Background. Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes. Methods. We performed a systematic literature search of all papers pertaining to VFCs, using the search engines PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were carried out and screened by two authors, with final study eligibility confirmed by the senior author. Results. In total, 21 records were relevant to our research question. Six orthopaedic injuries were identified as suitable for VFC review, with a further four discussed in detail. A reduction of face to face appointments of up to 50% was reported with greater compliance to BOAST guidelines (46.4%) and cost saving (up to £212,000). Conclusions. This systematic review demonstrates that the VFC model can help deliver a safe, more cost-effective, and more efficient arm of the trauma service to patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:683–690

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

Introduction. Virtual fracture clinics (VFC's) aim to reduce the number of outpatient appointments while improving the clinical effectiveness and patients experience through standardisation of treatment pathways. With 4.6% of ED admissions due to trauma the VFC prevents unnecessary face to face appointments providing a cost savings benefit to the NHS. Methods. This project demonstrates the importance of efficient VFC process in reducing the burden on the fracture clinics. We completed preformed a retrospective cross-sectional study, analysing two cycles in May (n=305) and September (n=332) 2021. We reviewed all VFC referrals during this time assessing the quality of the referral, if they went on to require a face to face follow up and who the referring health care professional was. Following the cycle in May we provided ongoing education to A&E staff before re-auditing in September. Results. Between the two cycles there was an average 19% improvement in quality of the referrals, significant reduction in number of inappropriate referrals for soft tissue knee and shoulder injuries from 15.1% (n=50) to 4.5% (n=15) following our intervention. There was an 8% increase in number of fracture clinic appointments to 74.4% (n=247), primarily due to an increase number of referrals from nurse practitioners. Radial head fractures were targeted as one group that were able to be successfully managed in VFC, despite this 64% (n=27) of patients were still seen in the outpatient department following VFC referral. Conclusion. Despite the decrease in the number of inappropriate referrals, and the increase in quality of referrals following our intervention. The percentage of VFC referrals in CAVUHB is still higher than other centres in with established VFCs in England. This possibly highlights the need for further education to emergency staff around describing what injuries are appropriate for referral, specifically soft tissue injuries and radial head fractures. In order to optimise the VFC process and provide further cost savings benefits while reducing the strain on fracture clinics

In current practice in the UK there are three main approaches to investigating suspected scaphoid fractures not seen on initial plain film x-rays. Early MRI of all cases. Review all cases in clinic at two weeks with repeat x-rays. Hybrid model. Virtual Fracture Clinic (VFC) triage to reduce those who are seen in clinic at two weeks by:. ∘. Organising early MRI for those with high-risk presentation. ∘. Discharging those with an alternative more likely diagnosis. Our unit uses the VFC model. We aimed to evaluate its efficiency, safety, clinical outcomes and economic viability. All patients attending the emergency department with either a confirmed or suspected scaphoid fracture between March and December 2020 were included (n=305). Of these 297 were referred to the VFC: 33 had a confirmed fracture on x-ray and 264 had a suspected fracture. Of the suspected fractures reviewed in VFC 14% had an MRI organised directly owing to a high-risk presentation, 79% were brought for fracture clinic review and 17% discharged with an alternative diagnosis such as osteoarthritis. Of those subsequently reviewed in fracture clinic at two weeks: 9% were treated as scaphoid fractures (based on clinical suspicion and repeat x-rays), 17% had MRI or CT imaging organised, 5% did not attend and 69% were discharged. Overall, 17% of cases initially triaged, had further imaging – 41 MRIs and 5 CTs. MRI detected: 5% scaphoid fracture, 17% other fracture, 24% bone contusion, complete ligament tear 10%, partial ligament tear 39% and normal study 10%. The results of MRI minimally affected management. 3 patients were taken out of plaster early, 1 patient was immobilized who was not previously and no patients underwent operative management. In the following 12-month period one patient re-presented with a hand or wrist issue. This approach avoided 218 MRIs, equating to £24000 and 109 hours of scanner time. VFC triage and selective use of MRI scanning is a safe, efficient and cost-effective method for the management suspected scaphoid fractures. This can be implemented in units without the resource to MRI all suspected scaphoid fractures from the emergency department

