Abstract. Objective. Open fracture management in the United Kingdom and several other countries is guided by the British Orthopaedic Association's Standards for Trauma Number 4 (BOAST-4). This is updated periodically and is based on the best available evidence at the time. The aim of this study is to evaluate the evidence base forming this guidance and to highlight new developments since the last version in 2017. Methods. Searches have been performed using the PubMed, Embase and Medline databases for time periods a) before December 31, 2017 and from 01/01/2018–01/02/2021. Results have been summarised and discussed. Results. Several contentious issues remain within the 2017 guideline. Antibiotic guidance, the use of antibiotic impregnated PMMA beads and intramedullary devices, irrigation in the emergency department, time to theatre and the use of negative pressure dressings and guidance regarding the management of paediatric injuries have all demonstrated no clear consensus. Conclusion. The advent of the BOAST-4 guideline has been of huge benefit, however the refinement and improvement of this work remains ongoing. There remains a need for further study into these contentious issues previously listed

The British Orthopedic Association recommends that patients referred to fracture clinic are reviewed within 72 hours. With the increase in referrals and limited clinic capacity it is becoming increasingly difficult to see every referral with in a 72 hour time frame. Some patients are waiting 2 weeks or more before they can be seen in a fracture clinic. With the aim of improving care by seeking to meet BOAST 7 target, waiting times for fracture clinic appointments at the Homerton University Hospital were audited prospectively against this national guideline, before virtual fracture clinic was implemented and 6 weeks after the implementation of virtual fracture clinic at our hospital. Virtual fracture clinic is where an Orthopedic consultant reviews a patients x-rays and A&E documentation and decides if that patients needs to be seen in a face to face fracture clinic to discuss operative vs. non-operative management of their injury or if a treatment plan can be delivered without the patient having to come back to hospital. The study was conducted as a prospective closed-loop audit in which the second cycle took place after the implementation of the new virtual fracture clinic service. The first cycle showed a non-compliant waiting time with only 18% of patients being seen within 72 hours. Following the implementation of virtual fracture clinic, 84% of all patients were reviewed within 72 hours. Virtual fracture clinic delivered a significant reduction in waiting times. Virtual fracture clinic has only just been implemented at the Homerton University Hospital and hopefully at the next audit we will be 100% compliant with the BOA BOAST 7 Guideline. We would recommend that virtual fracture clinics being rolled out in Orthopedic departments in all hospitals which have Orthopedic services

The number of total knee arthroplasties continues to increase annually with over 90,000 total knee replacements performed in the United Kingdom in 2018. Multiple national bodies including the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) and the British Orthopaedic Association collaborated in July 2019 to produce best practice guidance for knee arthroplasty surgery. This study aims to review practice in a regional healthcare trust against these guidelines. Fifty total knee replacement operation notes were reviewed between January and February 2020 from 11 different consultant orthopaedic surgeons. Documents were assessed against 17 criteria recommended by the BASK guidance. Personnel names and grades were generally well documented. Tourniquet time and pressure were documented in over 98% of operation notes however, protection from spirit burns was not documented at all. Trialling and soft tissue balancing was well recorded in 100% and 96% of operation notes respectively. Areas lacking in documentation included methods utilised to optimise cementation technique and removal of cement debris. Protection of key knee structures was documented in only 56% of operation notes clearly. Prior to closure, final assessment of mechanism integrity, collateral ligament was not documented at all and final ROM after implantation of components was recorded 34% of the time. Subsequently authors have created a universal operation note template, uploaded onto the patient electronic notes, which prompts surgeons to complete documentation of the relevant criteria advocated by BASK. In conclusion, detailed and systematic documentation is vital to prevent adverse events and reduce the risk of litigation. By producing detailed operative templates this risk can be mitigated

