients living in a state considered to be worse than death (WTD), and factors associated with changes in HRQoL and frailty. This cross-sectional study included 326 patients, 150 males (46.0%) and 176 females (54.0%), with a mean age of 68.6 years (SD 9.8) who were randomly selected from waiting lists at four centres and had been waiting for six months or more (median 13 months, interquartile range 10 to 21) for a primary THA (n = 161) or KA (n = 165). The EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and visual analogue scores (EQ-VAS), Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and 36-Item Short Form Survey subjective change in HRQoL were assessed at the time and recalled for six months earlier. A state that was WTD was defined as an EQ-5D of less than zero.Aims
Methods
Waiting times for arthroplasty surgery in Northern Ireland are among the longest in the NHS, which have been further lengthened by the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic in March 2020. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland has announced a new Elective Care Framework (ECF), with the framework proposing that by March 2026 no patient will wait more than 52 weeks for inpatient/day case treatment. We aimed to assess the feasibility of achieving this with reference to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Mathematical modelling was undertaken to calculate when the ECF targets will be achieved for THA and TKA, as well as the time when waiting lists for THA and TKA will be cleared. The number of patients currently on the waiting list and percentage operating capacity relative to pre-COVID-19 capacity was used to determine future projections.Aims
Methods
COVID-19 has compounded a growing waiting list problem, with over 4.5 million patients now waiting for planned elective care in the UK. Views of patients on waiting lists are rarely considered in prioritization. Our primary aim was to understand how to support patients on waiting lists by hearing their experiences, concerns, and expectations. The secondary aim was to capture objective change in disability and coping mechanisms. A minimum representative sample of 824 patients was required for quantitative analysis to provide a 3% margin of error. Sampling was stratified by body region (upper/lower limb, spine) and duration on the waiting list. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of elective orthopaedic waiting list patients with their planned intervention paused due to COVID-19. Analyzed parameters included baseline health, change in physical/mental health status, challenges and coping strategies, preferences/concerns regarding treatment, and objective quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item scale (GAD-2)). Qualitative analysis was performed via the Normalization Process Theory.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
Method: We reviewed the hospital notes of 45 patients who underwent a lumbar discectomy over a 30month period. The care pathway was divided into three components: Pre-Hospital Wait (time from GP referral to first outpatient appointment), Hospital Wait (first out-patient appointment to being listed for surgery) and the
Background. Scoliosis is described as a lateral spinal curvature exceeding ten degrees on radiograph with vertebral rotation. Approximately 80% of scoliosis presentations are adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Current management for AIS in the UK occurs in Surgeon or Paediatrician-led clinics and can be conservative or surgical. The musculoskeletal assessment and triage of AIS appears well-suited to an advanced physiotherapist practitioner (APP) skill set. The aim of this service evaluation was to scope, develop, implement and evaluate a four-month pilot of an APP-led AIS triage pathway. Method and Results. Spinal Consultant deformity and scoliosis clinics were scoped and observed. Clinic inclusion criteria and a patient assessment form was developed. An APP AIS clinic was set up beside a consultant led clinic. All patients assessed were discussed with a spinal surgeon. Consultant and APP agreement (% of total), waiting times, surgical conversion, and patient satisfaction were reviewed. A clinical competency package was developed for training and development of APPs. A total of 49 patients were seen (20 sessions).
Waiting times for arthroplasty surgery in Northern Ireland are among the longest in the National Health Service, which have been further lengthened by the onset of the SARS-CoV-19 global pandemic in March 2020. The Department of Health (DoH) in Northern Ireland has announced a new Elective Care Framework (ECF), with the framework proposing that by March 2026 no patient will wait more than 52 weeks for inpatient/day case treatment. We aimed to assess the feasibility of achieving this with reference to Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA).
Background: Our Trust consists of two separate hospitals with duplicated Orthopaedic services at both sites. Sterile Services were centralised to one site in February 2006. Various problems were encountered leading to cancelled cases. What have been the financial implications of these cancellations?. It is difficult to estimate the true cost to the Trust for a cancelled case. Each cancelled case is a ‘slot’ on an operating list that has not been filled. There are regular
Background. Exercise can be effective in treating Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) (Hayden et al 2005). Pilates-based group exercise programmes may be useful in the treatment of CLBP. Aim. To carry out a feasibility study of group Pilates exercise course compared to individual physiotherapeutic intervention and a waiting list control, in the treatment of CLBP. Methods. 52 Patients with CLBP: referred for physiotherapy were randomly assigned to: (1) Conventional physiotherapy for 6 weeks; (2) 6-week course of Pilates group exercise; (3)
The primary aim is to estimate the current and potential number of patients on NHS England orthopaedic elective waiting lists by November 2020. The secondary aims are to model recovery strategies; review the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty from National Joint Registry (NJR) data; and assess the cost of returning to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. A model of referral, waiting list, and eventual surgery was created and calibrated using historical data from NHS England (April 2017 to March 2020) and was used to investigate the possible consequences of unmet demand resulting from fewer patients entering the treatment pathway and recovery strategies. NJR data were used to estimate the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty by August 2020 and NHS tariff costs were used to calculate the financial burden.Aims
Methods
The EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire is a widely used multiattribute general health questionnaire where an EQ-5D < 0 defines a state ‘worse than death’ (WTD). The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in a health state WTD and to identify associations with this state. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of WTD status on one-year outcomes. A cross-sectional analysis of 2073 patients undergoing 2073 THAs (mean age 67.4 years (Aims
Patients and Methods
The cost of clinical negligence in the UK has continued to rise despite no increase in claims numbers from 2016 to 2019. In the US, medical malpractice claim rates have fallen each year since 2001 and the payout rate has stabilized. In Germany, malpractice claim rates for spinal surgery fell yearly from 2012 to 2017, despite the number of spinal operations increasing. In Australia, public healthcare claim rates were largely static from 2008 to 2013, but private claims rose marginally. The cost of claims rose during the period. UK and Australian trends are therefore out of alignment with other international comparisons. Many of the claims in orthopaedics occur as a result of “failure to warn”, i.e. lack of adequately documented and appropriate consent. The UK and USA have similar rates (26% and 24% respectively), but in Germany the rate is 14% and in Australia only 2%. This paper considers the drivers for the increased cost of clinical negligence claims in the UK compared to the USA, Germany and Australia, from a spinal and orthopaedic point of view, with a focus on “failure to warn” and lack of compliance with the principles established in February 2015 in the Supreme Court in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. The article provides a description of the prevailing medicolegal situation in the UK and also calculates, from publicly available data, the cost to the public purse of the failure to comply with the principles established. It shows that compliance with the Montgomery principles would have an immediate and lasting positive impact on the sums paid by NHS Resolution to settle negligence cases in a way that has already been established in the USA. Cite this article: