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

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

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

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. 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.

Outcomes for all new patients attending the redesigned fracture-clinic over a 3-week period in 2010 were compared with the traditional clinic in the same period in 2009. Health professionals completed a Likert questionnaire assessing their perceptions of education, support, standards of patient care and morale before and after the clinic redesign.

309 and 240 patients attended the clinics in 2009 and 2010 respectively. There was an increase in consultant input into patient management after the redesign (29% versus 84%, p<0.0001), while the proportion of patients requiring physical review by a consultant fell (32% versus 9%). The percentage of new patients discharged by junior medical staff increased (17% versus 25%) with a reciprocal fall in return appointments (55% versus 40%, p<0.0005). Overall, return appointment rates fell significantly (55% versus 40%, p=0.013). Staff perception of education and senior support improved from 2 to 5, morale and overall perception of patient care from 4 to 5.

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.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, video/phone consultations (VPC) were increasingly utilised as an alternative to face-to-face (F2F) consultations, to minimise nosocomial viral exposure. We previously demonstrated that VPCs were highly rated by both patients and clinicians. This study compared satisfaction between both clinic modalities in contemporaneously delivered outpatient surveys. We also assessed the feasibility and effects of converting F2F orthopaedic consultations to VPC. Surveys were posted to patients who attended VPCs and F2F consultations at a large tertiary centre from August to October 2020 inclusive, across 51 specialties. F2F and VPC patients ranked their overall satisfaction with their consultation on a 10-point numerical scale (10=highest satisfaction). Simultaneously, a pilot study was undertaken of outpatient fracture clinics to identify patients suitable for VPCs, with X-rays (if needed) taken and transferred from satellite sites to reduce tertiary centre footfall. For F2F consultations, 1419 of 4465 surveys (31.8%) were returned with similar rates for VPCs (1332 of 4572, 29.1%). While mean satisfaction ratings were high for both clinic modalities, they were significantly higher for F2F: 9.13 (95% CI 9.05-9.22) for F2F clinics, compared to 8.23 (95% CI 8.11-8.35) for VPCs (p<0.001, t-test). F2F patients were almost four times more likely to state a preference for future F2F appointments compared to VPCs, whereas patients who attended VPCs showed an equal preference for either option (p< 0.001, chi2 test). 53% of 111 fracture clinic patients sampled were identified as suitable for VPCs. 1 patient (1.7%) requested their VPC to be converted to F2F due to poor symptom control. Our study showed patients reported high satisfaction ratings for both F2F clinics and VPCs, with prior experience of VPCs affecting patients’ future preferences. Only 1.7% of F2F patients converted to VPCs declined their virtual appointment. Our results support future use of VPCs

Fifth metatarsal fractures are common and the majority unite regardless of treatment. A sub-type of these fractures carries a risk of non-union and for this reason many centres follow up all 5. th. metatarsal fractures. In 2011, a standardised protocol was introduced to promote weight-bearing as pain allowed with a tubigrip or Velcro boot according to symptoms. No routine fracture clinic appointments were made from A&E but patients were provided with information and a help-line number to access care if required. Some patients still attended fracture clinics, but only after review of their notes/X-rays by an Orthopaedic Consultant, or after self-reported “failure to progress” using the special help-line number. Audit of a year prior to the introduction of the protocol and the year following it was performed. All x-rays taken at presentation in A&E were reviewed and classified independently (KBF/JM) for validation. During 2009/2010, 279 patients presented to A&E with a 5. th. metatarsal fracture and were referred to a fracture clinic. 106(38%) attended 1 appointment, 130(47%) attended 2 appointments and 31 (11%) attended 3 or more appointments – 491 appointments in total. 3% failed to attend the clinic. Operative fixation was performed in 3 patients (1.07%). In 2011/2012, of 339 A&E fractures, only 63 (19%) attended fracture clinic. 37 (11%) attended 1 appointment, 12 (4%) 2 and 9 (3%) 3 or more appointments – 96 appointments in total. Four patients (1.17%) required operative fixation. Our study did not demonstrate any added value for routine outpatient follow-up of 5. th. metatarsal fractures. Patients can be safely allowed to weight bear and discharged at the time of initial presentation in the A&E department if they are provided with appropriate information and access to a “help line” run by experienced fracture clinic staff. The result is a more efficient, patient-centred service

