Aims. Several studies have reported that patients presenting during the evening or weekend have poorer quality healthcare. Our objective was to examine how timely surgery for patients with severe open tibial fracture varies by day and time of presentation and by type of hospital. This cohort study included patients with severe open tibial fractures from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). Methods. Provision of prompt surgery (debridement within 12 hours and soft-tissue coverage in 72 hours) was examined, using multivariate logistic regression to derive adjusted risk ratios (RRs). Time was categorized into three eight-hour intervals for each day of the week. The models were adjusted for treatment in a major trauma centre (MTC), sex, age, year of presentation, injury severity score, injury mechanism, and number of operations each patient received. Results. We studied 8,258 patients from 175 hospitals. Patients presenting during the day (08:00 to 15:59; risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.20) were more likely to receive debridement within 12 hours, and patients presenting at night (16:00 to 23:59; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.62) were less likely to achieve the target; triage to a MTC had no effect. Day of presentation was associated with soft-tissue coverage within 72 hours; patients presenting on a Thursday or Friday being less likely to receive this surgery within 72 hours (Thursday RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; Friday RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98), and the standard less likely to be achieved for those treated in ‘non-MTC’ hospitals (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82). Conclusion. Variations in care were observed for timely surgery for severe open tibial fractures with debridement surgery affected by time of presentation and soft-tissue coverage affected by day of presentation and type of hospital. The variation is unwarranted and highlights that there are opportunities to substantially improve the delivery and quality of care for patients with severe open tibial fracture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):941–952

Aims. Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are advocated by recent British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOASTs) to efficiently manage injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim of this national study is to assess the impact of these standards on patient satisfaction and clinical outcome amid the pandemic. The secondary aims are to determine the impact of the pandemic on the demographic details of injuries presenting to the VFC, and to compare outcomes and satisfaction when the BOAST guidelines were first introduced with a subsequent period when local practice would be familiar with these guidelines. Methods. This is a national cross-sectional cohort study comprising centres with VFC services across the UK. All consecutive adult patients assessed in VFC in a two-week period pre-lockdown (6 May 2019 to 19 May 2019) and in the same two-week period at the peak of the first lockdown (4 May 2020 to 17 May 2020), and a randomly selected sample during the ‘second wave’ (October 2020) will be eligible for the study. Data comprising local VFC practice, patient and injury characteristics, unplanned re-attendances, and complications will be collected by local investigators for all time periods. A telephone questionnaire will be used to determine patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes for patients who were discharged following VFC assessment without face-to-face consultation. Ethics and dissemination. The study results will identify changes in case-mix and numbers of patients managed through VFCs and whether this is safe and associated with patient satisfaction. These data will provide key information for future expert-led consensus on management of trauma injuries through the VFC. The protocol will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed publication. This protocol has been reviewed by the South East Scotland Research Ethics Service and is classified as a multicentre audit. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):211–215

Aims. The primary aim of the survey was to map the current provision of simulation training within UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) specialist training programmes to inform future design of a simulation based-curriculum. The secondary aims were to characterize; the types of simulation offered to trainees by stage of training, the sources of funding for simulation, the barriers to providing simulation in training, and to measure current research activity assessing the educational impact of simulation. Methods. The development of the survey was a collaborative effort between the authors and the British Orthopaedic Association Simulation Group. The survey items were embedded in the Performance and Opportunity Dashboard, which annually audits quality in training across several domains on behalf of the Speciality Advisory Committee (SAC). The survey was sent via email to the 30 training programme directors in March 2019. Data were retrieved and analyzed at the Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Results. Overall, 28 of 30 programme directors completed the survey (93%). 82% of programmes had access to high-fidelity simulation facilities such as cadaveric laboratories. More than half (54%) had access to a non-technical skills simulation training. Less than half (43%) received centralized funding for simulation, a third relied on local funding such as the departmental budget, and there was a heavy reliance on industry sponsorship to partly or wholly fund simulation training (64%). Provision was higher in the mid-stages (ST3-5) compared to late-stages (ST6-8) of training, and was formally timetabled in 68% of prostgrammes. There was no assessment of the impact of simulation training using objective behavioural measures or real-world clinical outcomes. Conclusion. There is currently widespread, but variable, provision of simulation in T&O training in the UK and RoI, which is likely to expand further with the new curriculum. It is important that research activity into the impact of simulation training continues, to develop an evidence base to support investment in facilities and provision

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement.

Aims

Occult (clinical) injuries represent 15% of all scaphoid fractures, posing significant challenges to the clinician. MRI has been suggested as the gold standard for diagnosis, but remains expensive, time-consuming, and is in high demand. Conventional management with immobilization and serial radiography typically results in multiple follow-up attendances to clinic, radiation exposure, and delays return to work. Suboptimal management can result in significant disability and, frequently, litigation.

Aims

This is a multicentre, prospective assessment of a proportion of the overall orthopaedic trauma caseload of the UK. It investigates theatre capacity, cancellations, and time to surgery in a group of hospitals that is representative of the wider population. It identifies barriers to effective practice and will inform system improvements.

Aims

Understanding of open fracture management is skewed due to reliance on small-number lower limb, specialist unit reports and large, unfocused registry data collections. To address this, we carried out the Open Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study, and report the demographic details and the initial steps of care for patients admitted with open fractures in the UK.

Aims

Patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines.

Aims

Distal third clavicle (DTC) fractures are increasing in incidence. Due to their instability and nonunion risk, they prove difficult to treat. Several different operative options for DTC fixation are reported but current evidence suggests variability in operative fixation. Given the lack of consensus, our objective was to determine the current epidemiological trends in DTC as well as their management within the UK.

Aims

To investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of older adults (aged ≥ 60 years) after tibial plateau fracture (TPF) compared to preinjury and population matched values, and what aspects of treatment were most important to patients.

Aims

The primary aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine operative fixation for all patients with humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to estimate the health economic implications of using a Radiographic Union Score for HUmeral fractures (RUSHU) of < 8 to facilitate selective fixation for patients at risk of nonunion.

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates of return to work (RTW) and sport (RTS) following a humeral shaft fracture. The secondary aim was to identify factors independently associated with failure to RTW or RTS.

Aims

Deep surgical site infection (SSI) remains an unsolved problem after hip fracture. Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) has become a mainstream treatment in elective periprosthetic joint infection; however, evidence for DAIR after infected hip hemiarthroplaty is limited.

Aims

It is imperative to understand the risks of operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2 virus) pandemic for clinical decision-making and medical resource planning. The primary aim was to determine the mortality risk and associated variables when operating on urgent cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective was to assess differences in the outcome of patients treated between sites treating COVID-19 and a separate surgical site.