COVID-19-related patient care delays have resulted in an unprecedented patient care backlog in the field of orthopaedics. The objective of this study is to examine orthopaedic provider preferences regarding the patient care backlog and financial recovery initiatives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. An orthopaedic research consortium at a multi-hospital tertiary care academic medical system developed a three-part survey examining provider perspectives on strategies to expand orthopaedic patient care and financial recovery. Section 1 asked for preferences regarding extending clinic hours, section 2 assessed surgeon opinions on expanding surgical opportunities, and section 3 questioned preferred strategies for departmental financial recovery. The survey was sent to the institution’s surgical and nonoperative orthopaedic providers.Aims
Methods
The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery. Patients were randomly selected from elective orthopaedic waiting lists at three centres in the UK in April, June, August, and September 2020 and were contacted by telephone. Patients were asked whether they wanted to proceed or defer surgery. Patients who wished to defer were asked seven questions relating to potential barriers to proceeding with surgery and were asked whether there were measures/circumstances that would allow them to go forward with surgery.Aims
Methods
To establish if COVID-19 has worsened outcomes in patients with AO 31 A or B type hip fractures. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed for a five-week period from 20 March 2020 and the same time period in 2019. The primary outcome was mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 infection, perioperative pulmonary complications, time to theatre, type of anaesthesia, operation, grade of surgeon, fracture type, postoperative intensive care admission, venous thromboembolism, dislocation, infection rates, and length of stay.Aims
Methods
In order to assess the efficacy of inspection and accreditation by the Specialist Advisory Committee for higher surgical training in orthopaedic surgery and trauma, seven training regions with 109 hospitals and 433 Specialist Registrars were studied over a period of two years. There were initial deficiencies in a mean of 14.8% of required standards (10.3% to 19.2%). This improved following completion of the inspection, with a mean residual deficiency in 8.9% (6.5% to 12.7%.) Overall, 84% of standards were checked, 68% of the units improved and training was withdrawn in 4%. Most units (97%) were deficient on initial assessment. Moderately good rectification was achieved but the process of follow-up and collection of data require improvement. There is an imbalance between the setting of standards and their implementation. Any major revision of the process of accreditation by the new Post-graduate Medical Education and Training Board should recognise the importance of assessment of training by direct inspection on site, of the relationship between service and training, and the advantage of defining mandatory and developmental standards.
