Aims Due to widespread cancellations in elective orthopaedic procedures, the number of patients on waiting list for surgery is rising. We aim to determine and quantify if disparities exist between inpatient and day-case orthopaedic waiting list numbers; we also aim to determine if there is a ‘hidden burden’ that already exists due to reductions in elective secondary care referrals. Methods Retrospective data were collected between 1 April 2020 and 31 December 2020 and compared with the same nine-month period the previous year. Data collected included surgeries performed (day-case vs inpatient), number of patients currently on the orthopaedic waiting list (day-case vs inpatient), and number of new patient referrals from primary care and therapy services. Results There was a 52.8% reduction in our elective surgical workload in 2020. The majority of surgeries performed in 2020 were day case surgeries (739; 86.6%) with 47.2% of these performed in the independent sector on a ‘lift and shift’ service. The total number of patients on our waiting lists has risen by 30.1% in just 12 months. As we have been restricted in performing inpatient surgery, the inpatient waiting lists have risen by 73.2%, compared to a 1.6% rise in our day-case waiting list. New patient referral from primary care and therapy services have reduced from 3,357 in 2019 to 1,722 in 2020 (49.7% reduction). Conclusion This study further exposes the increasing number of patients on orthopaedic waiting lists. We observed disparities between inpatient and day-case waiting lists, with dramatic increases in the number of inpatients on the waiting lists. The number of new patient referrals has decreased, and we predict an influx of referrals as the pandemic eases, further adding to the pressure on inpatient waiting lists. Robust planning and allocation of adequate resources is essential to deal with this backlog. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):530–534.
The CRABEL score has been shown to be a useful, reproducible and easy-to-perform objective assessment of the quality of medical record keeping. Repeated audit cycles have ensured that case-note quality remains a high priority and have also led to the development of standardised admission documentation. Introduction of the latter has led to a measurable improvement in medical record keeping.
There was no regional consensus regarding paediatric intensive care unit referral for obstructive sleep apnoea adenotonsillectomy. Clinical judgement without complex sleep studies by those experienced in this area was sufficient to detect complicated cases of obstructive sleep apnoea with co-morbidity requiring paediatric intensive care.
The Department of Health issued a model consent form for use throughout the NHS from the 1st April 2002. Details of benefits and serious or frequent risks should be included on the form. We undertook a study to identify what proportion of complications from otolaryngology procedures were being recorded. Local morbidity and mortality records and case notes were examined from March to November 2004. Complications were identified and recorded. The consent forms for these operations were examined to identify if these complications had been recorded on the form prior to surgery. Complications were classified as "serious", causing significant morbidity or increasing length of hospital stay or "frequent", occurring in 1% or more of cases. A total of 2,978 operations were performed between March and November 2004. Seventy complications were identified in 60 patients (2% of operated patients). Twenty-three complications were not recorded on the consent forms in 20 (33%) patients. A total of 67% of all the complications were documented on the form as potential problems resulting from planned operations. Seven (74%) of complications that occurred but were not recorded on the consent forms were judged as "serious" or "frequent". A significant proportion of serious or frequent complications are not being documented on the national consent forms before otolaryngological procedures and may not have been discussed. This may reflect a lack of openness during the consent process. In the current medical climate, this has serious ethical and medico-legal ramifications. It may also reflect a problem with the form and a need for a re-think of its design.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.