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. “Virtual fracture clinics” have been reported as a safe and effective alternative to the traditional fracture clinic. Robust protocols are used to identify cases that do not require further review, with the remainder triaged to the most appropriate subspecialist at the optimum time for review. The objective of this study was to perform a “top-down” analysis of the cost effectiveness of this virtual fracture clinic pathway. Methods. National Health Service financial returns relating to our institution were examined for the time period 2009 to 2014 which spanned the service redesign. Results. The total staffing costs rose by 4% over the time period (from £1 744 933 to £1 811 301) compared with a national increase of 16%. The total outpatient department rate of attendance fell by 15% compared with a national fall of 5%. Had our local costs increased in line with the national average, an excess expenditure of £212 705 would have been required for staffing costs. Conclusions. The virtual fracture clinic system was associated with less overall use of staff resources in comparison to national cost data. Adoption of this system nationally may have the potential to achieve significant cost savings. Cite this article: P. J. Jenkins. Fracture clinic redesign reduces the cost of outpatient orthopaedic trauma care. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:33–36. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.52.2000506

It is known that Osteoporosis is the pathology of bone mass and tissue loss resulting in an increase of fragility, risk of fracture occurrence, and risk of fracture recurrence. We noted there was no definitive pathway in our last audit, therefore recommended: availability of the Osteoporosis clinic referral form in an accessible place, the form be filled by the doctor reviewing the patient in the first fracture clinic, and a liaison nurse to ensure these forms were filled and sent to the Osteoporosis clinic. This second audit analyses our Trust's response to these recommendations and effect achieved in Osteoporosis care. We reviewed our local data base from the 7/27/2020 – 10/2/2021 retrospectively for distal radius fractures who were seen in fracture clinic. We analysed a sample size of 59 patients, excluding patients who had already commenced bone protection medications. 67.7% of our patients had neither been on bone protection medications nor recorded referrals and 13.5% were already on bone protection medications when they sustained the fragility fracture. Ten out of the 51 patients were offered referral to the osteoporosis clinic, and one refused. This makes 20% (10 out of 50) of the patients had completed referrals. In comparison, in our first audit, 11% had already been on bone protection medications and 18% had completed referrals. The second cycle showed a slight increase in compliance. Majority of the referrals were completed by Orthopaedic Consultants in both audits and ana awareness increase noted among non-consultants in starting the referral process. Based on our analysis, our Trust has a slight improvement in commencing bone protection medications, associated with slight improvement in completing referrals to the Osteoporosis clinic. Despite our recommendations in the first audit, there is still no easily accessible definitive pathway to ensure our Trust's patients have timely access to bone protection and continued care at the Osteoporosis clinic. We recommend streamlining our recommendations to have a more effective approach in ensuring our Trust meets national guidelines. We will implement a Yes or No question assessment for patients visiting clinic in our electronic database which should assist in referral completions

Aims. Fracture clinics are often characterised by the referral of large numbers of unselected patients with minor injuries not requiring investigation or intervention, long waiting times and recurrent unnecessary reviews. Our experience had been of an unsustainable system and we implemented a ‘Trauma Triage Clinic’ (TTC) in order to rationalise and regulate access to our fracture service. The British Orthopaedic Association’s guidelines have required a prospective evaluation of this change of practice, and we report our experience and results. Patients and Methods. We review the management of all 12 069 patients referred to our service in the calendar year 2014, with a minimum of one year follow-up during the calendar year 2015. . Results. Following the successful introduction of the TTC, only 2836 patients (23.5%) who would previously have been reviewed in the general fracture clinic were brought back to such a clinic to be seen by a surgeon. An additional 2366 patients (19.6%) were brought back to a sub-specialist injury-specific clinic. Another 2776 patients (23%) with relatively predictable injuries were reviewed by a nurse practitioner according to an established protocol or specific consultant instructions. A further 3222 patients (26.7%) were discharged from the service without attending the clinic. No significant errors or omissions occurred with the introduction of the TTC. Conclusion. We have found that our TTC allows large numbers of referrals to be reviewed and triaged safely and effectively, to the benefit and satisfaction of patients, consultants, trainees, staff and the organisation. This paper provides the first large-scale review of the instigation of a TTC, and its effect, acceptability and safety. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:503–7