Objectives. To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) model, and supplement the literature regarding this service as recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA). Methods. This was a retrospective study including all patients (17 116) referred to fracture clinics in a London District General Hospital from May 2013 to April 2016, using hospital-level data. We used interrupted time series analysis with segmented regression, and direct before-and-after comparison, to study the impact of VFCs introduced in December 2014 on six clinical parameters and on local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) spend. Student’s t-tests were used for direct comparison, whilst segmented regression was employed for projection analysis. Results. There were statistically significant reductions in numbers of new patients seen face-to-face (140.4, . sd. 39.6 versus 461.6, . sd. 61.63, p < 0.0001), days to first orthopaedic review (5.2, . sd. 0.66 versus 10.9, . sd. 1.5, p < 0.0001), discharges (33.5, . sd. 3.66 versus 129.2, . sd. 7.36, p < 0.0001) and non-attendees (14.82, . sd. 1.48 versus 60.47, . sd. 2.68, p < 0.0001), in addition to a statistically significant increase in number of patients seen within 72-hours (46.4% 3873 of 8345 versus 5.1% 447 of 8771, p < 0.0001). There was a non-significant increase in consultation time of 1 minute 9 seconds (14 minutes 53 seconds . sd. 106 seconds versus 13 minutes 44 seconds . sd. 128 seconds, p = 0.0878). VFC saved the local CCG £67 385.67 in the first year and is set to save £129 885.67 annually thereafter. Conclusions. We have shown VFCs are clinically and cost-effective, with improvement across several clinical performance parameters and substantial financial savings for CCGs. To our knowledge this is the largest study addressing clinical practice implications of VFCs in England, using robust methodology to adjust for pre-existing trends. Further studies are required to appreciate whether our results are reproducible with local variations in the VFC model and payment tariffs. Cite this article: A. McKirdy, A. M. Imbuldeniya. The clinical and cost effectiveness of a virtual fracture clinic service: An interrupted time series analysis and before-and-after comparison. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–269. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0330.R1

Objectives. To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice. Methods. A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a ‘think aloud’ process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they changed practice based on PROFHER trial findings. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively for emerging themes using Framework Analysis principles. Results. There were complete responses from 265 orthopaedic and trauma surgeons who treat patients with proximal humeral fractures. Around half (137) had changed practice to various extents because of PROFHER, by operating on fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures. A third (43) of the 128 respondents who had not changed practice were already managing patients non-operatively. Those who changed practice were more likely to be younger, work in a trauma unit rather than a major trauma centre, be specialist shoulder surgeons and treat fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures surgically. This group gave higher scores when assessing validity and applicability of PROFHER. In contrast, a quarter of the non-changers were critical, sometimes emphatically, of PROFHER. The strongest theme that emerged overall was the endorsement of evidence-based practice. Conclusion. PROFHER has had an impact on surgeons’ clinical practice, both through changing it, and through underpinning existing non-operative practice. Although some respondents expressed reservations about the trial, evidence from such trials was found to be the most important influence on surgeons’ decisions to change practice. Cite this article: L. Jefferson, S. Brealey, H. Handoll, A. Keding, L. Kottam, I. Sbizzera, A. Rangan. Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons’ clinical practice: An online questionnaire survey. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:590–599. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0170

The number of primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) and primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) procedures carried out in England and Wales is increasing annually. The British Orthopaedic Association guidelines for follow up currently differ for patients with TKA and THA. In THA the BOA recommends that Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A rated implants should be followed up in the first year, once at seven years and three yearly thereafter. The BOA guidelines for TKA minimum requirement is radiographs at 5 years and each five years thereafter. Few studies have investigated if early follow up affects patient management following total hip and knee arthroplasty. We carried out a retrospective review of all revision procedures carried out in our institution between April 2010 to April 2013. The medical notes and radiographs for each patient were examined to determine the operative indications and patients symptoms. 92 knee revisions and 143 hip revisions were identified. Additionally we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of 300 one year routine arthroplasty follow up appointments. The mean time of hip revision was 8.5years (range 0 to 27years) and 5.6years (range 0 to 20years) for knee revisions. The commonest cause for revision was aseptic loosening associated with pain in 49 (53%) of knee revision patients and 89 (63%) of hip revisions. Infection accounted for 26 (28%) knee revisions and 16 (12%) hip revisions. Only 1% of hip and knee revisions was carried out in asymptomatic patients with aseptic loosening. We did not identify any cases were a patients management was altered at the routine arthroplasty review clinic and none were referred on for further surgical treatment. The findings of our study suggest there is no evidence for a routine one year arthroplasty review and revisions were carried out in asymptomatic patients in 1% of patients