Weber A fractures are a sub-group of ankle fractures parallel or distal to the joint line, below the level of the syndesmosis. Most stable Weber A fractures are managed conservatively with no significant difference in outcome vs. surgical intervention. 1,2. In an effort to ensure staff time was being used as efficiently as possible, a consultant-led virtual fracture clinic (VFC) was introduced to manage Weber A fractures. Patients not requiring immediate surgery were reviewed remotely and, wherever possible, were ‘virtually discharged’ to a nurse-led telephone line. Those with diagnostic uncertainty, unusual features or delayed recovery received a face to face review from a nurse or surgeon. To examine how patients were allocated under this protocol, along with overall patient satisfaction and functional outcome. An audit of satisfaction and outcome was performed of all patients who presented with a Weber A fracture to the ED between October 2011 and October 2012. The minimum follow-up period was two years. A satisfaction and patient reported outcome (5-level-likert-scale, EQ-5D, MOXFQ) measure was conducted via telephone. 3,4. After exclusions, 79 patients were left, of which 63 were successfully contacted (80%). Of the 79 patients included, 33 (42%) required early face-to-face review while 46 (58%) were discharged with advice following discussion at the VFC. Of the 63 successfully contacted, receipt of the information leaflet was recalled by 61 (97%) and 54 (86%) were satisfied with the information they had received. There was no difference in patient satisfaction regarding recovery (p=0.079) or treatment information (p=0.236) provided between avulsion and transverse fractures or in functional outcome according to MOXFQ (p=0.626) or EQ-Vas (p=0.915) scores. Patient satisfaction can remain high without face-to-face consultations following injury. This was demonstrated by the high satisfaction with recovery (83%) and with information provided (86%) and is consistent with current published literature and similar to what would have been achieved with traditional fracture clinic review. 5. The new protocol reduces unnecessary hospital attendances for patients and reduces the burden of unnecessary review in orthopaedic departments. Only 15% of patients required review at a traditional fracture clinic and 27% at a nurse-led clinic, freeing resources for more complex cases

Torus (Buckle) fractures of distal radius are common in children and form a major workload of any fracture clinic. They are usually stable and do not displace. Recent evidence has shown that these fractures can be safely treated in a futura splint. In UK, many of the hospitals are still treating these patients with full plaster. Bringing back these patients to fracture clinic for plaster removal means more workload and places more financial burden in the NHS. Our study is a completed audit cycle where we successfully implemented treatment with futura splint. Over a period of 6 months, 25 torus fractures were diagnosed & treated in A/E back slab. Mean age was 8.24 (Range: 3–12 yrs). Most common MOI was fall on outstretched hand. All cases had presented to A/E within 24 hours. 5 were given futura splint at the fracture clinic. 21 cases received full plaster. They were seen back in clinic in 3–4 weeks for plaster removal. After this audit was presented, we started treating these fractures with futura splint. Reauditing 6 months later revealed that of 31 cases, we had successfully treated 28 with Futura splint. 2 were treated with plaster on parent's insistence. The remaining one was treated in plaster as we could not fit a futura splint. There were no problems reported with futura splint. By definition, torus fractures are stable. The major problem with these fractures lies in the correct diagnosis. We have treated this fracture successfully with futura splint. Recent papers have shown that every patient treated with futura splint saves nearly £53 when compared to plaster treatment. Implementing this treatment has reduced plaster related problems. We hope this audit will help in changing practice in other hospitals in NHS

The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 is concerned with: “the making of safety measures in regard to radioactive substances and the emission of ionising radiation”. Responsibility is placed upon the Practitioner, Operator, Referrer and employer. A clinical evaluation of the outcome of each medical exposure must be recorded.” In Ayr Hospital Radiologist report A&E radiographs but not those in fracture clinic unless a specific request was made. Therefore the Surgeon/Trainee must record their interpretation. An audit was completed to review the rate of documentation of the interpretation of radiographs in the clinical records of consecutive patients attending fracture clinics Notes and radiographs were reviewed from 6 separate fracture clinics. 106 patients attended during the time period and were seen by 9 different surgeons; 5 consultants and 4 training grade surgeons. 46 out of 106 patients were x-rayed and interpretation recorded in 38 cases. No interpretation was found in 8 cases, giving an overall compliance of 82.6% with no difference between different grades of surgeon: Consultants 79.2% (19/24); Trainees 86.4% (19/22). These finding were presented at a departmental audit meeting and the audit loop was then closed by a second period of audit with an improvement in the consultants compliance to 100% (22/22) p=0.05 and no significant change in the trainees performance 75% (18/24)

