Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an unprecedented burden on global healthcare systems, and existing infrastructures must adapt and evolve to meet the challenge. With health systems reliant on the health of their workforce, the importance of protection against disease transmission in healthcare workers (HCWs) is clear. This study collated responses from several countries, provided by clinicians familiar with practice in each location, to identify areas of best practice and policy so as to build consensus of those measures that might reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 to HCWs at work. Methods. A cross-sectional descriptive survey was designed with ten open and closed questions and sent to a representative sample. The sample was selected on a convenience basis of 27 senior surgeons, members of an international surgical society, who were all frontline workers in the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist. Results. Responses were received by all 27 surgeons from 22 countries across six continents. A number of the study respondents reported COVID-19-related infection and mortality in HCWs in their countries. Differing areas of practice and policy were identified and organized into themes including the specification of units receiving COVID-19 patients, availability and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), other measures to reduce staff exposure, and communicating with and supporting HCWs. Areas more specific to surgery also identified some variation in practice and policy in relation to visitors to the hospital, the outpatient department, and in the operating room for both non-urgent and emergency care. Conclusion. COVID-19 presents a disproportionate risk to HCWs, potentially resulting in a diminished health system capacity, and consequently an impairment to population health. Implementation of these recommendations at an international level could provide a framework to reduce this burden

At the end of 2018, the NZ Joint Registry introduced a “Surgeon Outlier” policy, whereby each year, if an individual surgeons’ lower 95% confidence interval of their revision rate, measured in revision/100 component years(r/ocys), was above the NZ mean (0.71 r/ocys), that surgeon was required to audit their results with a nominated peer. This study investigates whether outlier surgeons also have high early (1 month and 1 year) revision rates. In 2018, 236 surgeons performed 9,186 total hip arthroplasties in NZ. At the end of 2018, 11 surgeons received notification they were outliers. Results from all surgeons for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 were combined to form the first (pre-notification) time interval, and results from years 2019, 2020 and 2021 were combined to form the second time interval (post-notification). Outlier surgeons performed 2001 total hip replacements in the first time interval and 1947 hips in the second. Early revision rates (1 month and 1 year) of both outlier and nonoutlier surgeons for both time intervals were analysed. Non-outlier surgeons had a consistent mean early revision rate of 0.75% at one month and 1.6% at one year for both time intervals. The 11 outlier surgeons had a higher earlier revision rate of 1.35% at one month and 2.45% at one year for the pre-notification time interval. These values reduced for the post-notification time interval to a revision rate of 1.23% for one month and 2.36% for one year. Poor joint registry results of individual surgeons are often attributed to a poor choice of prosthesis. This study shows early revision rates of outlier surgeons, where prosthesis selection has minimal influence, are also high. A slight improvement in early revision rates of outlier surgeons since introduction of the policy shows it is working

Background. Work disability due to low back pain (LBP) is a global concern, resulting in significant healthcare costs and welfare payments. In recognition of this, recent UK policy calls for healthcare to become more ‘work-focused’. However, an ‘evidence-policy’ gap has been identified, resulting in uncertainty about how this is to be achieved. Clear, evidence-based recommendations relevant to both policy-makers and healthcare practitioners are required. Methods. A policy theory approach combining scientific evidence with governance principles in a pragmatic manner was undertaken. This entailed extracting evidence from a recent review of the system influences on work disability due to LBP* (focused specifically on the healthcare system) and appraising it alongside the most recent review evidence on the implementation of clinical guidance, and policy material aimed at developing work-focused healthcare. Results. It was found that further resources are needed to assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) to engage in work discussions with LBP patients, which can often be complex and challenging. HCPs themselves often have misconceptions about the work-health relationship and the related evidence-based guidance. System-level barriers that reduce access to suitable healthcare at the right time, and those that increase conflict with other key stakeholders (e.g. the workplace and welfare/compensatory systems) were found to be significant obstacles. Supportive policy and legislation that (a) embeds work as a health outcome, and (b) enables all key stakeholders to collaborate would be a major vehicle to facilitate work-focused healthcare for LBP. Conclusions. Accepting that work-focused healthcare for LBP is required does not diminish the challenge it presents. Evidence-based recommendations relevant for both policy and practice would enable a better understanding of what works for whom, and at what cost. *A full description and results of the evidence synthesis were presented at the Society's Annual Meeting 2016 and will be presented at the 15th International Forum for Back and Neck Pain Research in Primary Care 2017. These results also form part of a chapter in ISSLS Online Textbook 2017. Conflicts of interest; None. Sources of funding: None

