Background Commercial delivery cyclists represent a uniquely vulnerable and poorly understood road user. The primary aim of this study was to pilot whether cycling injuries could be categorised as either commercial or non-commercial using documentation entered into routine hospital medical records, in order to determine the feasibility of conducting a large cohort study of commercial cycling injuries in the future. A secondary aim was to determine which key demographic, incident and injury characteristics were associated with commercial versus non-commercial cycling injuries in emergency. Methods Pilot retrospective cohort study of adults presenting to an acute public hospital emergency department between May 2019 and April 2020 after sustaining a cycling-related injury. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the demographic, incident and injury characteristics associated with commercial compared to non-commercial cycling. Results Of the 368 people presenting to the emergency department with a cycling-related injury, we were able to categorise 43 (11.7%) as commercial delivery cyclists, 153 (41.6%) as non-commercial cyclists and the working status of 172 (46.7%) was unable to be confirmed. Both commercial and unconfirmed cyclists were more likely to be younger than non-commercial cyclists. Compared to non-commercial cyclists, commercial cyclists were 11 times more likely to speak a language other than English (AOR 11.3; 95% CI 4.07–31.30; p<0.001), less likely to be injured from non-collision incidents than vehicle collisions (AOR 0.36; 95% CI 0.15–0.91; p=0.030) and were over 13 times more likely to present to the emergency department between 8.00pm and 12.00am compared to the early morning hours (12.00 to 8.00am) (AOR 13.43; 95% CI 2.20–82.10; p=0.005). Conclusions The growth of commercial cycling, particularly through online food delivery services, has raised concern regarding commercial cyclist safety. Improvements in the recording of cycling injury commercial status is required to enable ongoing surveillance of commercial cyclist injuries and establish the extent and risk factors associated with commercial cycling.

IntroductionAddressing clinical variation in elective surgery is challenging. A key issue is how to gain consensus between largely autonomous clinicians. Understanding how the consensus process works to develop and implement perioperative pathways and the impact of these pathways on reducing clinical variation can provide important insights into the effectiveness of the consensus process. The primary objective of this study is to understand the implementation of an organisationally supported, consensus approach to implement perioperative care pathways in a private healthcare facility and to determine its impact.MethodsA mixed-methods Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid (type III) pre–post study will be conducted in one Australian private hospital. Five new consensus-based perioperative care pathways will be developed and implemented for specific patient cohorts: spinal surgery, radical prostatectomy, cardiac surgery, bariatric surgery and total hip and knee replacement. The individual components of these pathways will be confirmed as part of a consensus-building approach and will follow a four-stage implementation process using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment framework. The process of implementation, as well as barriers and facilitators, will be evaluated through semistructured interviews and focus groups with key clinical and non-clinical staff, and participant observation. We anticipate completing 30 interviews and 15–20 meeting observations. Administrative and clinical end-points for at least 152 participants will be analysed to assess the effectiveness of the pathways.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Medical Sciences Committee (Reference No: 520221219542374). The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and reports for key stakeholders.

Background: Commercial delivery cyclists represent a uniquely vulnerable and poorly understood road user. The aim of this study was to determine whether cyclists could be categorised as commercial or non-commercial from routine medical records and which key demographic, incident and injury characteristics could be identified and attributed to each category.Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adults presenting to an acute public hospital emergency department between May 2019 and April 2020 after sustaining a cycling-related injury. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the demographic, incident, and injury characteristics associated with commercial compared to non-commercial cycling.Results: Of the 368 people presenting to the emergency department with a cycling-related injury, we were able to categorise 43 (11.7%) as commercial delivery cyclists, 153 (41.6%) as non-commercial cyclists, and the working status of 172 (46.7%) was unable to be confirmed. Both commercial and unconfirmed cyclists were more likely to be younger than non-commercial cyclists. Compared to non-commercial cyclists, commercial cyclists were 11 times more likely to speak a language other than English (AOR 11.3; 95% CI 4.07-31.30; p<0.001), less likely to be injured from non-collision incidents than vehicle collisions (AOR 0.36; 95% CI 0.15-0.91; p=0.030), and were over 13 times more likely to present to the emergency department between 8.00pm and 12.00am compared to the early morning hours (12.00am to 8.00am) (AOR 13.43; 95% CI 2.20-82.10; p=0.005).Conclusions: The growth of commercial cycling, particularly through online food delivery services, has raised concern regarding commercial cyclist safety. Ongoing surveillance of commercial cyclist injuries is needed to establish the extent and risk factors associated with commercial cycling.