Pre-operative anaemia can present in up to 30% of elective arthroplasty patients. The presence of anaemia increases the risk of requiring blood transfusion post-operatively as well as acts as an independent risk factor for poor outcome such as prosthetic joint infection. Recent international consensus on this topic has recommended a specific care pathway for screening patients with pre-operative anaemia using a simple bedside Heaemacue finger-prick test to detect in a simple and cost-effective manner, and then allow treatment of preoperative anaemia. This pathway was therefore incorporated in our trust. This was a retrospective study done at a single tertiary-referral arthroplasty centre. Our data collection included the Heamacue test results and formal haemoglobin levels if they were performed as well as compliance and costs of each of the tests for patients listed for an elective shoulder, hip and knee arthroplasty between September and December 2018. Medical records and demographics were also collected for these patients for subgroup analysis. Our exclusion criteria comprised patients listed for revision arthroplasty surgery. 87 patients were included in this study. Our compliance rate was 15%. The mean difference between a Haemacue test and a formal FBC result was only 17.6g/L suggesting that it has a reasonably high accuracy. With regards to costs, we found that a Haemacue test costs £2, compared to £7.50 for a full blood count and Haematinics combined. This gave an overall cost saving of £5.50 per patient. Extrapolation of this date locally for 2017 at our hospital, where 1575 primary joint arthroplasties were done, a cost saving of £8,662.5 could have been achieved. Within the UK using data extrapolated from the National Joint Registry a total of £1,102,205.5 (1,221,894 Euros) could have been saved. The use of a single, Haemacue test to screen for pre-operative anaemia in elective arthroplasty patients is more cost effective compared to a formal full count and haematinics tests. However, we found that compliance with the care pathway is variable due to system limitations. This may be addressed through implementing changes to our electronic system in which patients are booked for surgery. We also noted a significant cost reduction if this pathway were to be used Nation-wide. Thus, we encourage other centres to consider the use of the Haemacue test pre-operatively in elective arthroplasty instead of formal full blood counts at the time of decision to treat with arthroplasty; this allows sufficient time for correction of pre-operative anaemia thus improving patient outcomes from arthroplasty

Around 20% of patients who have total knee replacement find that they experience long-term pain afterwards. There is a pressing need for better treatment and management for patients who have this kind of pain but there is little evidence about how to improve care. To address this gap we are developing a complex intervention comprising a clinic to assess potential causes of a patient's long-term pain after knee replacement and onwards referral to appropriate, existing services. The Medical Research Council recommends that development of complex interventions include several stages of development and refinement and involvement of stakeholders. This study comprises the penultimate stage in the comprehensive development of this intervention. Earlier stages included a survey of current practice, focus groups with healthcare professionals, a systematic review of the literature and expert deliberation. Healthcare professionals from diverse clinical backgrounds with experience of caring for patients with long-term pain after knee replacement were sent a study information pack. Professionals who wished to participate were asked to return their signed consent form and completed study questionnaire to the research team. Participants rated the appropriateness of different aspects of the assessment process and care pathway from 1–9 (not appropriate to very appropriate). Data were collated and a document prepared, consisting of anonymised mean appropriateness ratings and summaries of free-text comments. This document was then discussed in 4 facilitated meetings with healthcare professional held at the future trial centres. A summary report and revised care pathway was then prepared and sent to participants for further comments. 28 professionals completed the questionnaire and/or attended a meeting. Participants included surgeons, physiotherapists, nurses, pain specialists and rheumatologists. Mean appropriateness scores ranged from 6.9 to 8.4. Taking a score of 7–9 as agreement, consensus was achieved that the assessment should be performed at 3 months post-operative by an extended scope practitioner/nurse, treatment be guided by a standardised assessment of pain, and treatment individualised. There was also agreement that referrals in the care pathway to surgical review, GP and pain clinics were appropriate. Nurse-led/self-monitoring was rated lower (6.9) because of considerations about the need to ensure that patients receive appropriate support, follow-up and referral to other services. This work demonstrates the research methods that can be used to refine the design of a complex intervention. The process and findings enable refinement of an intervention for patients with long-term pain after knee replacement. The next stage of intervention development will assess the acceptability and reliability of the assessment process, and the usability of the intervention's standard operating procedures. The intervention will then be evaluated by a larger research team in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, starting in late 2016