Introduction: In 2003 the Ministry of Health in Israel added hip fractures to the DRG listing. The rational behind this move was aiming at the shortening of hip fractures waiting time to surgery and shortening of hospitalization period. Some hospitals in Israel have assigned an additional OR shift for this purpose. Hip fracture patients consist of two main sub-groups: patients who undergo hemi-arthroplasty (HA Group) and those who undergo internal fracture fixation (IFF Group). The new policy determines that DRG of internal fixation patients ends at the fifth day of their initial hospitalization after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the practical effect of this policy on hip fracture management. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively compared two major groups of patients (total 808) with hip fractures: the first group of patients was treated in 2001 (377 patients) (before the new policy came into effect) and the second in 2005 (431 patients). Each of these groups included the HA group and the IFF group. In each of the groups we compared the time to surgery, length of hospitalization, mortality rates after six months and the diurnal distribution of the operations. Results: The length of hospitalization in 2005 was found to be shorter in the IFF group by 2.82 days (2001 – mean stay of 12.52, 2005 - 9.7 days) as opposed to the HA group where hospitalization was shorter in 2005 by a mean of only 0.42 day. Mortality rates at six months following surgery, when comparing the two major groups, were 11.3% in 2001 and 7.9% in 2005. 90% of the operations in 2005 were performed between 15:00–19:30 compared to 2001 when 90% of surgeries were evenly distributed between 15:00 and 24:00. We did not find statistically significant differences between the groups in relation to the time to surgery before and after the new policy. There was a trend towards a longer waiting time to surgery in the HA group in 2001 as well as in 2005. Discussion: The presence of a dedicated shift, according to the new policy, made more room available for other emergency list surgeries. Hospitalization stay became shorter due to the fact that the insurer is committed to discharge patients from the IFF group after 4 days of hospitalization and to finance each additional day. In spite of the fact that waiting time to surgery was not shortened following the new policy, the majority of surgeries were performed during the afternoon sessions. It should be noted that in 2001 waiting time to surgery was already very short. Mortality data are interesting and necessitate further investigation

Background. Current policy and practice aimed at tackling work disability due to low back pain is largely aligned with the Psychosocial Flags Framework, which focuses on addressing individual beliefs and behaviours (yellow and blue flags). However, our understanding of the systemic and contextual factors (black flags) that are also proposed to act as obstacles within this Framework is under-represented, resulting in a disproportionate evidence base and suboptimal interventions. Methods. A ‘best-evidence’ synthesis was conducted to collate the evidence on those ‘black flags’ proposed to be the most important: compensatory systems (worker's compensation and disability benefits), healthcare provider systems and ‘significant others’ (spouse/partner/close family members). A systematic search of scientific and grey literature databases was performed, and the validity and merit of the available evidence was assessed using a system adapted from previous large-scale policy reviews conducted in this field. Results. Following a systematic exclusion process, 65 articles were selected from 1,762 records. Robust, credible and meaningful evidence was found to show that inflexible compensatory systems, a lack of ‘work-focused’ healthcare and communication amongst return-to-work stakeholders, along with inappropriate support from ‘significant others’ are obstacles to work participation for those with low back pain. Conclusions. This is the first attempt at synthesising the evidence on the ‘social’ factors proposed to be important influences on work disability due to low back pain within the Psychosocial Flags Framework. Results have relevance to researchers, policy makers, clinicians and employers, with wider implications for the revision of current psychosocial policy and practice. No conflicts of interest; no funding obtained

