Intra-operative use of biological products-Are we aware of their derivatives?

INTRODUCTION: Global medical advances within healthcare have subsequently led to the widespread introduction of biological products such as grafts, haemostats, and sealants. Although these products have been used for many decades, this subject is frequently not discussed during the consent process and remains an area of contention. METHODS: A nationwide confidential online survey was distributed to UK-based junior registrars (ST3-5), senior registrars (ST6-8), post-CCT fellows, specialist associates/staff grade doctors and consultants working in general/vascular surgery, neurosurgery, otolaryngology, oral and maxillofacial surgery and plastic surgery. RESULTS: Data were collected from a total of 308 survey respondents. Biological derivatives were correctly identified in surgical products by only 25% of survey respondents, only 19% stated that they regularly consent for use of these products. Our results demonstrate that most participants in this study do not routinely consent (81%) to the intra-operative use of biological materials. An overwhelming 74% of participants agreed that further education on the intra-operative use of biological materials would be valuable. DISCUSSION: This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge that results in potential compromise of the consenting process for surgical procedures. A solution to this would be for clinicians to increase their awareness via educational platforms and to incorporate an additional statement on the consent form which addresses the potential intraoperative use of biological products and what their derivatives may be. CONCLUSION: Modernising the current consent process to reflect the development and use of surgical biological products will help to ensure improved patient satisfaction, fewer future legal implications as well as a better surgeon-patient relationship.

Patient self-assessment of nasal fractures and self-referral to an ear, nose, and throat department: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if patients can safely self-assess their need for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) review following initial emergency department attendance for nasal trauma. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective study was divided into 2 parts. The initial part evaluated an information sheet for patients to lead them through a self-assessment to establish if they require ENT review following nasal injury. The second part of the study investigated outcomes following the introduction of the self-assessment. SETTING: This work was conducted at a District General Hospital in Scotland. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine consecutive patients underwent self-assessment plus blinded otolaryngology assessment, after which self-assessment was introduced as routine. This was evaluated comparing outcomes of 49 new consecutive nasal injuries against the original group using subjective patient scores of nasal cosmesis and nasal airway following injury and any subsequent treatment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in outcome between the 2 study periods. After the introduction of self-assessment, there was a large reduction in the nonattendance rate for nasal injuries and in the attendances of patients with nasal injuries not requiring manipulation. CONCLUSION: In our institution, patients can be relied on to safely self-assess their nasal injuries to decide if they need ENT review when provided with appropriate information. This reduces the outpatient burden on the ENT department with no deterioration in subjective patient outcomes.