Osteoporosis is a disease when bone mass and tissue is lost, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and increase susceptibility to develop fracture. The osteoporosis prevalence increases markedly with age, from 2% at 50 years to more than 25% at 80 years. 1. in women. The vast majority of distal radius fractures (DRFs) can be considered fragility fractures. The DRF is usually the first medical presentation of these fractures. With an aging population, all fracture clinics should have embedded screening for bone health and falls risk. DRF is the commonest type of fracture in perimenopausal women and is associated with an increased risk of later non-wrist fracture of up to one in five in the subsequent decade. 2. . According to the national guidelines in managing the fragility fractures of distal radius with regards the bone health review, we, as orthopedic surgeons, are responsible to detect the risky patients, refer them to the responsible team to perform the required investigations and offer the treatment. We reviewed our local database (E-trauma) all cases of fracture distal radius retrospectively during the period from 01/08/2019 to 29/09/2019. We included total of 45 patients who have been managed conservatively and followed up in fracture clinic. Our inclusion criteria was: women aged 65 years and over, men aged 75 years and over with risk factors, patients who are more than 50 years old and sustained low energy trauma whatever the sex is or any patient who has major risk factor (current or frequent recent use of oral or systemic glucocorticoids, untreated premature menopause or previous fragility fracture). We found that 96% of patients were 50 years old or more and 84% of the patients were females. 71% of patients were not referred to Osteoporosis clinic and 11% were already under the orthogeriatric care and 18% only were referred. Out of the 8 referred patients, 3 were referred on 1st appointment, 1 on the 3rd appointment, 1 on discharge from fracture clinic to GP again and 3 were without clear documentation of the time of referral. We concluded that we as trust are not compliant to the national guidelines with regards the osteoporosis review for the DRF as one of the first common presentations of fragility fractures. We also found that the reason for that is that there is no definitive clear pathway for the referral in our local guidelines. We recommended that the Osteoporosis clinic referral form needs to be available in the fracture clinic in an accessible place and needs to be filled by the doctor reviewing the patient in the fracture clinic in the 1st appointment. A liaison nurse also needs to ensure these forms have been filled and sent to the orthogeriatric team. Alternatively, we added a portal on our online database (e-trauma), therefore the patient who fulfils the criteria for bone health review should be referred to the orthogeriatric team to review

An osteoporosis screening service for patients presenting to the fracture clinic in Derriford Hospital Plymouth was established in February 2009. We report on the findings of the first year of patients referred for dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) screening. Patients between 50 and 75 years of age, who sustained a fracture as a result of a fall from standing height or less, who had not previously had a DEXA scan within the last two years, were referred. Patients outside these age limits with other risk factors for osteoporosis were scanned at the discretion of the fracture clinic consultant. Of those patients who were referred, 96% subsequently attended for a scan timed to coincide with their scheduled fracture clinic follow-up appointment. 402 patients were scanned in total, of which 351 were female and 51 were male. The mean patient age was 65. The results for women were as follows: 21% normal, 45% osteopenic, 34% osteoporotic. The results for men were: 19% normal, 43% osteopenic, 38% osteoporotic. The scan results were forwarded to the patient's general practitioner for action as deemed necessary. These findings support the establishment of this screening service for both men and women