In treating open long bone fractures our current policy includes early administration of intravenous antibiotics and surgery on a scheduled trauma list. We have reviewed our infection rates 6 years following the initiation of this policy. 220 fractures were studied. Our records included time of administration of antibiotics, time to theatre and seniority of surgeon. We identified cases of superficial or deep infection. Surgical debridement occurred within 6 hours of injury in 45% of cases and after 6 hours in 55%. Overall infection rates were 11% and 15.7% respectively. Intravenous antibiotics were administered within 3 hours of injury in 80% of cases and after 3 hours in 20% of cases. Overall infection rates were 14% and 12.5% respectively. Infection rates where the most senior surgeon present was a consultant were 9.5% compared to 16% with the consultant absent. Our results suggest that the change in policy may have contributed to an improvement of the deep infection rate to 4.3% from the previous figure of 8.5%, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Time to theatre has not adversely affected the infection rate, and presence of a senior surgeon may have improved infection rates, although both trends were not statistically significant

Introduction. In 2011 the Scottish Government published national MRSA screening requirements. A comparison of Orthopaedic and ENT elective surgery intended to juxtapose a specialty known to take MRSA screening seriously with one that has little clinical concern with regards MRSA infection. ENT surgery parallels Orthopaedics in using implants and there potentially being MRSA colonisation at or close to the site of surgery. In Orthopaedics MRSA infection is infrequent, but implant infection with antibiotic resistant bacteria has a particularly poor prognosis. In ENT MRSA infection is rare and colonisation does not influence patient care. Aims. An evaluation of MRSA screening practice for elective Orthopaedics and ENT surgery at Gartnavel General Hospital with regards strategy and implementation. Method. Review of 342 consecutive elective ENT patients and 325 Orthopaedic patients attending for inpatient or day case surgery. The reference standards were the regional and national guidelines on MRSA screening. Results. Overall screening rates were 145 (42%) of 342 ENT patients and 270 (83%) of 326 Orthopaedic patients. 100% of Orthopaedic patients admitted (154) were screened, in compliance with both regional and national policy. 91 (70%) of 130 ENT patients admitted were screened for MRSA, and no risk assessment was carried out, which was not in compliance with either regional or national policy. Discussion. Orthopaedic surgery has an established and reliable practice of screening elective inpatient cases, and when identified MRSA colonisation results in a change in patient management. ENT surgery should have established a similar practice according to existing local guidelines. The Government consider ENT a lower risk speciality for MRSA, but still require as a minimum a documented MRSA risk assessment process

Routine metalwork removal, in asymptomatic patients, remains a controversial issue in our daily practice. Current literature emphasized the potential hazards of implant removal and the financial implications encountered from these procedures. However, there is little literature guidance and no published research on current practice. To estimate the current state of practice of orthopaedic surgeons in the United Kingdom regarding implant removal for limb trauma in asymptomatic patients, an analysis of the postal questionnaire replies of 36% (500 out of 1390) of randomly selected UK orthopaedic consultants was performed by two independent observers. 47.4% replies were received. A total of 205 (41%) were found to be suitable for analysis. The most significant results of our study I: 92% of orthopaedic surgeons stated that they do not routinely remove metalwork in asymptomatic skeletally mature patients. II: 60% of trauma surgeons stated that they do routinely remove metalwork in patients aged 16 years and under, while only 12% of trauma surgeons do routinely remove metalwork in the age group between 16–35 years. III: 87% of the practising surgeons indicated that they believe it is reasonable to leave metalwork in for 10 years or more. IV: Only 7% of practising trauma surgeons replied to this questionnaire have departmental or unit policy. No policy is needed for metalwork removal, as most of the orthopaedic surgeons were complying with literature guidance supporting the potential risks associated with implant removal, in spite of the limited number of departmental or units’ policies on implant removal and the paucity of the literature documenting the current practice. However, there is a discrepancy among trauma surgeons in relation to metalwork removal between patient age groups. This indicates guidelines would be helpful to guide the surgeon for the best practice. This is important from a medico-legal standpoint because surgeons are being criticised for not achieving satisfactory results in negligence cases

Despite a lack of evidence, the UK's Department of Health introduced a policy of ‘Bare below the elbows’ attire to try to reduce the incidence of nosocomial infection. This study investigates the link between attire and hand contamination. A prospective observational study of doctors working in a District General Hospital was performed. The fingertips were imprinted on culture medium, and the resulting growth assessed for number of colony forming units, presence of clinically significant pathogens and multiply resistant organisms. These findings were correlated with attire, grade, gender and specialty. 92 doctors were recruited of which 49 were ‘Bare below the elbows’ compliant and 43 were not. There was no statistically significant difference between those doctors who were ‘bare below the elbows’ and those that were not for either the number of colony forming units (p=1.0), or the presence of significant organisms (p=0.77). No multiply resistant organisms were cultured from doctors' hands. ‘Bare below the elbows’ attire is not related to the degree of contamination on doctors' fingertips or the presence of clinically significant pathogens. Further studies are required to establish whether investment in doctor's uniforms and patient education campaigns are worthwhile

