The decline of elective operating at major trauma centres.

INTRODUCTION Major trauma is a leading cause of death in those aged under 40 years. In order to improve the care for multiply injured patients, the major trauma network was activated in April 2012 in England. Its goal was to link all district hospitals to major trauma centres (MTCs) and allow for rapid transfer of patients. Anecdotally, this has affected elective orthopaedic operating at MTCs. The aim of this study was to compare the number of lower limb arthroplasty procedures performed before and after the establishment of the trauma network. METHODS Data on hip and knee arthroplasties in England during the two years prior to and the two years following the introduction of the trauma network were obtained from the National Joint Registry. These were broken down by type of unit (MTCs vs non-MTCs). Differences between the number of hip and knee arthroplasties undertaken in the two time periods were analysed. The chi-squared test was used to assess statistical significance. RESULTS The total number of lower limb arthroplasties increased after the activation of the trauma network by 5.5% (from 211,453 to 223,119). When stratifying the data by type of unit, this increasing trend was present for non-MTCs; however, in MTCs, a reduction occurred: the number reduced by 13.6% (from 13,492 to 11,657). This reversal of trend was seen in both hip and knee procedures independently (both p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS The introduction of the trauma network has led to a reduction in the total number of lower limb arthroplasty procedures performed in MTCs. Various reasons have been postulated for this but its impact on surgical training and hospital finances must be scrutinised in future research.

Orthopaedic surgical site infection surveillance in NHS England: national audit of current practice.

AIMS: The importance of accurate identification and reporting of surgical site infection (SSI) is well recognised but poorly defined. Public Health England (PHE) mandated collection of orthopaedic SSI data in 2004. Data submission is required in one of four categories (hip prosthesis, knee prosthesis, repair of neck of femur, reduction of long bone fracture) for one quarter per year. Trusts are encouraged to carry out post-discharge surveillance but this is not mandatory. Recent papers in the orthopaedic literature have highlighted the importance of SSI surveillance and the heterogeneity of surveillance methods. However, details of current orthopaedic SSI surveillance practice has not been described or quantified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 147 NHS trusts in England were audited using a structured questionnaire. Data was collected in the following categories: data collection; data submission to PHE; definitions used; resource constraints; post-discharge surveillance and SSI rates in the four PHE categories. The response rate was 87.7%. RESULTS: Variation in practice was clear in all categories in terms of methods and timings of data collection and data submission. There was little agreement on SSI definitions. At least six different definitions were used, some trusts using more than one definition. Post-discharge surveillance was carried out by 62% of respondents but there was again variation in both the methods and staff used. More than half of the respondents felt that SSI surveillance in their unit was limited by resource constraints. SSI rates ranged from 0% to 10%. CONCLUSION: This paper quantifies the heterogeneity of SSI surveillance in England. It highlights the importance of adequate resourcing and the unreliability of relying on voluntary data collection and submission. Conformity of definitions and methods are recommended to enable meaningful SSI data to be collated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:171-4.