Aim: To assess satisfaction of patients seen in the fracture clinic in our DGH. The results from the audit were compared with the National Average to assess the efficiency and patient satisfaction. Methods: We did a questionnaire survey of patient satisfaction attending the fracture clinic in our DGH. The above audit was done for a period of 4 weeks on patients attending one orthopaedic surgeon fracture clinic during the month of March 2006. 130 patients completed the questionnaire, 20 of which were incomplete. This left us with 110 questionnaires for assessment. Results: The M:F was 11:7. 88% of them felt access to the clinic was easy. 12% of the patients were disabled of which only 15% felt the access was easy. 28% were seen on time and 65% were seen within 15 minutes of the stated appointment time. 82% of them felt that were not informed of the waiting time. 87% of them felt that were able to discuss their problem with the doctor. 95% of them felt the doctor explained the diagnosis and the reasons for their action in an understandable way. 94% felt the staffs were courteous. 91% were satisfied with the fracture clinic service, 60% felt the clinic was organised well, 88% felt their dignity was respected and 88% rated the care they received to be excellent to good. Conclusion: The above audit showed that majority of the patients seen in the fracture clinic were satisfied and level of service was comparable to the national average

Virtual Fracture Clinic (VFC) is a consultant-led orthopaedic trauma outpatient triage and management service. The use of VFC has recently become commonplace in the United Kingdom. It allows multiple referral sources to the orthopaedic team, with clinical information and imaging reviewed by a consultant in VFC who formulates an appropriate management plan with the patient contacted; either to attend clinic for consultation or discharged with advice over the phone. The VFC is more efficient than a traditionally delivered outpatient fracture clinic service. We have utilized VFC for 1 year at our hospital, East Kent University Hospital Foundation Trust (EKHUFT), and undertook a closed loop audit to evaluate the service and highlight potential areas of improvement. The Objective of the study was to identify whether the implementation of new re-designed VFC referral guidelines together with teaching set across one of the hospitals in EKHUFT improved the effectiveness and standards of VFC referrals. An initial audit was performed of all referrals made to VFC over a 2 weeks period in December 2018. Changes to the VFC referral pathway were implemented, and teaching sessions performed by the orthopaedic team to all referring units, including minor injury units (MIU) and the emergency department (ED). After implementation, re-audit of VFC referrals was performed in February 2019 over a similar 2 weeks period. Patient demographics, diagnosis and outcomes were collected from the online patient record with images reviewed using PACS software. Following intervention, referral rates dropped by 27.7% (136 vs 188 patients) over the 2 weeks periods. Patient demographics, injury type and severity remained the same between the 2 groups. 51.5% (70/136) did not meet VFC pathway criteria after the intervention and were considered inappropriate, compared to 70% in the original group. 15.4% (21/136) referrals could have been managed in the emergency department using the new guidelines and leaflet discharge. 5.1% (7/136) of the referrals should have been referred to orthopaedic on-call acutely and 22% (30/136) of the referrals had a soft tissue injury or no injury identified. This did not change between the 2 groups despite intervention. Referring MIU and ED units require continued support and teaching over a prolonged time period to hopefully see further improvements. Immediate hot reporting of radiographs may further benefit the service, but staffing and funding issues particularly out of hours, means this remains an aspiration

Background. Many Accident and Emergency units employ a “one size fits all” policy with regard to referring patients with musculoskeletal injury for further review in fracture clinic. This may result in inappropriate timings of review in the clinic wasting patient time, clinic time and hospital resources. Aim. Our firm employs a rapid review of all radiographs and A&E notes of all musculoskeletal injury patients referred to our fracture clinic on a weekly basis. We aimed to investigate the impact this review has on the running of our clinic and what benefits were gained. Patients and Methods. Over a three month period all the rapid trauma review meetings were audited with respect to time taken; number of referrals; outcome of referral and staff members present. During this time an audit of the number of patients reviewed in fracture clinic by the Consultant orthopaedic surgeon was also undertaken to allow the average time taken for review of a patient in the clinic to be established. Results and Discussion. Over the three month period 117 patients were reviewed with 44(38%) being given a later appointment; 6(5%) being given an earlier appointment; 8(7%) being discharged to general practice or physiotherapy and 4(3%) being referred to a different clinic. Man time taken to review was 2.4minutes per patient. Mean time for review in fracture clinic was 12.6minutes. Taking the changes to later appointment, discharges and changes to different clinic to be inappropriate referrals, 4.7 occurred per review meeting. This equated to a mean time saved per fracture clinic of 60.6 minutes. Conclusion. This data supports the use of a rapid trauma review meeting to ensure appropriate timing of review of musculoskeletal injury patients. It saves time wasted on inappropriate reviews, saves patient dissatisfaction with being seen unnecessarily and allows patients who should be reviewed more promptly to be identified and reviewed appropriately

Diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) can be challenging. We explore the role of fracture clinic in diagnosis and management with a closed-loop audit of new guidelines. We retrospectively reviewed patients with CRPS over 3.5 years. We determined the delay from injury to commencement of treatment and monitored symptoms. New guidelines were introduced to fracture clinic in January 2013. The Budapest Criteria aids diagnosis. GAD-7 and PHQ-9 patient questionnaires grade symptoms. Orthopaedic surgeons prescribe nortriptylline or pregabalin, refer to physiotherapy and review patients after six weeks. We re-audited prospectively after implementing these guidelines. The first audit cycle found 11 patients in 3.5 years. The mean delay to anti-neuropathic medication from injury was 4.7 months. Two patients required psychotherapy, one intravenous pamidronate, three inpatient physiotherapy under nerve blocks and two spinal cord stimulators. After implementing guidelines, there were 14 patients with CRPS in 9 months. All but two patients received anti-neuropathic medication on the day of diagnosis. All patients treated appropriately improved markedly within 4–12 weeks. No patients required escalation of treatment. Our guidelines increased pick-up rates of CRPS, diagnoses were made earlier and treatment started sooner. Physiotherapy modalities remained varied, however, early anti-neuropathic treatment led to a rapid improvement in all cases

Aims. Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are advocated by recent British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOASTs) to efficiently manage injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim of this national study is to assess the impact of these standards on patient satisfaction and clinical outcome amid the pandemic. The secondary aims are to determine the impact of the pandemic on the demographic details of injuries presenting to the VFC, and to compare outcomes and satisfaction when the BOAST guidelines were first introduced with a subsequent period when local practice would be familiar with these guidelines. Methods. This is a national cross-sectional cohort study comprising centres with VFC services across the UK. All consecutive adult patients assessed in VFC in a two-week period pre-lockdown (6 May 2019 to 19 May 2019) and in the same two-week period at the peak of the first lockdown (4 May 2020 to 17 May 2020), and a randomly selected sample during the ‘second wave’ (October 2020) will be eligible for the study. Data comprising local VFC practice, patient and injury characteristics, unplanned re-attendances, and complications will be collected by local investigators for all time periods. A telephone questionnaire will be used to determine patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes for patients who were discharged following VFC assessment without face-to-face consultation. Ethics and dissemination. The study results will identify changes in case-mix and numbers of patients managed through VFCs and whether this is safe and associated with patient satisfaction. These data will provide key information for future expert-led consensus on management of trauma injuries through the VFC. The protocol will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed publication. This protocol has been reviewed by the South East Scotland Research Ethics Service and is classified as a multicentre audit. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):211–215