Although wait-times for hip fracture surgery have been linked to mortality and are being used as quality-of-care indicators worldwide, controversy exists about the duration of the wait that leads to complications. Our objective was to use new population-based wait-time data to emprically derive an optimal time window in which to conduct hip fracture surgery before the risk of complications increases.

We used health administrative data from Ontario, Canada to identify hip fracture patients between 2009 and 2014. The main exposure was the time from hospital arrival to surgery (in hours). The primary outcome was mortality within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included a composite of mortality or other medical complications (MI, DVT, PE, and pneumonia) also within 30 days. Risk-adjusted cubic splines modeled the probability of each complication according to wait-time. The inflection point (in hours) when complications began to increase was used to define ‘early’ and ‘delayed’ surgery. To evaluate the robustness of this definition, outcomes amongst propensity-score matched early and delayed patients were compared using percent absolute risk differences (% ARDs, with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]).

There were 42,230 patients who met entry criteria. Their mean age was 80.1 (±10.7) and the majority were female (70.5%). The risk of complications modeled by cubic splines consistently increased when wait-times were greater than 24 hours, irrespective of the complication considered. Compared to 13,731 propensity-score matched patients who received surgery earlier, 13,731 patients receiving surgery after 24 hours had a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality (N=898 versus N=790, % ARD 0.79 [95% CI 0.23 to 1.35], p = .006) and the composite outcome (N=1,680 versus N=1,383, % ARD 2.16 [95% CI 1.43 to 2.89], p < .001). Overall, there were 14,174 patients (33.6%) who received surgery within 24 hours and 28,056 patients (66.4%) who received surgery after 24 hours.

Increased wait-time was associated with a greater risk for 30-day mortality and other complications. The finding that a wait-time of 24 hours represents a threshold defining higher risk may inform existing hip fracture guidelines. Since two-thirds of patients did not receive surgery within this timeframe, performance improvement efforts that reduce wait-times are warranted.

Oxford hip and knee scores are being used by many heath care commissioners to determine whether individual patients are eligible for joint replacement surgery. Oxford scores were not designed for use in deciding whether patients are suitable for surgery and they are not validated as a triage tool. The aim of this study was to assess what effect these predetermined threshold Oxford Scores would have on a contemporary patient cohort.

An analysis was undertaken of 4254 pre-operative Oxford scores in patients who had already undergone either hip resurfacing, a total hip, total knee or unicompartmental knee replacement surgery at our institution between 2008 and 2011. We assessed how these scores would affect the decision making pathway determining which patients would be eligible for joint replacement surgery. We also evaluated the effects this would have on patients undergoing surgery in terms of gender, sex, age and type of arthroplasty.

22.4% hip resurfacings, 10.0% of total hip replacements, 7.5% total knee replacements and 11.0% unicompartmental knee replacements would have been declined on the Oxford Scores system. The selection criteria as set by the health care commissioners was found to be ageist as there was a bias against older patients obtaining surgery. There was a bias against different forms of arthroplasty, particularly those patients suitable for resurfacing or unicompartmental knee replacement. It was also sexist as it selectively excluded male patients from surgery.

Rather than using pre-operative Oxford scores to discern which patients are eligible for surgery, evaluation of patient factors which are reported to adversely affect the outcome of hip and knee replacement surgery, may offer a better solution to improving quality of care. Oxford scores are undertaken to benchmark a providers performance and not to decide on an individual's suitability for surgery.

Long waiting times and a growing demand on services for joint replacement surgery (JRS) prompted the Victorian Department of Human Services to fund a University of Melbourne/Melbourne Health partnership to develop and implement an osteoarthritis (OA) hip and knee service delivery and prioritisation system for those who may require JRS.

