Objectives. To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) model, and supplement the literature regarding this service as recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA). Methods. This was a retrospective study including all patients (17 116) referred to fracture clinics in a London District General Hospital from May 2013 to April 2016, using hospital-level data. We used interrupted time series analysis with segmented regression, and direct before-and-after comparison, to study the impact of VFCs introduced in December 2014 on six clinical parameters and on local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) spend. Student’s t-tests were used for direct comparison, whilst segmented regression was employed for projection analysis. Results. There were statistically significant reductions in numbers of new patients seen face-to-face (140.4, . sd. 39.6 versus 461.6, . sd. 61.63, p < 0.0001), days to first orthopaedic review (5.2, . sd. 0.66 versus 10.9, . sd. 1.5, p < 0.0001), discharges (33.5, . sd. 3.66 versus 129.2, . sd. 7.36, p < 0.0001) and non-attendees (14.82, . sd. 1.48 versus 60.47, . sd. 2.68, p < 0.0001), in addition to a statistically significant increase in number of patients seen within 72-hours (46.4% 3873 of 8345 versus 5.1% 447 of 8771, p < 0.0001). There was a non-significant increase in consultation time of 1 minute 9 seconds (14 minutes 53 seconds . sd. 106 seconds versus 13 minutes 44 seconds . sd. 128 seconds, p = 0.0878). VFC saved the local CCG £67 385.67 in the first year and is set to save £129 885.67 annually thereafter. Conclusions. We have shown VFCs are clinically and cost-effective, with improvement across several clinical performance parameters and substantial financial savings for CCGs. To our knowledge this is the largest study addressing clinical practice implications of VFCs in England, using robust methodology to adjust for pre-existing trends. Further studies are required to appreciate whether our results are reproducible with local variations in the VFC model and payment tariffs. Cite this article: A. McKirdy, A. M. Imbuldeniya. The clinical and cost effectiveness of a virtual fracture clinic service: An interrupted time series analysis and before-and-after comparison. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–269. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0330.R1

Objectives. To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice. Methods. A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a ‘think aloud’ process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they changed practice based on PROFHER trial findings. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively for emerging themes using Framework Analysis principles. Results. There were complete responses from 265 orthopaedic and trauma surgeons who treat patients with proximal humeral fractures. Around half (137) had changed practice to various extents because of PROFHER, by operating on fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures. A third (43) of the 128 respondents who had not changed practice were already managing patients non-operatively. Those who changed practice were more likely to be younger, work in a trauma unit rather than a major trauma centre, be specialist shoulder surgeons and treat fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures surgically. This group gave higher scores when assessing validity and applicability of PROFHER. In contrast, a quarter of the non-changers were critical, sometimes emphatically, of PROFHER. The strongest theme that emerged overall was the endorsement of evidence-based practice. Conclusion. PROFHER has had an impact on surgeons’ clinical practice, both through changing it, and through underpinning existing non-operative practice. Although some respondents expressed reservations about the trial, evidence from such trials was found to be the most important influence on surgeons’ decisions to change practice. Cite this article: L. Jefferson, S. Brealey, H. Handoll, A. Keding, L. Kottam, I. Sbizzera, A. Rangan. Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons’ clinical practice: An online questionnaire survey. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:590–599. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0170