Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care. Cite this article:
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a challenging complication
following total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is associated with high
levels of morbidity, mortality and expense. Guidelines and protocols
exist for the management of culture-positive patients. Managing
culture-negative patients with a PJI poses a greater challenge to
surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team as clear guidance
is lacking. We aimed to compare the outcomes of treatment for 50 consecutive
culture-negative and 50 consecutive culture-positive patients who
underwent two-stage revision THA for chronic infection with a minimum
follow-up of five years.Aims
Patients and Methods
Invasive group A streptococcus (iGAS) is the most common cause of monomicrobial necrotising fasciitis. Necrotising infections of the extremities may present directly to orthopaedic surgeons or by reference from another admitting specialty. Recent epidemiological data from the Health Protection Agency suggest an increasing incidence of iGAS infection in England. Almost 40% of those affected had no predisposing illnesses or risk factors, and the proportion of children presenting with infections has risen. These observations have prompted the Chief Medical Officer for the Central Alerting System in England to write to
This study assessed whether undergraduate performance improved following the introduction in 2006 of a musculoskeletal teaching programme lasting for seven weeks. Different methods were used to deliver knowledge and skills in trauma and orthopaedic surgery, rheumatology and allied specialties. The programme combined four main elements: traditional firm-based teaching, weekly plenary sessions, a task-based workbook and additional specialist clinics. The block of 139 students who attended in its first year were assessed using a multiple choice question examination just before their final examinations in 2008. They showed a 6% improvement in performance over a control group of 130 students assessed in 2005 before the programme had commenced. There was no difference in performance between the students assessed in 2005 and a second group of 46 students from 2008 who did not attend the new teaching programme. Performance was improved by providing more focused musculoskeletal training using available resources, as well as increasing the length of the programme.
The aim of this study was to determine whether the foundation programme for junior doctors, implemented across the United Kingdom in 2005, provides adequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. We recruited 112 doctors on completion of their foundation programme and assessed them using the Freedman and Bernstein musculoskeletal examination tool. Only 8.9% passed the assessment. Those with exposure to orthopaedics, with a career interest in orthopaedics, and who felt that they had gained adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine obtained significantly higher scores. Those interested in general practice as a career obtained significantly lower scores. Only 15% had any exposure to orthopaedics during the foundation programme and only 13% felt they had adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine. The foundation programme currently provides inadequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. The quality and quantity of exposure to musculoskeletal medicine during the foundation programme must be improved.