INTRODUCTION. Preoperative optimization and protocols for joint replacement care pathways have led to decreased length of stay (LOS), decreased narcotic use and are increasingly important in delivering quality, cost savings and shifting appropriate cases to an outpatient setting. The intraoperative use of vasopressors is independently associated with increased length of stay, risk of adverse postoperative events including death and in total hip arthroplasty there is an increased risk for ICU admission. Our aim is to characterize the patient characteristics associated with vasopressor use specifically in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS. We retrospectively reviewed 748 patients undergoing inpatient primary total knee arthroplasty at a single academic institution by two surgeons from 1/1/17 to 12/21/18. Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative factors and intraoperative medication administration were compared with multivariate regression to identify patients who may require intraoperative vasopressors. RESULTS. Seven hundred-forty eight patients underwent total knee arthroplasty and 439 patients required intraoperative vasopressors while 307 did not require vasopressors. Significant predictors of vasopressor use were male sex (p=0.035), history of prior cerebrovascular event (p=0.041) and older age (p=0.048). NPO time, anesthesia provider level of training, operative time, and intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate were not significant predictors of vasopressor use intra-operatively during total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSION. In this study, nearly fifty-nine percent of patients undergoing TKA received intraoperative vasopressor support. Male gender, history of stroke and older age were significantly associated with increased intraoperative vasopressor use. Surgical time and case order do not appear to be optimizable factors to minimize the use of vasopressors in TKA. Our results highlight variation in anesthesia practices and an opportunity to standardize vasopressor triggers and identify patients who may require vasopressor support during preoperative optimization and selection of their surgical setting

This project began as an audit of performance against the 18-week referral to treatment time (RTT) target but became an interesting development in clinical training. The electronic documents and PACS images for 50 consecutive routine GP referrals to an orthopaedic clinic were traced using the UCPN (Unique Care Pathway Number). The average time from referral to 1. st. clinic appointment was 57 days (range 29–117). 16 were discharged at 1. st. visit. 26 were listed for surgery: 20 at the 1. st. clinic, 3 at the 2. nd. clinic, 2 at the 3. rd. clinic, 1 after test results without clinic review. Average time from referral to listing was 68 days (range 28–177). For 25 patients who had surgery, average RTT was 164 days (61–394). 14 patients breached the target. The UCPN allows an overview of the diagnostic work-up for the whole care pathway. Time constraints and less opportunity for continuity of care have hampered effective training in the outpatient clinic. Using the UCPN in this way allows detailed case-based discussions to develop the non-technical surgical skills (NOTSS) of situation awareness and decision-making. In a system where 57 days are typically wasted waiting for a new clinic appointment, clinical reasoning skills must be scalpel sharp to meet the 18-week RTT target. This study hints that better characterising the third of patients discharged and the third directly listed for surgery at the first visit might help with demand management. Better characterising the third of patients needing further tests might allow those test results to be available by the first visit. The next step is to test if, indeed, the UCPN is an effective tool to hone mental dissection

Physiotherapy is generally accepted as an important component in the care pathway surrounding total knee replacement. Therapy interventions can be delivered prior to surgery, as part of the inpatient stay, and post-operation through outpatient appointments. Though ‘physiotherapy’ is generally promoted there is considerable national and international variation in actual therapy provision. Specific rehabilitation protocols are strongly entrenched at individual physiotherapy departments however the wider efficacy of varying physiotherapeutic interventions is poorly established. This uncertainty as to effectiveness of physiotherapy makes it difficult for commissioning organisations, healthcare providers, and patients to make decisions as to what therapy is ‘needed’ and therefore the correct level and mechanism of funding for such services. This talk will explore the variation in physiotherapy service provision and evidence for different interventions surrounding total knee replacement