Aims. Isolated greater tuberosity fractures make up 17–21% of proximal humeral fractures, 30% are associated with shoulder dislocation. Conservative management of minimally displaced fractures (<5 mm) is recommended. There are few guides to which and how many fractures displace over time. Methods. A retrospective analysis of isolated greater tuberosity fractures presenting to a shoulder fracture clinic over 1 year was performed. Patients were identified from shoulder fracture clinic lists and a bluespier database. Radiological fracture displacement was measured from the edge of the defect in the humeral head to the closest edge of the greater tuberosity. All measurements were performed by three oberservers on two occasions. Data was analysed to study the relationship between initial displacement and fracture stability and between concurrent dislocation and fracture stability. Inter-observer analysis was performed. Results. 64 (m:32; f:32; mean age 53) patients were identified. 37 were displaced 0–5 mm at presentation, 18 were displaced 5–10 mm, 9 were displaced >10 mm. Of those displaced less than 5 mm on presentation, 22% (n8) further displaced to greater than 5 mm and 5% (n2) to >10 mm at follow-up. Of those displaced 5–10 mm on presentation, 17% (n3) displaced to >10 mm. 42% (n27) of fractures were associated with dislocation; they had greater displacement at presentation. In the 0–5 mm displacement group that displaced >5 mm, 88% (n7) had concurrent dislocation. Inter-observer analysis of the x-ray measurement showed moderate agreement (0.684). Conclusion. Isolated greater tuberosity fractures displaced less than 5 mm at presentation and that are not associated with dislocation are stable. Concurrent dislocation is associated with both greater fracture displacement at presentation and ongoing fracture instability

In our department, currently there is variation in the number of xrays that patients receive following ORIF of distal radius fractures. This audit investigated the use of xrays following ORIF of distal radius fractures. Patients were identified from daily trauma lists. Patients who had a primary ORIF or ORIF following failed conservative management were included in the study. PACS was used to identify the number of post-operative xrays performed. These were correlated with clinic letters to see if there was any change in management following xray review. Between July and November 2013, 102 patients were admitted with distal radius fracture. Of these, 35 (mean age:51 years) had an ORIF. Four were not followed-up in Scotland. Of the remaining 31 patients, eleven had one post-operative xray, seventeen had two and three had three xrays. Of the patients who had one xray, seven had the xray in the first three weeks, the rest at six weeks. Patients who had two xrays had an xray at two and 6 weeks. Of the three patients who had three xrays, two had comminuted fractures that required further CT investigation, one for a suspicion of an intra-articular screw, the other for possibility of non-union. The third patient had no apparent reason for requiring three xrays. Thus of the 31 patients in the study, 29 did not require any further investigations. The results show a variation in the frequency of post-operative xrays after fixation of distal radius fractures. In most cases the management plan was unchanged after plain xrays were undertaken. This suggests that a protocol driven approach to follow-up after fixation of distal radius fractures could reduce the burden on fracture clinic and radiology departments. We propose that unless indicated by intra-operative findings or post-operative concerns, patients should have xrays at the two week review appointment

Intervention is rare following minimally displaced radial head fractures or positive elbow ‘fat pad’ signs. A pilot study (n=20) found no patient required active treatment after discharge following their first fracture clinic visit. We therefore initiated routine discharge from A&E with an advice sheet, and an ‘open-door policy’ if patients failed to progress. 51 patients were managed by A&E according to this protocol over a six-month period. A standardised assessment of symptoms, satisfaction and functional limitation was completed for 24 patients by phone; average time to follow-up 4.2 months (range 2–9 months). Fourteen (58.4%) reported no pain. The 10 patients (41.6%) with on-going pain reported a median visual analogue score (VAS 0–10) of 0.7 (0–4) at rest, 0.25 (0–4) at night, 3.0 (0–10) carrying heavy objects and 2.75 (0–10) during repetitive movement. 4 of 24 (16.7%) reported minor functional impairment. 3 of 24 (12.5%) patients requested orthopaedic review, but all were satisfied with outcome, seeking reassurance and discharged without any intervention. 3 of 24 (12.5%) were unhappy with their progress, but all had suffered from chronic pain or psychological conditions predating their injury. When offered further review, none of these patients accepted. 22 (91%) were satisfied with their treatment and 23 (95.8%) returned to work and hobbies. This data suggests routine discharge from A&E with advice does not compromise care, as no intervention is usually required beyond advice. These findings have obvious positive clinical and financial implications in streamlining clinical workload

