The cost of clinical negligence in the UK has continued to rise despite no increase in claims numbers from 2016 to 2019. In the US, medical malpractice claim rates have fallen each year since 2001 and the payout rate has stabilized. In Germany, malpractice claim rates for spinal surgery fell yearly from 2012 to 2017, despite the number of spinal operations increasing. In Australia, public healthcare claim rates were largely static from 2008 to 2013, but private claims rose marginally. The cost of claims rose during the period. UK and Australian trends are therefore out of alignment with other international comparisons. Many of the claims in orthopaedics occur as a result of “failure to warn”, i.e. lack of adequately documented and appropriate consent. The UK and USA have similar rates (26% and 24% respectively), but in Germany the rate is 14% and in Australia only 2%. This paper considers the drivers for the increased cost of clinical negligence claims in the UK compared to the USA, Germany and Australia, from a spinal and orthopaedic point of view, with a focus on “failure to warn” and lack of compliance with the principles established in February 2015 in the Supreme Court in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. The article provides a description of the prevailing medicolegal situation in the UK and also calculates, from publicly available data, the cost to the public purse of the failure to comply with the principles established. It shows that compliance with the Montgomery principles would have an immediate and lasting positive impact on the sums paid by NHS Resolution to settle negligence cases in a way that has already been established in the USA. Cite this article:
Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called ‘stem cell’ preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers. Cite this article:
Our aim in this paper was to investigate the
guidelines and laws governing informed consent in the English-speaking
world. We noted a recent divergence from medical paternalism within
the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
Board ruling of 2015. We investigated the situation in the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of
America. We read the national guidance regarding obtaining consent
for surgical intervention for each country. We used the references
from this guidance to identify the laws that helped inform the guidance,
and reviewed the court documents for each case. There has been a trend towards a more patient-focused approach
in consent in each country. Surgeons should be aware of the guidance
and legal cases so that they can inform patients fully, and prevent
legal problems if outdated practices are followed. Cite this article:
The optimal treatment for independent patients with a displaced
intracapsular fracture of the hip remains controversial. The recognised
alternatives are hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. At
present there is no established standard of care, with both types
of arthroplasty being used in many centres. We conducted a feasibility study comparing the clinical effectiveness
of a dual mobility acetabular component compared with standard polyethylene
component in total hip arthroplasty for independent patients with
a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip, for a 12-month period
beginning in June 2013. The primary outcome was the risk of dislocation
one year post-operatively. Secondary outcome measures were EuroQol
5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, Oxford
hip score, mortality and re-operation.Aims
Patients and Methods
Orthopaedic surgery is in an exciting transitional period as modern surgical interventions, implants and scientific developments are providing new therapeutic options. As advances in basic science and technology improve our understanding of the pathology and repair of musculoskeletal tissue, traditional operations may be replaced by newer, less invasive procedures which are more appropriately targeted at the underlying pathophysiology. However, evidence-based practice will remain a basic requirement of care. Orthopaedic surgeons can and should remain at the forefront of the development of novel therapeutic interventions and their application. Progression of the potential of bench research into an improved array of orthopaedic treatments in an effective yet safe manner will require the development of a subgroup of specialists with extended training in research to play an important role in bridging the gap between laboratory science and clinical practice. International regulations regarding the introduction of new biological treatments will place an additional burden on the mechanisms of this translational process, and orthopaedic surgeons who are trained in science, surgery and the regulatory environment will be essential. Training and supporting individuals with these skills requires special consideration and discussion by the orthopaedic community. In this paper we review some traditional approaches to the integration of orthopaedic science and surgery, the therapeutic potential of current regenerative biomedical science for cartilage repair and ways in which we may develop surgeons with the skills required to translate scientific discovery into effective and properly assessed orthopaedic treatments.
Multicentre clinical trials in trauma care are gaining prominence as a means of generating good-quality evidence to inform and influence clinical practice. We believe multicentre trials have an important role to play in supporting evidence-based practice, and further investment in such trials is justified.
The Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society was started in an endeavour to answer the difficult problem of obtaining enough patients to perform top-quality research into fractures. By maintaining a high standard, including randomised study design, inclusivity, open discussion among surgeons and excellent long-term follow-up, this group has become a leader in the orthopaedic research community. This annotation describes the short history, important components and spirit necessary to build a research community or team which will function well despite the difficult research environment facing individual surgeons.
