The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct limited resources more effectively. We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence in clinical practice

Aims. Infection after surgery increases treatment costs and is associated with increased mortality. Hip fracture patients have historically had high rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization and surgical site infection (SSI). This paper reports the impact of routine MRSA screening and the “cleanyourhands” campaign on rates of MRSA SSI and patient outcome. Methods. A total of 13,503 patients who presented with a hip fracture over 17 years formed the study population. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors for MRSA and SSI. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modelling adjusted for temporal trends in rates of MRSA. Kaplan-Meier estimators were generated to assess for changes in mortality. Results. In all, 6,189 patients were identified before the introduction of screening and 7,314 in the post-screening cohort. MRSA infection fell from 69 cases to 15 in the post-screening cohort (p < 0.001). The ARIMA confirmed a significant reduction in MRSA SSI post-screening (p = 0.043) but no significant impact after hand hygiene alone (p = 0.121). Overall SSI fell (2.4% to 1.5%), however deep infection increased slightly (0.89% to 1.06%). ARIMA showed neither intervention affected overall SSI (“cleanyourhands” -0.172% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39% to 0.21); p = 0.122, screening -0.113% per year, (95% CI -0.34 to 0.12); p = 0.373). One-year mortality after deep SSI was unchanged after screening (50% vs 45%; p = 0.415). Only warfarinization (OR 3.616 (95% CI 1.366 to 9.569); p = 0.010) and screening (OR 0.189 (95% CI 0.086 to 0.414); p < 0.001) were significant covariables for developing MRSA SSI. Conclusion. While screening and decolonization may reduce MRSA-associated SSI, the benefit to patient outcome remains unclear. Overall deep SSI remains an unsolved problem that has seen little improvement over time. Preventing other hospital-associated infections should not be forgotten in the fight against MRSA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):170–177

Aims. The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is directly impacting the field of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology with postponed operations, changed status of planned elective surgeries and acute emergencies in patients with unknown infection status. To this point, Germany's COVID-19 infection numbers and death rate have been lower than those of many other nations. Methods. This article summarizes the current regimen used in the field of orthopaedics in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internal university clinic guidelines, latest research results, expert consensus, and clinical experiences were combined in this article guideline. Results. Every patient, with and without symptoms, should be screened for COVID-19 before hospital admission. Patients should be assigned to three groups (infection status unknown, confirmed, or negative). Patients with unknown infection status should be considered as infectious. Dependent of the infection status and acuity of the symptoms, patients are assigned to a COVID-19-free or affected zone of the hospital. Isolation, hand hygiene, and personal protective equipment is essential. Hospital personnel directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients should be tested on a weekly basis independently of the presence of clinical symptoms, staff in the COVID-19-free zone on a biweekly basis. Class 1a operation rooms with laminar air flow and negative pressure are preferred for surgery in COVID-19 patients. Electrocautery should only be utilized with a smoke suction system. In cases of unavoidable elective surgery, a self-imposed quarantine of 14 days is recommended prior to hospital admission. Conclusion. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic patients admitted to the hospital should be treated based on an interdisciplinary algorithm, strictly separating infectious and non-infectious cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:309–315

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic.

Aims

This study aimed to identify patients receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA) for trauma during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and quantify the risks of contracting SARS-CoV-2 virus, the proportion of patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), and rate of complications including mortality.

The transition from shutdown of elective orthopaedic services to the resumption of pre-COVID-19 activity presents many challenges. These include concerns about patient safety, staff safety, and the viability of health economies. Careful planning is necessary to allow patients to benefit from orthopaedic care in a safe and sustainable manner.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):807–810.

Aims

COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228.

During the pandemic of COVID-19, some patients with COVID-19 may need emergency surgeries. As spine surgeons, it is our responsibility to ensure appropriate treatment to the patients with COVID-19 and spinal diseases. A protocol for spinal surgery and related management on patients with COVID-19 has been reviewed. Patient preparation for emergency surgeries, indications, and contraindications of emergency surgeries, operating room preparation, infection control precautions and personal protective equipments (PPE), anesthesia management, intraoperative procedures, postoperative management, medical waste disposal, and surveillance of healthcare workers were reviewed. It should be safe for surgeons with PPE of protection level 2 to perform spinal surgeries on patients with COVID-19. Standardized and careful surgical procedures should be necessary to reduce the exposure to COVID-19.

The rate of surgical site infection after elective foot and ankle surgery is higher than that after other elective orthopaedic procedures.

Since December 2005, we have prospectively collected data on the rate of post-operative infection for 1737 patients who have undergone elective foot and ankle surgery. In March 2008, additional infection control policies, focused on surgical and environmental risk factors, were introduced in our department.

We saw a 50% reduction in the rate of surgical site infection after the introduction of these measures. We are, however, aware that the observed decrease may not be entirely attributable to these measures alone given the number of factors that predispose to post-operative wound infection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:516–19.

We examined the incidence of infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients admitted to the Leicester Royal Infirmary Trauma Unit between January 2004 and June 2006. The influence of MRSA status at the time of their admission was examined, together with age, gender and diagnosis, using multi-variant analysis. Of 2473 patients, 79 (3.2%) were MRSA carriers at the time of admission and 2394 (96.8%) were MRSA-negative. Those carrying MRSA at the time of admission were more likely to develop surgical site infection with MRSA (7 of 79 patients, 8.8%) than non-MRSA carriers (54 of 2394 patients, 2.2%, p < 0.001). Further analysis showed that hip fracture and increasing age were also risk factors with a linear increase in relative risk of 1.8% per year.

MRSA carriage at admission, age and the pathology are all associated with an increased rate of developing MRSA wound infection. Identification of such risk factors at admission helps to target health-care resources, such the use of glycopeptide antibiotics at induction and the ‘building-in’ of increased vigilance for wound infection pre-operatively.

We have conducted a case-control study over a period of ten years comparing both deep infection with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and colonised cases with a control group.

Risk factors associated with deep infection were vascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, admission to a high-dependency or an intensive-care unit and open wounds. Those for colonisation were institutional care, vascular diseases and dementia. Older age was a risk factor for any MRSA infection. The length of hospital stay was dramatically increased by deep infection.

These risk factors are useful in identifying higher-risk patients who may be more susceptible to MRSA infection. A strategy of early identification and isolation may help to control its spread in trauma units.

This prospective five-year study analyses the impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on an Irish orthopaedic unit. We identified 318 cases of MRSA, representing 0.76% of all admissions (41 971). A total of 240 (76%) cases were colonised with MRSA, while 120 (37.7%) were infected. Patients were admitted from home (218; 68.6%), nursing homes (72; 22.6%) and other hospitals (28; 8.8%). A total of 115 cases (36.6%) were colonised or infected on admission. Many patients were both colonised and infected at some stage. The length of hospital stay was almost trebled because of the presence of MRSA infection.

Encouragingly, overall infection rates have not risen significantly over the five years of the study despite increased prevalence of MRSA. However, the financial burden of MRSA is increasing, highlighting the need for progress in understanding how to control this resistant pathogen more effectively.