We present a novel use for an adult proximal humeral locking plate. In our case an 18-year-old female with cerebral palsy sustained a peri-prosthetic fracture of a blade plate previously inserted for a femoral osteotomy. Treatment was revision using a long proximal humeral locking plate. She had a successful outcome. We present the history and operative management. The female had a history of quadriplegic cerebral palsy, asthma, diabetes mellitus and congenital heart disease. She had a gastrostomy tube for enteral feeding. She was on nutritional supplements, baclofen, Omeprazole and movicol. She is looked after by her parents and requires a wheelchair for mobility. She is unable to communicate. Surgical History: Right adductor tenotomy, aged 11. Femoral Derotation Osteotomy & Dega Acetabular Osteotomy, aged 13. Right distal hamstring and knee capsule release, aged 14. Admitted to A&E (aged 18); unwitnessed fall. Painful, swollen, deformed thigh with crepitus. Xrays demonstrated peri- prosthetic fracture below blade plate. No specific equipment available to revise. Decision made to use PHILOS (Synthes, UK). GA, antibiotics, supine on table. Lateral approach. Plate removed after excising overgrown bone. Reduced and held. 10hole PHILOS applied. Near anatomical reduction. Secure fixation with locking screws proximally away from blade plate defect. Blood loss 800ml. 5 days in hospital. Sequential fracture clinic review. Wound healed well. Fracture healed on Xray at 11 months and discharged. To our knowledge this is the first reported use of a PHILOS plate for this specific fracture. The complexity of this case and underlying neurological disorder deemed long blade plate revision unsuitable. Fracture rates after femoral derotation osteotomies rare. 5/157 and 1/58 in the two largest studies to date. Conservative measures were the main recommendation. We have demonstrated a straightforward method for revision fixation with an excellent outcome. It would be recommended as an alternative to other surgeons in this position

We undertook a retrospective audit to assess quality of service provided by Nurse-Led Review Clinic at Glasgow Royal Infirmary for patients sustaining ankle fracture requiring surgical stabilisation. Nursing staff had received training from the senior author regarding clinical examination and radiograph interpretation. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical documentation and radiographs of 104 patients who attended from January 2009 to December 2009. Any clinical issues were identified and radiographs were scrutinised by two of the authors to assess accuracy of interpretation. Nurse-led management was then assessed as to its appropriateness. Finally two retrospective questionnaires were used to assess both the nurses and patients satisfaction with the clinic. Nurse-led clinic protocol: First appointment 10 days: Wound review, application of lightweight plaster. Second appointment 6 weeks: Removal of plaster, check radiographs. Final appointment 12 weeks: Clinical assessment, radiographs, discharge. Clinical assessment: ensure wound satisfactory, range of movement and weight-bearing are improving. Radiographic criteria: 6 weeks: Assess for talar shift, lucency or metal-work concerns. 12 weeks: Assess evidence of fracture union, infection, loosening or backing out. If any concerns with the patients' progress nursing staff would discuss with the consultant. First appointment: 7 wound problems. 5 managed by nurses and resolved. 2 discussed with surgeon, 1 settled, 1 required oral antibiotics. 3 radiographs discussed with surgeon. 2 conservative management. 1 re-operation. Second appointment: 7 wounds managed by nurses. 1 failure of fixation, discussed for re-operation. 2 concerns regarding metal in joint – treated conservatively. Final appointment: 7 referred to physiotherapy as slow to fully weight-bear. 5 discussed for removal of syndesmosis screw. 1 screw in joint, admitted for re-operation. Clinical care provided at Nurse-Led clinic is appropriate and effective. Both nursing staff and patients were satisfied with the care provided. Nurse-led clinic reduces demands on fracture clinic appointments and is a safe, cost effective initiative