Ultrasound guidance is rapidly becoming the gold standard for regional anaesthesia. There is an ever growing weight of evidence, matched with improving technology, to show that the use of ultrasound has significant benefits over conventional techniques, such as nerve stimulation and loss of resistance. The improved safety and efficacy that ultrasound brings to regional anaesthesia will help promote its use and realise the benefits that regional anaesthesia has over general anaesthesia, such as decreased morbidity and mortality, superior postoperative analgesia, cost-effectiveness, decreased postoperative complications and an improved postoperative course. In this review we consider the evidence behind the improved safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia, before discussing its use in pain medicine, paediatrics and in the facilitation of neuraxial blockade. The Achilles' heel of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia is that anaesthetists are far more familiar with providing general anaesthesia, which in most cases requires skills that are achieved faster and more reliably. To this ends we go on to provide practical advice on ultrasound-guided techniques and the introduction of ultrasound into a department.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionSubstantial variation in the delivery of hip fracture care, and patient outcomes persists between hospitals, despite established UK national standards and guidelines. Patients’ outcomes are partly explained by patient-level risk factors, but it is hypothesised that organisational-level factors account for the persistence of unwarranted variation in outcomes. The mixed-methods REducing unwarranted variation in the Delivery of high qUality hip fraCture services in England and Wales (REDUCE) study, aims to determine key organisational factors to target to improve patient care.Methods and analysisQuantitative analysis will assess the outcomes of patients treated at 172 hospitals in England and Wales (2016–2019) using National Hip Fracture Database data combined with English Hospital Episodes Statistics; Patient Episode Database for Wales; Civil Registration (deaths) and multiple organisational-level audits to characterise each service provider. Statistical analyses will identify which organisational factors explain variation in patient outcomes, and typify care pathways with high-quality consistent patient outcomes. Documentary analysis of 20 anonymised British Orthopaedic Association hospital-initiated peer-review reports, and qualitative interviews with staff from four diverse UK hospitals providing hip fracture care, will identify barriers and facilitators to care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major challenge to the resilience of services and interviews will explore strategies used to adapt and innovate. This system-wide understanding will inform the development, in partnership with key national stakeholders, of an ‘Implementation Toolkit’ to inform and improve commissioning and delivery of hip fracture services.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved: quantitative study by London, City and East Research Ethics Committee (20/LO/0101); and qualitative study by Faculty of Health Sciences University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 108284), National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (20/HRA/71) and each NHS Trust provided Research and Development approval. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, peer-reviewed journals and online workshops.

Objectives Despite established standards and guidelines, substantial variation remains in the delivery of hip fracture care across the United Kingdom. We aimed to determine which hospital-level organisational factors predict adverse patient outcomes in the months following hip fracture. Methods We examined a national record-linkage cohort of 178,757 patients aged ≥60 years who sustained a hip fracture in England and Wales in 2016–19. Patient-level hospital admissions datasets, National Hip Fracture Database and mortality data were linked to metrics from 18 hospital-level organisational-level audits and reports. Multilevel models identified organisational factors, independent of patient case-mix, associated with three patient outcomes: length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day all-cause mortality and emergency 30-day readmission. Results Across hospitals mean LOS ranged from 12 to 41.9 days, mean 30-day mortality from 3.7 to 10.4% and mean readmission rates from 3.7 to 30.3%, overall means were 21.4 days, 7.3% and 15.3%, respectively. In all, 22 organisational factors were independently associated with LOS; e.g. a hospital’s ability to mobilise >90% of patients promptly after surgery predicted a 2-day shorter LOS (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–2.6). Ten organisational factors were independently associated with 30-day mortality; e.g. discussion of patient experience feedback at clinical governance meetings and provision of prompt surgery to >80% of patients were each associated with 10% lower mortality (95%CI: 5–15%). Nine organisational factors were independently associated with readmissions; e.g. readmissions were 17% lower if hospitals reported how soon community therapy would start after discharge (95%CI: 9–24%). Conclusions Receipt of hip fracture care should be reliable and equitable across the country. We have identified multiple, potentially modifiable, organisational factors associated with important patient outcomes following hip fracture.

No abstract