Introduction. Despite recent national advances in the care for the hip fracture patient, significant morbidity and mortality persists. Some of this morbidity is attributable to the analgesia provided in the hospital setting. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends the use of simple oral analgesia including opioids, with fascia-iliac blocks used as an adjunct. Literature review reveals a paucity of evidence on this topic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of fascia iliac blocks through analysis of pre and post-operative opioid usage, post-operative delirium, time to bowel opening and naloxone use. Methods. A retrospective study was performed between September-December 2013. Inclusion criteria were determined. 41 patients who received spinal anaesthesia alone and 41 patients who received spinal anaesthesia and a fascia-iliac block were included. Results. Patients who received a fascia-iliac block received significantly less post-operative and total analgesia (p=0.04, p=0.03), had lower rates of delirium (p=0.03) and those patients which were discharged directly home had a shorter inpatient stay (p=0.03). No patients who received a fascia-iliac block needed naloxone to reverse opioid toxicity, whilst two non fascia iliac block patients did. Conclusions. Fascia iliac blocks either given in A&E or at the time of spinal anaesthesia are a useful adjunct to provide analgesia in the hip fracture patient. The John Radcliffe hospital aims to incorporate fascia-iliac blocks into the care pathway for the hip fracture patient

GIRFT was published in the United Kingdom with the aim of streamlining primary care pathways, secondary care, creating a network of hospitals and treatment centres and to better regulate introduction of new implants. It also proposed the use of Orthopaedic Devices Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* rated cemented implants in hip arthroplasty. Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of adopting GIRFT on surgical time, length of stay, changes to the implants used and number of cases per surgical list. Prior to adopting GIRFT, elective primary total hip replacement (THR) was predominantly uncemented THR. Age, sex, Body Mass Index (BMI), American Society of Anesthetiss (ASA), closure technique and surgical time of 50 consecutive primary uncemented THR were analysed to identify the appropriate statistical methods. Mean and standard deviation for surgical time were identified. Threshold increase in surgical time was set at 20 minutes. Based on expected difference of 20 minutes and standardised difference, minimum sample size was calculated to be 19. Prospective data on 60 consecutive uncemented THR and 30 consecutive cemented primary THR were included in this study. Inclusion criteria – primary THR for arthritis by single surgeon. Exclusion criteria – previous hip surgery, complex primary, abnormal anatomy. No differences in age, sex, BMI, ASA and length of stay between the two groups. Surgical time was significantly increased by 28 minutes (p<0.001). Implants used changed from 7A*/5A* uncemented THR to 10A* (18/30) and 7A*(12/30) cemented THR. There was a reduction in number of THR done per surgical list due to the increase in surgical time (3 instead of 4). GIRFT compliance improved from 0% cemented to 100% cemented. 0% 10A* rated implants to 66% 10A* rated implants. Undertaking cemented THR instead of uncemented THR is associated with significantly increased surgical time. Hence, number of THR surgeries performed in a day's list is accordingly reduced. There is potential for financial loss when the savings in the implants used is compared with the reduction in the number of surgeries performed