Neurological examination in children presenting with upper limb fractures is often poorly performed. In the peripatetic emergency department environment this may be confounded by patient distress or reduced comprehension. We aimed to assess the quality of documented neurological examination in children presenting with upper limb fractures and whether this could be improved following introduction of a simple guideline for paediatric neurological assessment. We reviewed the clinical notes of all children presenting to the emergency department with upper limb fractures over a three month period. Documentation of initial neurological assessment and clinical suspicion of any nerve injury were noted. Subsequently, we introduced a guideline for paediatric upper limb neurological examination (‘Rock, Paper, Scissors, OK’) to our hospital and performed a further 3 month review to detect resulting changes in practice. In the initial study period, 121 children presented with upper limb fractures. 10 (8%) had a nerve injury. Neurological examination was documented in 107 (88%) of patients. However, information on nerves examined was only recorded in 5 (5%) with the majority (85%) documented as ‘neurovascuarly intact’. None of the nerve injuries were detected on initial assessment. Following guideline introduction, 97 patients presented with upper limb fractures of which 8 children (8%) had a nerve injury. Documentation of neurological examination increased to 98% for patients presenting directly to our own hospital (Fisher's Exact Test, p=0.02) with details of nerves examined increasing to 69%. Within this cohort all nerve injuries with objective motor or sensory deficits were detected on initial examination. The recent British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) guideline on peripheral nerve injuries emphasises the importance of clearly recorded neurological assessment in trauma patients. Our study shows that introduction of a simple guideline for neurological examination in children with upper limb fractures can significantly improve the quality of documented neurological assessment and detection of nerve injuries

Teaching programmes for Orthopaedic Trainees take place in every region of the UK. The aim of this study was to survey Trainees from each region to compare levels of satisfaction. A questionnaire was sent out electronically in June 2009, and was open to collect responses until December 2009. It was sent to all British Orthopaedic Trainees Association (BOTA) members to assess satisfaction and to ask for their comments and suggestions. There were 449 responses, out of a potential 1200 (37%) from across all 26 regions. Overall 71% were satisfied or highly satisfied with the organisation of their programme, and 70% were satisfied or highly satisfied with the content. However, on analysis of the data looking at individual regions, there were marked differences in satisfaction levels. In three regions over 50% of Trainees were very satisfied with their teaching, in contrast to one region where 67% were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied. 199 Trainees (44%) made comments, which fell into themes of ‘how’ the teaching is organised, ‘what’ is taught, and by ‘whom’. Topics frequently mentioned were relevance to the FRCS exam, importance of clinical case presentations and involvement of Consultants. Teaching Programmes are run differently in each region and there are contrasting levels of satisfaction amongst Trainees. The feedback from the Trainees in each region was fed back to the relevant Training Programme Director, and suggestions were made on how to improve these Teaching Programmes for the future

Procedure Based Assessments (PBAs) are one type of Workplace Based Assessment (WBA) introduced recently to orthopaedic training in the UK. They play an increasing role in the assessment of a trainee's surgical competence. The study aims to determine the most valuable aspects of a PBA to a trainee, and the changes trainees suggest to improving the use of PBAs. A link to an online questionnaire was sent by email via the eLogbook system to all orthopaedic trainees in the UK with a National Training Number (NTN). The free text responses were coded and categorised. Analysis of results was conducted using the online survey software and Microsoft Excel. Of 668 responses, 616 met the inclusion criteria, making a response rate of 66% of all trainees with a NTN in the UK. There was a broad, representative spread of seniority and of geographical location. Trainees found the verbal feedback gained from their trainer to be most valuable (47%), followed by the assessment of competence (21%). Trainees identified the PBA form itself as the most important area for change (52.4%). This included increased numbers of PBAs (17.5%), more specific to the procedure (8.6%), more user friendly (15%), more levels of competence (4.5%) and a generic PBA (3.4%). Further suggestions included changing the role of PBAs, with 8.2% suggesting discontinuing their use entirely. Improving trainer investment in the use of PBA was also highlighted. Trainees value PBAs to gain formal feedback more than their use as evidence of competence in a procedure. There are a number of changes suggested by trainees that could improve the use and effectiveness of PBAs, and we have incorporated these into recommendations made by the British Orthopaedic Trainees’ Association, which should inform the debate on the further development of this assessment tool, and on WBAs in general