Traditionally, informed consent for clinical research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time as they need to discuss the study information with their friends and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency?. This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries and emergencies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:147–150

Many hospitals do not have a structured process of consent, the attainment of which can often be rather ‘last-minute’ and somewhat chaotic. This is a surprising state of affairs as spinal surgery is a high-risk surgical specialty with potential for expensive litigation claims. More recently, the Montgomery ruling by the United Kingdom Supreme Court has placed the subject of informed consent into the spotlight. . There is a paucity of practical guidance on how a consent process can be achieved in a busy clinical setting. The British Association of Spinal Surgeons (BASS) has convened a working party to address this need. To our knowledge this is the first example of a national professional body, representing a single surgical specialty, taking such a fundamental initiative. . In a hard-pressed clinical environment, the ability to achieve admission reliably on the day of surgery, in patients at ease with their situation and with little likelihood of late cancellation, will be of great benefit. It will reduce litigation and improve the patient experience. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1427–30

Due to economic constraints, it has been suggested that joint replacement patients can be followed up in primary care. There are clinical, ethical and academic reasons why we must ensure that our joint replacements are appropriately clinically and radiologically followed up to minimise complications. This Editorial discusses this.