Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 15 of 15
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1281 - 1283
1 Dec 2022
Azizpour K Birch NC Peul WC


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 8 | Pages 833 - 836
1 Aug 2023
Mancino F Gant V Meek DRM Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 6 | Pages 655 - 657
1 Jun 2020
Minhas Z Ganau M Thakar C Reynolds J Rothenfluh D Bojanic S Grannum S Chaudhary BR Pyrovolou N Sikander M Bowden G Patel UJ Nnadi C


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 6 | Pages 653 - 654
1 Jun 2020
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 7 | Pages 753 - 754
1 Jul 2019
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 4 | Pages 413 - 414
1 Apr 2018
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1427 - 1430
1 Nov 2016
Powell JM Rai A Foy M Casey A Dabke H Gibson A Hutton M

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.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1121 - 1122
1 Sep 2017
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 5 | Pages 561 - 562
1 May 2017
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1011 - 1013
1 Aug 2016
Masters JPM Nanchahal J Costa ML


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 7 | Pages 871 - 874
1 Jul 2015
Breakwell LM Cole AA Birch N Heywood C

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 1 | Pages 3 - 5
1 Jan 2016
Birch N


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1013 - 1014
1 Aug 2015
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 4 | Pages 434 - 435
1 Apr 2013
Hadjipavlou AG Marshall RW


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 4 | Pages 433 - 433
1 Apr 2013
Villar RN