Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Improvements in outcomes following hip and knee revision arthroplasties have been demonstrated following the introduction of specialised orthopaedic services in the form of 'hub and spoke' networking models. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, these networks have undergone some inevitable adaptations. We investigated the impact of recent adaptations on the performance of our regional revision arthroplasty network.
Methods: A retrospective review of all referrals that were discussed at our regional revision arthroplasty meeting, over 2 separate phases, was undertaken. Phase 1 included data between March 2018 and April 2019, representing an interval prior to COVID-19 pandemic. Phase-2 included data between September 2020 and March 2021 (during COVID-19 pandemic). Data were collected from East Midland South Orthopaedic Network (EMSSON) database and included data relating to indication and time to revision surgery, surgeon's proposal plan, network proposal plan, and executed definitive plan. We compared and analysed network performance between 2 phases.
Results: In phase 1, 99 cases were discussed in EMSSON meetings, equating to 35.7% of the region's revision arthroplasty volume, according to the National Joint Registry (NJR) records. Plan alterations were recommended in 48/99 cases (48.5%), of which 41/48 (85.4%) were adhered to. Phase 2 included 98 discussed cases, equating to 81.6% of the region's revision arthroplasty volume. Plan alterations were recommended in 20/98 cases (20.4%), all of which were adhered to (100%). Adherence to recommended adaptations showed significant improvement ( < 0.03).
Conclusions: Based upon our observations, a greater volume and proportion of revision arthroplasty cases are now being discussed. Adherence to MDT recommendations has significantly improved following the described adaptations. The number of recommended adaptations to management plans have decreased, indicating an educational value of the network.Overall, these findings demonstrate a trend towards NHS England's target of 100% of revision arthroplasty cases undergoing MDT discussion.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/11207000231200824 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!