The service delivery model consists of a multidisciplinary team providing, comprehensive early assessment, evidence-based interventions, including support for patient self-management, continuity of care processes, and prioritisation for both surgical assessment and JRS. Prioritisation occurs via clinical assessment and the Hip and Knee Multi-Attribute Prioritisation Tool (MAPT), a patient, clinician, or proxy-administered 11-item questionnaire, resulting in a 100-point scale ranking of need for surgery. The Hip and Knee MAPT was developed using intensive consultation with surgeons, state-of-the-art clinimetrics and with input from patients, hospital management groups. Ninety-six surgeons contributed to the developing the final scoring system.

Over 4000 patients per year are entering the system across 14 hospitals in Victoria. Under the supervision of the orthopaedics unit, musculoskeletal coordinator (MSC), typically an experienced physiotherapist or nurse, as part of the multidisciplinary team, undertakes early comprehensive assessment, referral and prioritisation of patients with hip or knee OA referred to orthopaedic outpatient clinics. In addition, the MSC coordinates the monitoring and management of patients on the orthopaedic surgery waiting list. The processes enable patients who are most needy (via higher MAPT score and clinical assessment) to be fast-tracked to orthopaedic surgery; conversely those patients with lower scores receive prompt conservative management.

Time to first assessment and waiting times to see a surgeon for many patients have reduced from 12+ months to weeks. Patients seen by surgeons are more likely to be ready for surgery and have had more comprehensive non-operative optimisation. Patients placed on the surgical waiting list receive quarterly reassessments and evidence of deterioration is used as a basis for fast-tracking to surgery.

The OWL system is a whole of system(tm) approach informed by patients needs and surgeons needs. Clinicians have developed confidence in the clinical relevance of the MAPT scores. Uptake of the OWL model of care has been very high because it facilitates better care and better patient outcomes.

Introduction

Following recommendations in the NHS Plan, all Trusts in the UK now send copies of correspondence to patients as standard practice. It is not clear whether patients wish to receive such correspondence, nor whether this practices an additional workload on the NHS as patients seek clarification on the medical terminology used in their letters.

Most centres in the United Kingdom adopt a selective screening programme for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) based on repeated clinical examination and selective ultrasound examination. The Newborn Infant Physical Examination protocol implemented in 2008 recommends a first examination at birth and then a second and final examination at six to ten weeks of age. Due to concerns over an increase in late presentations we performed a retrospective review of our 15-year results to establish if late presentation increases treatment requirements. Of children presenting before six weeks of age, 84% were treated successfully with abduction bracing, whereas 86% of children presenting after ten months eventually required open reduction surgery. This equates to a 12-fold increase in relative risk of requiring open reduction following late presentation. Increasing age at presentation was associated with an increase in the number of surgical procedures, which are inevitably more extensive and complex, with a consequent increased in cost per patient. The implementation of an opportunistic examination at three to five months could help to reduce the unintended consequences of the Newborn Infant Physical Examination programme.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:846–50.

Instant messaging via WhatsApp is used within hospital teams. Group messaging can lead to efficient and non-hierarchical communication. Despite being end-to-end encrypted, WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, raising concerns regarding data security. The aims of this study were: 1) to record the prevalence of WhatsApp group instant messaging amongst clinical teams; 2) to ascertain clinician attitudes towards use of instant messaging, 3) to gauge clinicians’ awareness of best practice regarding mobile data protection and 4) to create a practical guideline based off available literature that can be used to by clinicians to improve data security practice. Over a two-week period, clinical nurse specialists in the Auckland District Health Board Department of Orthopaedics retrospectively completed a blind audit of all messaging activity across the five teams WhatsApp group message threads, recording quantity of messages sent and the nature of the messages. Concurrently individuals in these WhatsApp groups completed an anonymous survey of their use of WhatsApp and their awareness of local data security policies and practice. A guideline adapted from available literature was created to compare current practice to recommended standards and subsequently adopted into local policy. 1360 messages were sent via WhatsApp in a two-week period. 384 (28%) of the messages contained patient identifiable data. Thirty-six photos were shared. Participants rated use of WhatsApp at 9.1/10 – extremely beneficial. Sixty-five per cent of clinicians reported they had not read or were unaware of the ADHB policies regarding mobile devices and information privacy and security. WhatsApp use is widespread within the Orthopaedic department and is the preferred platform of communication with many perceived benefits. Data security is a risk and implementation of an appropriate guideline to assist clinicians in achieving best practice is crucial to ensure patient data remains protected

