Aims. The aim of this study was to surveil whether the standard operating procedure created for the NHS Golden Jubilee sufficiently managed COVID-19 risk to allow safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery. Methods. This was a prospective study of all elective orthopaedic patients within an elective unit running a green pathway at a COVID-19 light site. Rates of preoperative and 30-day postoperative COVID-19 symptoms or infection were examined for a period of 40 weeks. The unit resumed elective orthopaedic services on 29 June 2020 at a reduced capacity for a limited number of day-case procedures with strict patient selection criteria, increasing to full service on 29 August 2020 with no patient selection criteria. Results. A total of 2,373 cases were planned in the 40-week study period. Surgery was cancelled in 59 cases, six (10.2%) of which were due to having a positive preoperative COVID-19 screening test result. Of the remaining 2,314, 996 (43%) were male and 1,318 (57%) were female. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 59.2 to 74.6). The median American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was 2. Hip and knee arthroplasties accounted for the majority of the operations (76%). Six patients tested positive for COVID-19 preoperatively (0.25%) and 39 patients were tested for COVID-19 within 30 days after discharge, with only five patients testing positive (0.22%). Conclusion. Through strict application of a COVID-19 green pathway, elective orthopaedic surgery could be safely delivered to a large number of patients with no selection criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):951–957

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients undergoing primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty over a six-month period, from 1 July to 31 December 2020, were compared to the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, wait to surgery, COVID-19 status, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results. A total of 1,311 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty in the six-month period following recommencement of elective services in 2020 compared to 1,527 patients the year before. Waiting time to surgery increased in post-COVID-19 group (137 days vs 78; p < 0.001). Length of stay also significantly increased (0.49 days; p < 0.001) despite no difference in age or ASA grade. There were no cases of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. Time to surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly higher following recommencement of elective orthopaedic services in the latter part of 2020 in comparison to a similar patient cohort from the year before. Longer waiting times may have contributed to the clinical and radiological deterioration of arthritis and general musculoskeletal conditioning, which may in turn have affected immediate postoperative rehabilitation and mobilization, as well as increasing hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):655–660

Smoking is negatively implicated in healing and may increase the risk of surgical complications in orthopaedic patients. Carbon monoxide (CO) breath testing provides a rapid way of measuring recent smoking activity, but so far, to our knowledge, this has not been studied in elective orthopaedic patients. We studied whether CO-testing can be performed preoperatively in elective orthopaedic patients and whether testing accurately correlates with self-reported smoking status?. CO breath testing was performed on and a brief smoking history was obtained from 154 elective orthopaedic patients on the day of surgery. All patients admitted over 6 weeks for elective orthopaedic intervention were enrolled. 16.2% patients admitted to smoking. The mean CO levels were 15.2 ppm for self-reported smokers and 3.1 ppm for self-reporting non-smokers. One self-reporting non-smoker admitted to smoking after testing. 5 non-smoking patients had a CO breath of >=7, 1 had a CO level of >= 10 ppm. Using a cutoff of 7 ppm gave a sensitivity of 65.4% and a specificity of 96.1%, whilst a cutoff of 10 ppm gave a sensitivity of 57.6% and specificity of 99.2%. Whilst most patients are honest about smoking, CO testing can identify non-disclosing smokers undergoing elective orthopaedic procedures. Due to the high specificity, speed and cost-effectiveness, CO breath testing could be performed routinely to identify patients at risk from smoking-related complications in pre-assessment clinics. Smoking cessation services may reduce the risk of harm. CO testing on admission may demonstrate the efficacy of smoking cessation services

Aims. There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods. A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results. A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion. Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. By November 2020, the elective waiting list in England is predicted to be between 885,286 and 1,028,733. If reduced hospital capacity is factored into the model, returning to full capacity by November, the waiting list could be as large as 1.4 million. With a 30% increase in productivity, it would take 20 months if there was no hidden burden of unreferred patients, and 48 months if there was a hidden burden, to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. By August 2020, the estimated deficits of hip and knee arthroplasties from NJR data were 18,298 (44.8%) and 16,567 (38.6%), respectively, compared to the same time period in 2019. The cost to clear this black log would be £198,811,335. Conclusion. There will be up to 1.4 million patients on elective orthopaedic waiting lists in England by November 2020, approximate three-times the pre-COVID-19 average. There are various strategies for recovery to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers reliant on increasing capacity, but these have substantial cost implications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):103–110

