Orthopaedic outcome measures are used to evaluate the effect of operative interventions. They are used for audit and research. Knowledge of these measures is becoming increasingly important with league tables comparing surgeons and hospitals being made accessible to the profession and the general public.

Several types of tool are available to describe outcome after hip surgery such as generic quality-of-life questionnaires, disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, hip-specific outcome measures and general short-term clinical measures. We provide an overview of the outcome measures commonly used to evaluate hip interventions.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice.

Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive.

Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged.

The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.