Introduction: Osteoporotic fracture care is on the increase in healthcare systems worldwide. In the UK the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) recommends all patients > 60 presenting with fragility fracture (FF) should be evaluated for osteoporosis by axial Dual Energy X-ray Absortiometry (DEXA) scan. All patients < 60 should be assessed for osteoporosis risk factors and DEXA scanned if present. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends all woman > 75 with FF should be prescribed secondary prevention bisphosphonates for osteoporosis 1st line without the need for DEXA scan. Aim: To evaluate how often patients with FF were appropriately managed in fracture clinic using BOA and NICE guidelines for the secondary prevention of FF. Methods: and Results: Over a two month period 18 of 184 new patients admitted to fracture clinic were identified as having FF (16 females, 2 males with age ranges 61–89). They were followed up over six months. According to BOA and NICE guidelines only 33% (6 of 18 patients) and 42% (3 of 7 > 75’s) respectively were appropriately managed for secondary prevention. Following this a FF prevention strategy was implemented. This consisted of fracture clinic infrastructure changes, a staff awareness teaching programme and the assignment of an osteoporosis nurse specialist. A re-audit six months later identified 16 of 175 new patients as having FF. According to BOA and NICE guidelines 88% (14 of 16 patients) and 75% (6 of 8 > 75’s) respectively were appropriately managed for secondary prevention. Fisher’s Exact Test showed a significant improvement in secondary prevention management according to BOA guidelines (p< 0.05), but not NICE guidelines (p=0.2), as a consequence of these interventions. Conclusion: Osteoporosis is an important cause of fracture in elderly patients. Changes to fracture clinic infrastructure, educational teaching initiatives and osteoporotic nurse specialists can improve uptake of secondary prevention measures in fracture clinic aimed at reducing risk of future fragility fractures in elderly patients

We aimed to audit the results of one stop fragility fracture risk assessment service at fracture clinic for non-hip fractures in 50–75 years old patients at Newcastle General Hospital. Currently, fewer than 30% of patients with fragility fractures benefit from secondary prevention in the form of comprehensive risk assessment and bone protection because of multifactorial reasons. We have a fragility fracture risk assessment service staffed by an Osteoporosis Specialist Nurse equipped with a DEXA scanner located at the fracture clinic itself. We carried out a retrospective audit of 349 patients of 50–75 years with suspected non-hip fractures referred from A& E Department from October 2006 to September 2007. Patients over 75 years were excluded because as per NICE guidelines, they should receive bone protection without need of a DEXA scan. Out of these 349 patients with suspected fractures, 171 had fragility fractures. Median age was 64 years. 69 patients had humerus fracture, 65 had forearm fracture and 23 patients had ankle fracture and 14 had metatarsal fractures. Fracture risk assessment was carried out in 120 (70%) patients. Thirty Seven (31%) patients had osteoporosis and bone protection was recommended to GP. 38 (32%) had osteopenia and lifestyle advice was provided. 45 (37%) had normal axial bone densitometry. 90% patients had DEXA scan at the same time of fracture clinic appointment. Patients with male gender, undisplaced fracture and fewer fracture clinic appointments were more likely to miss fracture risk assessment. Our experience suggests that locating fragility fracture risk assessment service co-ordinated by an Osteoporosis Specialist Nurse at fracture clinic is an efficient way of providing secondary prevention for patients with fragility fractures. This can improve team communication, eliminate delay and improve patient compliance because of ‘One Stop Shop’ service at the time of fracture clinic appointment

Introduction: Many minor procedures are performed daily in fracture clinic and often carried out under intravenous sedation and analgesia. These occur between 9 am and 8 pm. Methods: All minor and intermediate cases logged in the theatre register at the fracture clinic were reviewed from February 2007 to February 2008. The following items were recorded: month, age of patient, diagnosis, procedure, grade of doctor or nurse performing the procedure and the method of anaesthesia and the time of day the procedure was carried out. Specifically the use of intravenous sedation, intravenous morphine, use of Entonox, and local or regional anaesthetic techniques were recorded. Records were classified by the time of day the procedure occurred – any procedure starting at or after 1730 hours was regarded as an ‘out-of-hours’ procedure. Results: The age range of patients undergoing procedures ranged from 13 to 100 years, with a mean age of 49 years. 576 procedures were performed, 529 by SHOs, 35 by registrars, 4 by consultants and 8 by nursing staff. The commonest procedure was distal radius manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with 227 cases, followed by ankles with 175 cases. Intravenous sedation was used in 473 cases with 95 of these occurring ‘out-of-hours’. Entonox was used in 33 cases. A regional or local anaesthetic technique was used in 38 cases. No anaesthetic or analgesia was required in 10 cases. Discussion: The ability to perform minor and intermediate procedures is dependent on being to provide safe and appropriate anaesthesia. If the current procedures could not be performed in fracture clinic this would put significant pressures on operating theatre time and would have inherent cost implications. However, in order to provide safe and appropriate anaesthesia for these procedures adequate and contempory staff training is required, especially when intravenous sedation is utilised