To review the effect of MRSA screening, ward ring-fencing and other significant factors on elective orthopaedic operation cancellations: and to study the effect of introducing a multi-disciplinary trauma management system on trauma operation cancellations, we carried out a study at the Royal Gwent Hospital, a district general hospital accepting general emergency admissions. It took the form of a prospective audit of all elective orthopaedic and trauma cancellations from 1 October to 10 November 2002, and in the same period of 2004. Definitions: an ‘elective cancellation’: deemed medically fit at SHO pre-admission assessment; MRSA swabbed with negative results then subsequently cancelled from an elective theatre list under the headings, ‘ward breech by other unscreened patients’, ‘unfit for surgery’ (anaesthetic decision), ‘lack of beds’ and ‘other’ (lack of surgical assistant, theatre time, theatre staff and operation not required). A ‘trauma cancellation’: acute admission with allocation of theatre space; subsequently cancelled under the headings, ‘unfit for surgery’ (anaesthetic decision), ‘lack of theatre time’, ‘surgery not required’ and ‘other’ (patient refused surgery, absconded, incorrect listing, no surgical assistant or theatre staff). Results. In the six week period 198 and 226 elective patients were listed in 2002 and 2004 respectively. 52% were cancelled in 2002 and 35% in 2004, most frequently by ‘ward breech by other unscreened patient’. 234 and 269 trauma cases were listed in 2002 and 2004 respectively. 26% were cancelled in 2002 and 16% in 2004, most frequently in 2002 by ‘unfit for surgery’, and ‘surgery not required’; and in 2004 ‘lack of theatre time’. The MRSA ring-fencing policy was breached frequently by unscreened emergency patients. An elective unit separate from the main hospital may prevent these cancellations. The multi-disciplinary trauma management scheme reduced trauma cancellations, but other factors have reduced theatre efficiency

Last minute cancellations of operations are a major waste of NHS resources. This study identifies the number of late cancellations at our elective orthopaedic centre, the reasons for them, the costs involved, and whether they are avoidable. Last minute cancellations of operations in a 7-month period from January to July 2009 were examined. 172 cases out of 3330 scheduled operations were cancelled at the last minute (5.2%). Significantly more cancellations occurred during the winter months due to seasonal illness. The commonest causes for cancellation in descending order of frequency were patient unfit/unwell (n=76, 44.2%), lack of theatre time (n=32, 18.6%), patient self cancelled/DNA (n=20, 11.6%), staff unavailable or sick (n=9, 5.2%), theatre or equipment problem (n=8, 4.7%), operation no longer required (n=8, 4.7%), administrative error (n=7, 4.1%) or no bed available (n=5, 2.9%). In 7 out of the 172 cancelled cases (4.1%) no cause was identified. 59.7% of the cases were potentially avoidable. 3.2% of Patients seen in the specialist pre-operative anaesthetic clinic (POAC) were cancelled at the last minute for being unfit or unwell, compared to 2.2% seen in the routine nurse led clinic. Last minute cancellations cost the hospital over £700,000 in 7 months

Introduction. Pre-operative urine screening is accepted practice during pre-operative assessment in elective orthopaedic practice. There is no evidence surrounding the benefits, effects or clinical outcomes of such a practice. Methods. A series of 558 patients undergoing elective admission were recruited during pre-assessment for surgery and were screened for UTIs according to a pre-existing trust protocol. All patients had their urine dipstick tested and positive samples were sent for culture and microscopy. Patients with a positive urine culture were treated prior to surgery and were admitted to the elective centre where strict infection control methods were implemented. The patients were followed up after their surgery and divided into three clinical groups: uneventful surgery; Suspected wound infection; Confirmed wound infection. Results. 85% of dipsticks tested were positive, while only 7% of the urine samples were culture positive. Over 36% of patients with a pre-operative urinary tract infection showed some form of post-operative delayed wound healing or confirmed infection, versus 16% in the other sub-group, giving a relative risk of wound complications of 2:1. There was also an increase in confirmed infection in oozing wounds; 53% positive wound swabs versus 37% in those without a cultured urinary tract infection. A chi-squared analysis yielded a value of 6.07, giving a p value <0.02. There is therefore a statistically significant correlation between a positive urine culture and poor surgical outcome. Conclusion. Pre-operative urine screening and culture has a demonstrable correlation with post-operative surgical outcome. In the light of this study pre-operative urine culture should be mandatory for all pre-operative orthopaedic patients. It should be recognised that patients who present to pre-admission with a UTI are a high risk subgroup for wound infection post-operatively and this should be taken into account when consenting patients for surgery

