Applying the concept of a regional trauma network to the UK paediatric trauma population has unique difficulties in terms of low patient volume and variation in paediatric service provision. In addition, no consensus exists as to which radiological investigations should be employed and an increasing trend towards computerised tomography raises concerns over radiation exposure. We carried out a retrospective review of all paediatric trauma calls from April 2010 and March 2013 around becoming a Major Trauma Centre. We aim to analyse the impact this has on trauma calls and assess the radiological investigations currently used in this population.

The number of yearly paediatric trauma calls doubled during our study and totalled 132. The commonest mechanisms of injury were road traffic collisions, fall from a height or fall off a horse. 91.7% of children had some form of radiological investigation; 67% plain radiograph, 37.1% trauma CT, 21.2% focused CT and 5.3% abdominal ultrasound scan. Of the 77 CT scans performed 57.1% were reported as normal and 54.5% of these patients were discharged home the same day. Five children re-attended the emergency department within 30 days with two positive findings; a subdural haematoma and a tibial plateau fracture.

The current use of harmful radiological investigations in paediatric trauma patients is not uniform. We propose implementation of radiology protocols and clinical guidance to imaging in paediatric trauma to limited radiation exposure.

Informed consent is vital for good patient-surgeon communication. It allows the patient to be given an unbiased and accurate view of the procedure as well giving an opportunity for patients to gain trust in their surgical team. The consent form is written evidence of this discussion and a poor consent form implies a sub-standard consenting process. The General Medical Council (GMC) have issued guidelines for consent in surgical procedures. These state that all common risks and rare but serious risks should be disclosed as well as all information being given in clear simple and consistent language.

Currently, the consent form for a hip fracture operation is hand written. Our hypothesis was that the quality of consenting is variable and that many important complications may not be identified.

The British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) blue book, ‘The care of patients with fragility fractures,’ has given guidance of common and serious complications associated with operative management of hip fractures. In addition to these procedure specific complications, we have identified general complications from standardised joint arthroplasty consent forms in our trust, such as deep vein thrombosis. Our standards based on GMC guidance are that the consent form should be legible, free from jargon, without abbreviations and should include the specific and general complications.

We retrospectively identified and analysed 30 consecutive consent forms of patients that underwent operative management for hip fractures between March and April 2011. Of all consent forms, 59% were completely or partly illegible, 77% had used abbreviations and medical jargon. Inclusion of general complications on the consent form varied; infection 100%, bleeding 100%, deep vein thrombosis 82%, MI 18%, pneumonia 12%, death 12% and haematoma 0%. Specific operative complications were poorly included, with no patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty being advised of the risk of prosthetic loosening, acetabular wear or periprosthetic fractures. For consent of patients undergoing fracture fixation, 67% had been informed of re-operation and 40% had been told of non-union.

This data shows that consent forms are generally poorly written and subject to great variation in complications for the same surgical procedure. This data is likely to apply to some extent to all hospitals that use blank consent forms. This has implications for patient care and safety, as well as medicolegal implications for medical professionals. In our hospital, consent forms have been standardised for joint arthroplasty, with all complication pre-printed with plain English explanations below. Our proposal is that all common operations should have pre-printed consent forms. This would standardise consenting and provide a much improved documentary evidence of the consenting process.

This data has a number of lessons that can be applied to other hospitals. Firstly, we suggest that other hospitals consider standardised consent forms. Secondly, individual trainees should be clear that consent forms remain the documentary evidence of the consenting process, long after you forget the verbal details and you should ensure that you include all complications, write clearly and without jargon or abbreviations.