Background. Patients presenting to fracture clinic who have had initial management of a fracture performed by Accident and Emergency (A+E) often require further intervention to correct unacceptable position. This usually takes the form of booking a patient for a general anaesthetic to have manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) or open surgery. Methods. Prospective data collection over a 6-month period. Included subjects were those that had initial management of a fracture performed by A+E, who went on to require re-manipulation in fracture-clinic. Manipulations were performed by trained plaster technicians using entonox analgesia followed by application of moulded cast. Radiographs were reviewed immediately post-manipulation by treating surgeon and patient managed accordingly. A retrospective review of radiograph images was performed by two doctors independently to grade the outcomes following manipulation. Results. 38 patients with 39 fractures included in study. Sites of fracture included 32 distal radius, 2 ankle, 1 spiral distal tibia and fibula, 3 metacarpal and 1 proximal phalanx of finger. 22 patients had anatomical/near-to anatomical reduction at post fracture-clinic manipulation of fracture and was the as well as definitive management (satisfactory outcome). 13 patients had a outcome 2 (minimally displaced but and satisfactory reduction of the fracture) at post fracture-clinic reduction. 12 of these were deemed acceptable went onto outcome 1 for definitive management with 1 going to outcome 2 (requiringed further manipulation). 4 patients had unsatisfactory reduction of fracture outcome 3 at post fracture-clinic reduction and all of these patients went onto outcome 3 (required surgery). Conclusions. This study supports the practice of possible primary reduction and if required, re-manipulation and cast moulding using only entonox analgesia, of selected patient cases fractures by trained plaster technicians. Without this intervention, almost all of these cases will have required an MUA or additionally Kirscher wire or open fixation. There is potential to utilise a plaster technician in A+E, reducing the need for further fracture clinic appointments, being more acceptable to patients and having a resultant cost-saving implication. Level of Evidence. Level 3

Current fracture-clinic models, especially in the advent of reductions in junior doctors hours, may limit outpatient trainee education and patient care. We designed a new model of fracture-clinic, involving an initial consultant led case review focused on patient management and trainee education. Prospective outcomes for all new patients attending the redesigned fracture-clinic over a 3-week period in 2010 (n=240) were compared with the traditional clinic in the same period in 2009(n=296). Trainees attending the fracture clinic completed a Likert questionnaire (1 [strongly dissagree] − 5 [strongly agree]) assessing the adequacy of education, support, staff morale & standards of patient care. The percentage of cases given consultant input increased significantly from 33% in 2009 to 84% in 2010 (p< 0.0001), while the proportion of patients requiring physical review by a consultant fell by 21% (p< 0.0001). Return rates were reduced by 14.3% (p< 0.013) & utilization of the nurse lead fracture clinic improved by 10.1% (p< 0.0028). These improvements were most marked in the target group ?StR2 (24.2% & 22.3% respectively). There were significant improvements in staff perception of their education from 2 to 4.75 (p< 0.0001), provision of senior support from 2.38 to 4.5 (p=0.019), morale from 3.68 to 4.13 (p=0.0331) & their overall perception of patient care from 3.25 to 4.5 (p=0.0016). A&E staff found the new style clinic educational, practice changing & that it improved interdisciplinary relations, but did not interfere with their A&E duties. Our model of fracture-clinic redesign has significantly enhanced consultant input into patient care without additional funding. In addition, we have demonstrated increased service efficiency and significant improvements in staff support, morale and education. In the face of current economic and training challenges, we recommend this new model as a tool for enhancing patient and trainee experiences