Abstract

An important aspect of the governance of surgical services within a Healthcare Trust is the correct coding of elective procedures performed. Within the Trust, treatment codes are banded into specific healthcare resource groups (HRGs), which generate a predetermined income. Accurate coding and grouping of the treatments provided for patients is consequently vital to Trusts to ensure that they receive appropriate financial reward for the care provided, so ensuring they remain economically viable as a department.

We present a retrospective study investigating the accuracy of procedure coding, code allocation to HRGs, and the resultant cost consequences for all elective arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repairs completed by one consultant over one financial year (01/01/2010-31/03/2011).

In this period a total of 55 ACL repairs were undertaken by the consultant. Data was available for 43 of these cases, all of which were repairs of traumatic ACL ruptures. The patients had an average age of 26.7 (17–55) years, all were ASA 1 and had no significant comorbidities. They were all booked for identical procedures, except one patient who required an allograft; 12 required meniscectomies. All 43 had an operation note completed by the operating consultant.

Within this trust patient and procedural codes were generated from electronic discharge letters (EDLs). We found that all 43 EDLs were completed accurately, contained full details of the procedures undertaken, and included relevant information such as complications, patient comorbidities, length of stay and the prescription of analgesics.

These 43 EDLs generated 15 different diagnostic codes and 10 different procedure codes, with a total of 35 different combinations of codes. These were then grouped into six different HRGs. These six HRGs generated income for the Trust, varying from £1880 to £3554 (mean £2670) for the procedures, with a total income of £114,823. We found that patient and procedure details, and the level of doctor completing the EDL did not significantly influence the HRG generated (P = 0.4)

Currently within the Trust, and nationally the HRG tariff for a routine ACL repair has not been agreed upon. The maximum possible tariff from an HRG for this procedure for a patient with no significant comorbidities is described as – ‘Reconstruction of intraarticular ligament – Major knee procedure for trauma’, generating an income of £5183 per case. Application of this tariff would have resulted in a total income of £222,869 for the 43 patients included in the present study a potential increase of earnings for the Trust of £108,046, for one elective procedure in one financial year.

The findings of this study reveal the potential for limitations in the governance of surgical services through inaccuracies in HRG coding, despite the availability of suitably detailed EDLs. It is suggested that Trusts should audit and, where indicated, ensure effective quality assurance of HRG coding in the interests of the governance of secondary care services.

Aims. The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. Methods. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed). Results. The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. Conclusion. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562–567

Extended patient waiting lists for assessment and treatment are widely reported for planned elective joint replacement surgery. The development of regionally based Elective Orthopaedic Centres, separate from units that provide acute, urgent or trauma care has been suggested as one solution to provide protected capacity and patient pathways. These centres will adopt protocolised care to allow high volume activity and increased day-case care. We report the plan to establish a new elective orthopaedic centre serving a population of 2.4 million people. A census conducted in 2022 identified that 15000 patients were awaiting joint replacement surgery with predictions for further increases in waiting times. The principle of care will be to offer routine primary arthroplasty surgery for low risk (ASA 1 and 2) patients at a new regional centre. Pre-operative assessment and preparation will be undertaken digitally, virtually and/or in person at local centres close to the where patients live. This requires new and integrated pathways and ways of working. Predicting which patients will require perioperative transfusion of blood products is an important safety and quality consideration for new pathways. We reviewed all cases of hip and knee arthroplasty surgery conducted at our centre over a 12-month period and identified pre-operative patient related predictive factors to allow us to predict the need for the perioperative transfusion of blood products. We examined patient sex, age, pre-operative haemaglobin and platelet count, use of anti-coagulants, weight and body mass index to allow us to construct the Imperial blood transfusion tool. We have used the results of our study and the transfusion tool to propose the patient pathway for the new regional elective orthopaedic centre which we present

