Tourniquet is a commonly used tool in orthopaedic practice. Incidence of complications is low but if any develops, it is devastating. Transient nerve damage, ischemia or skin burns are the possible tourniquet related complications. There is big variation in practice regarding the limb occlusion pressure.

51 procedures in 50 patients were reviewed retrospectively in our district general hospital. We looked at quality of documentation guided by the BOAST standard (The Safe Use of Intraoperative Tourniquets, published in October 2021). Limb occlusion pressure and ischemic time were analysed. Intra-operative and post-operative notes were reviewed to assess quality of documentation and post-operative complications.

Although limb occlusion pressure was above the recommended range in more than 75% of cases, there were no significant complications observed. Two cases only developed transient neuropraxia in common peroneal nerve and median nerve following tibial plateau ORIF and trapeziectomy simultaneously. Tibial ORIF fixation case had prolonged ischemic time (more than 120 minutes) and the limb occlusion pressure for the hand case was above the recommended range. Both have recovered within few days with no long-term consequences. Minimum documentation threshold was not met with regarding tourniquet site condition, method of skin isolation and padding, and exsanguination method.

This relatively new standard with no previous similar guidance needs time until it is followed by the health care professionals especially when there is no high incidence of complications related to the use of the tourniquet. However, it is crucial to increase the theatre staff awareness of such standards. This will prevent devastating complications specifically in vulnerable patients. Adjustments to theatre checklist have been suggested to improved documentation. Additionally, local teaching sessions will be delivered to theatre personnel aiming at improving our compliance to this standard.

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.

Introduction and Objective

When using radiation intraoperatively, a surgeon should aim to maintain the dose as low as reasonably achievable to obtain the diagnostic or therapeutic goal. The UK Health Protection Agency reported mean radiation dose-area-product (DAP) of 4 Gy cm2 for hip procedures. We aimed to investigate factors associated with increased radiation exposure in fixation of proximal femur fractures.

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 years¹ 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 decade².

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.