Antimicrobial resistance is an important patient safety issue. Antibiotic Stewardship is one of the key strategies in tackling this problem. We present our data over a two year period from October 2011 to December 2013. A multidisciplinary, consultant led antibiotic ward round was implemented in October 2011. This involved the consultant orthopaedic surgeon, microbiologist, pharmacist and antibiotic prescription nurse. Data from the meetings was collected prospectively over a 118 week period using a standard data form. The case notes, prescription kardex, laboratory results including microbiology data and clinical information of patients was available at the time of the Ward round. The indications for, choice of antibiotics, duration and further treatment plan were made and a note for the case notes was dictated immediately. Changes to prescriptions were also made at the time.Introduction:
Method:
Introduction of new implants has been widely debated lately, mainly in response to the problems surrounding hip resurfacing and one company recalling its product. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) also issued advice about the management and monitoring of patients implanted with metal-on-metal articulations. In response to MHRA advice all the patients who underwent hip resurfacing in our hospital were assessed by two consultants according to MHRA guidelines. Here we present the findings from our District General Hospital. Between November 2006 and March 2009 we performed 42 hip resurfacings in 39 patients. Nearly all the procedures were performed by a single surgeon (39 out of 42). There were 27 males (28 hips) and 12 females (14 hips). Mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 55.6 years (age range 40–67 years). Patients were followed up for a mean of 49 months (range 33–66 months). 27 patients (28 hips) were asymptomatic at the time of last follow up. Serum cobalt and chromium ion levels were measured in 21 patients (24 hips). Both the ion levels were within the recommended levels in 20 patients and over the recommended limit in 2 patients (one with bilateral hip resurfacing). MRI was diagnostic in 2 out of 5 patients. 5 patients (7 hips) were revised (one hip for neck resorption, 4 hips in 3 patients with lesions on MRI, 1 patient with bilateral hips for elevated serum ion levels) Considering the revision rate (7 hips out of 42 hips, 16%), we do believe that the review of the hip resurfacings in spite of the controversies surrounding the diagnostic criteria is necessary. This group of patients need to have continued surveillance, preferably by a select group of surgeons.