Aims

The risk to patients and healthcare workers of resuming elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been difficult to quantify. This has prompted governing bodies to adopt a cautious approach that may be impractical and financially unsustainable. The lack of evidence has made it impossible for surgeons to give patients an informed perspective of the consequences of elective surgery in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. This study aims to determine, for the UK population, the probability of a patient being admitted with an undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection and their resulting risk of death; taking into consideration the current disease prevalence, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and preassessment pathway.

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic. Methods. This is a prospective study of 100 patients who were on the waiting list of a single surgeon for an elective hip or knee procedure. Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with their scheduled surgical procedure. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to define if any specific patient factors influenced decision to continue with surgery. Results. Overall, 88 patients (88%) were happy to continue with their scheduled procedure at the earliest opportunity. Patients with an ASA grade I were most likely to agree to surgery, followed by patients with ASA grades II, then those with grade III (93.3%, 88.7%, and 78.6% willingness, respectively). Patients waitlisted for an injection were least likely to consent to surgery, with just 73.7% agreeing. In all, there was a large increase in the proportion of patient willingness to continue with surgery compared to our initial study during the first wave of the pandemic. Conclusion. As COVID-19 lockdown restrictions are lifted after the second peak of the pandemic, we are seeing greater willingness to continue with scheduled orthopaedic surgery, reinforcing a change in patient perception towards having elective surgery. However, we must continue with strict COVID-19 precautions in order to minimize viral transmission as we increase our elective orthopaedic services going forward. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):865–870

Introduction. This study aimed to assess the relationship between preparation times and operative procedures for elective orthopaedic surgery. A clearer understanding of these relationships may facilitate list organisation and thereby contribute to improved operating theatre efficiency. Methods. Two years of elective orthopaedic theatre data was retrospectively analysed. The hospital medical information unit provided de- identified data for 2015 and 2016 elective orthopaedic cases, from which were selected seven categories of procedures with sufficient numbers to allow further analysis - primary hip and knee replacement, spinal surgery, shoulder surgery (excluding shoulder replacement), knee surgery, foot and ankle surgery (excluding ankle replacement), Dupuytrens surgery and general orthopaedic surgery. The data analysed included patient age, ASA grade, operation, operation time, and preparation time (calculated as the time from the start of the anaesthetic proceedings to the patient's admission to Recovery, with the operating time [skin incision to skin closure] subtracted). Statistical analysis of the data was undertaken. Results. A total of 1596 procedures performed over the two year period were analysed. Preparation times for the different procedures were assessed, along with the relationship to the procedure complexity. Neither age nor ASA correlated strongly with preparation times. Spine procedures had greater preparation times than hip and knee arthroplasty. Greater uniformity in preparation times for hip and knee arthroplasty was seen across the anaesthetic group than operative times across the surgeon group. Discussion. Preparation times are just one aspect that may be evaluated with regard to theatre utilisation. This study did not address the theatre turn-over time between cases, which includes transfer of the patient from the admitting/pre-operative area into the theatre. Conclusion. Preparation times for elective procedures follow a pattern which may be used to inform list planning, with the potential for greater theatre efficiencies with regard to list utilisation and staff allocation