Aims. While a centralized system for the care of patients with a sarcoma has been advocated for decades, regional variations in survival remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate regional variations in survival and the impact of national policies in patients with a soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) in the UK. Methods. The study included 1,775 patients with a STS who were referred to a tertiary sarcoma centre. The geographical variations in survival were evaluated according to the periods before and after the issue of guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2006 and the relevant evolution of regional management. Results. There had been a significant difference in survival between patients referred from the North East, North West, East Midlands, West Midlands, South West, and Wales in the pre-NICE era (five-year disease-specific survival (DSS); South West, 74% vs North East, 47% (p = 0.045) or West Midlands, 54% (p = 0.049)), which was most evident for patients with a high-grade STS. However, this variation disappeared in the post-NICE era, in which the overall DSS for high-grade STS improved from 47% to 68% at five years (p < 0.001). Variation in the size of the tumour closely correlated with the variation in DSS, and the overall size of the tumour and incidence of metastasis at the time of diagnosis also decreased after the national policies were issued. Conclusion. The survival of patients with a STS improved and regional variation corrected after the introduction of national policies, as a result of a decreasing size of tumour and incidence of metastasis at the time of diagnosis, particularly in patients with a high-grade STS. This highlights the positive impact of national guidelines on regional variation in the presentation, management, and outcome in patients with a STS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1541–1549

Escalating health care expenditure worldwide is driving the need for effective resource decision-making, with medical practitioners increasingly making complex resource decisions within the context of patient care. Despite raising serious legal and ethical issues in practice, this has attracted little attention in Australia, or internationally. In particular, it is unknown how orthopaedic surgeons perceive their obligations to the individual patient, and the wider community, when rationing care, and how they reconcile competing obligations. This research explores legal and ethical considerations, and resource allocation by Australian orthopaedic surgeons, as a means of achieving public health cost containment driven by macro-level policy and funding decisions. This research found that Australian orthopaedic surgeon's perceptions, and resource allocation decision making, can be explained by understanding how principles of distributive justice challenge, and shift, the traditional medical paradigm. It found that distributive justice, and challenges of macro level health policy and funding decisions, have given rise to two new medical paradigms. Each which try to balance the best interests of individual patients with demands in respect of the sustainability of the health system, in a situation where resources may be constrained. This research shows that while bedside rationing has positioned the medical profession as the gate keepers of resources, it may have left them straddling an increasingly irreconcilable void between the interests of the individual patient and the wider community, with the sustainability of the health system hanging in the balance

The Bone & Joint Journal has published several consensus statements in recent years, many of which have positively influenced clinical practice and policy. 1-13. However, even the most valued consensus statements have limitations, and all ultimately represent Level V evidence. Consensus studies add greatest value where higher-order evidence to aid decision making is ambiguous or lacking. In all settings, care must be taken to critically appraise standards of methodology, with particular attention to potential biases that may influence the conclusions which are drawn. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):343–346

Aims. Within healthcare, several measures are used to quantify and compare the severity of health conditions. Two common measures are disability weight (DW), a context-independent value representing severity of a health state, and utility weight (UW), a context-dependent measure of health-related quality of life. Neither of these measures have previously been determined for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The aim of this study is to determine the DW and country-specific UWs for DDH. Methods. A survey was created using three different methods to estimate the DW: a preference ranking exercise, time trade-off exercise, and visual analogue scale (VAS). Participants were fully licensed orthopaedic surgeons who were contacted through national and international orthopaedic organizations. A global DW was calculated using a random effects model through an inverse-variance approach. A UW was calculated for each country as one minus the country-specific DW composed of the time trade-off exercise and VAS. Results. Over a four-month period, 181 surgeons participated in the survey, with 116 surgeons included in the final analysis. The global DW calculated to be 0.18 (0.11 to 0.24), and the country-specific UWs ranged from 0.26 to 0.89. Conclusion. This is the first time that a global disability weight and country-specific utility weights have been estimated for DDH, which should assist in economic evaluations and the development of health policy. The methodology may be applied to other orthopaedic conditions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):120–128