Around 1% of the 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in the UK are followed by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Although PJI affects a small percentage of patients, it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Treatment usually involves further major surgery which can adversely affect patients' quality of life. Understanding current service provision provides valuable information needed to design and evaluate support interventions for patients. The aim of this survey was to identify usual care pathways and support in UK NHS orthopaedic centres for this population. The 20 highestvolume UK NHS orthopaedic centresfor hip and knee arthroplasty account for 33–50% of all cases treated for prosthetic joint infection. Infection leads at each centre were invited to participate in a survey about usual care provision and support for PJI. Questions exploredfollow up time-points; use of standard outcome measures; multidisciplinary care plans; supportive in-patient care and care after treatment; and onward referrals. Survey responses were recorded on a standardised proforma. Data were entered into Excel for analysis, then reviewed and coded into categories and frequency statistics to describe categorical data. A descriptive summary was developed based on these categories. Eleven of the highestvolume orthopaedic centres completed the survey. Follow-up of patients varied greatly across centres; some centres reviewed patients at weekly or 2 week intervals, while all centres saw patients at 6 weeks. Long-term follow-up varied across centres from 3–4 monthsto 12 monthly. Length of follow-up period varied from until the infection had cleared toindefinitely. Follow-up timepoints were only standardised in 4 out of 11 centres. Only 1 centre had a dedicated infection clinic. Advice on who patients should contact if they had concerns included the consultant, community nurse, extended scope practitioner or the ward, while 3 centres told patients to avoid calling their GP. Only half of the centres routinely used standardised outcome measures with patients with PJI. The majority of centres provided standard physiotherapy and occupational therapy (OT) to in-patients while approximately half also offered social support. Only one centre provided dedicated physiotherapy and OT on a separate infection ward. Three centres provided hospital at home or community services to patients in-between operative stages. Only 3 out of 11 centres stated they had specific multidisciplinary care plans in place for patients. Once discharged most patients were provided with physiotherapy, OT and social services if needed. Common barriersto referral included complexities of referring patients outside the hospital catchment area;lack of availability of community services, and shortage of staff including physiotherapists. Delays in rehab and social services could also be problematic. Findings show wide variation intreatment pathways and support for patients treated for PJI, both as inpatients and in the community. Only one of the 11 centreswho participated had a dedicated infection clinic. Only one centre suggested they individualised their physiotherapy support. A number of barriers exist to referring patients on to other support services after revision surgery

At our district general hospital in the southwest of England, around 694 total knee replacements (TKR) are performed annually. Since spring 2013 we have been using an enhanced recovery protocol for all TKR patients, yet we have neither assessed compliance with the protocol nor whether its implementation has made a discernible and measurable difference to the delivery of care in this patient population. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are multi-modal care pathways designed to aid recovery. They are based on best evidence and promote a multi-disciplinary approach which standardises care and encompasses nutrition, analgesia and early mobilisation throughout the pre, intra and postoperative phases of an inpatient stay. ERAS has been found to reduce length of stay (LOS), readmission rates and analgesic requirements following surgery. 1, 2, 3. Additionally, they have been shown to improve range of knee movement following TKR and improve mobility, patient satisfaction whilst reducing mortality and morbidity. 4, 5, 6. With these benefits in mind, we sought to investigate how well our trauma and orthopaedic department was complying with a local ERAS protocol and whether we could replicate the benefits seen within the literature. Following approval from our local audit office in September 2015 we generated a patient list of elective TKR patients under the same surgeon before and after the implementation of the ERAS protocol. Using discharge summaries and patient notes we extracted data for 39 patients operated on prior to the ERAS implementation between January 2011 and December 2012 and 27 patients following its introduction between January 2014 and September 2015. Data collected included length of stay, time to discharge from inpatient physiotherapy and use of analgesia and antiemetics. Alongside this we audited the compliance with all facets of the local ERAS protocol. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of demographics or pre-operative morbidity. Overall compliance with the ERAS protocol was good but there was some variability, especially with intraoperative medication and type of anaesthesia which was likely due to individual patient factors. Compliance with postoperative analgesia was especially good with 93% of patients receiving all 4 suggested analgesics within the ERAS group. Length of stay (LOS) was significantly reduced by 0.5 days per patient (p value < 0.4). Overall compliance with the ERAS protocol was good but there was some variability, especially with intraoperative medication and type of anaesthesia, which was likely due to individual patient factors. Compliance with postoperative analgesia was especially good with 93% of patients receiving all suggested analgesics within the ERAS group. In terms of LOS, we found a statistically significant difference between the pre-ERAS and ERAS group of 0.5 days per patient. Within the context of our DGH, a 0.5 day reduction in LOS translates to around 350 bed days per year and a potential saving of GBP 105,000 (EUR 132,000) making this a clinically significant finding