Abstract. Introduction. Clinic letters to the general practitioner (GP) form an essential part of communication in a patient's care. One essential variable requiring 100% compliance is the laterality/side of the diagnosis. Rationale of this audit was to check compliance of the same in clinic letters, to implement changes within the department initially followed by trust wide change in policy to improve the same. Material and Methods. Clinic letters over a period of time were read through in retrospect to see for mention of side. The exclusion criteria were COVID consenting letters over phone, “did not attend” letters and letters for spinal pathology. After 1st limb of audit following actions were taken: doctor education, secretaries to remind the dictating doctor to mention side in the letter and putting up of laminated prompters in all T&O clinic rooms to remind doctors. Following this a 2nd limb was conducted with similar parameters. Results. 1st Limb:. Total letters 271: Fracture clinic- 126. Elective/orthopaedic clinic – 106. Excluded letters– 39. 2nd Limb:. Total letters 169: Fracture clinic- 91. Elective/orthopaedic clinic – 62. Excluded letters– 16. Letters without the mention of side of diagnosis. 1st Limb: Fracture clinic – 28 out of 126 (22.3%). Orthopaedic clinic – 12 out of 106 (11.3%). 2nd Limb: Fracture clinic – 2 out of 91 (2.2%). Orthopaedic clinic – 2 out of 62 (3.2%). Conclusion. With the changes there was an overall compliance of 97.8% in fracture clinic and 96.8% compliance elective clinic dictations

The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of screening and successful treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation in elective orthopaedic patients on the subsequent risk of developing a surgical site infection (SSI) with MRSA. We screened 5933 elective orthopaedic in-patients for MRSA at pre-operative assessment. Of these, 108 (1.8%) were colonised with MRSA and 90 subsequently underwent surgery. Despite effective eradication therapy, six of these (6.7%) had an SSI within one year of surgery. Among these infections, deep sepsis occurred in four cases (4.4%) and superficial infection in two (2.2%). The responsible organism in four of the six cases was MRSA. Further analysis showed that patients undergoing surgery for joint replacement of the lower limb were at significantly increased risk of an SSI if previously colonised with MRSA. We conclude that previously MRSA-colonised patients undergoing elective surgery are at an increased risk of an SSI compared with other elective patients, and that this risk is significant for those undergoing joint replacement of the lower limb. Furthermore, when an infection occurs, it is likely to be due to MRSA

Aims. Due to widespread cancellations in elective orthopaedic procedures, the number of patients on waiting list for surgery is rising. We aim to determine and quantify if disparities exist between inpatient and day-case orthopaedic waiting list numbers; we also aim to determine if there is a ‘hidden burden’ that already exists due to reductions in elective secondary care referrals. Methods. Retrospective data were collected between 1 April 2020 and 31 December 2020 and compared with the same nine-month period the previous year. Data collected included surgeries performed (day-case vs inpatient), number of patients currently on the orthopaedic waiting list (day-case vs inpatient), and number of new patient referrals from primary care and therapy services. Results. There was a 52.8% reduction in our elective surgical workload in 2020. The majority of surgeries performed in 2020 were day case surgeries (739; 86.6%) with 47.2% of these performed in the independent sector on a ‘lift and shift’ service. The total number of patients on our waiting lists has risen by 30.1% in just 12 months. As we have been restricted in performing inpatient surgery, the inpatient waiting lists have risen by 73.2%, compared to a 1.6% rise in our day-case waiting list. New patient referral from primary care and therapy services have reduced from 3,357 in 2019 to 1,722 in 2020 (49.7% reduction). Conclusion. This study further exposes the increasing number of patients on orthopaedic waiting lists. We observed disparities between inpatient and day-case waiting lists, with dramatic increases in the number of inpatients on the waiting lists. The number of new patient referrals has decreased, and we predict an influx of referrals as the pandemic eases, further adding to the pressure on inpatient waiting lists. Robust planning and allocation of adequate resources is essential to deal with this backlog. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):530–534

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. A total of 888 patients responded. Better health, pain, and mood scores were reported by upper limb patients. The longest waiters reported better health but poorer mood and anxiety scores. Overall, 82% had tried self-help measures to ease symptoms; 94% wished to proceed with their intervention; and 21% were prepared to tolerate deferral. Qualitative analysis highlighted the overall patient mood to be represented by the terms ‘understandable’, ‘frustrated’, ‘pain’, ‘disappointed’, and ‘not happy/depressed’. COVID-19-mandated health and safety measures and technology solutions were felt to be implemented well. However, patients struggled with access to doctors and pain management, quality of life (physical and psychosocial) deterioration, and delay updates. Conclusion. This is the largest study to hear the views of this ‘hidden’ cohort. Our findings are widely relevant to ensure provision of better ongoing support and communication, mostly within the constraints of current resources. In response, we developed a reproducible local action plan to address highlighted issues. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):583–593