Resuscitation decisions are part of routine practice and raise difficult, sensitive issues. We present experience of Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation (DNAR) decision-making in our unit.

Patients and staff (medical, nursing) completed a questionnaire to ascertain current practice, knowledge, and patient feeling regarding DNAR decisions.

Consultants and Registrars make DNAR decisions, junior-doctors and nurses feel they have insufficient knowledge. Senior-doctors were most familiar with BMA and Trust guidelines. The majority of all staff felt every patient should be asked. Consultants thought DNAR decision-making was least necessary.

Half of patients felt doctors had not explained the necessity of DNAR decisions and half felt conversations could have been handled better. Half said they had not been asked their opinion. Two-thirds would like more visual information.

UK-wide figures show 15% survival to discharge of in-hospital arrest; a-third of medical staff knew this. Registrars were most optimistic and consultants and ward doctors most pessimistic. All patients believed survival rate was 50%.

Important DNAR decisions are based on poor knowledge and communication. We developed an education programme for staff and information-video for patients and relatives to improve service. Video for DNAR discussions has not been previously used; it will provide a framework on which to approach this sensitive issue.

Early detection of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH), and treatment, may prevent the need for surgical correction following late presentation. Neonatal examination, and ultrasound screening of at risk groups, does not detect all cases. Most neonates treated in the Intensive Care Unit (NICU) have abdominal radiographs performed during their stay. These include the hips but DDH is not routinely looked for.

50 neonatal abdominal films (five from patients who subsequently were found to have DDH, 45 from patients without this condition) were randomly shown to three paediatric orthopaedic surgeons and three paediatric radiologists on two separate occasions. Each was asked whether they would refer the patient for further investigation.

An overall sensitivity of 25.5% (Range 0–60%) and specificity of 93.2% (Range 87–97%) was found with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 14.0% (Range 0–37%) and negative predictive value (NPV)of 96.3% (Range 95–98%).

Although the low sensitivity and PPV make interpretation of these films a poor way to diagnose DDH, the high specificity and NPV suggest that they may be used as a prompt to further investigation. Therefore, we propose that DDH should be looked for on these films and, where there is radiological suspicion, ultrasound examination should be advised.

The WHO surgical safety checklist was introduced at Derriford Hospital in 2009. Evidence of the effect on efficiency has been slow to appear in the literature.

Using a standardised, locally modified WHO surgical safety checklist theatre list capacity, start and finish times as well as time between cases was measured in 4 elective orthopaedic theatres. Data from 3 successive years was analysed retrospectively: prior to checklist introduction, during checklist introduction and routine checklist use.

Data was analysed using the One-Way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test. The number of cases per list showed a statistical difference from Year 1–2 and this increase was sustained in Year 3. The number of delayed starts showed no difference between Year 1&2, followed by a statistically significant decrease in Year 3. The number of late finishes showed a statistical difference from Year 1–2 and this decrease was sustained in Year 3. However, the number of lost minutes between cases showed no difference between Year 1&2, followed by an increase in Year 3.

This study demonstrates that pre-list briefings combined with the WHO surgical checklist can improve theatre list capacity and prompt starts, reduce the number of overruns, however fails to improve turnaround time between cases.