Evidence-based orthopaedic trauma care in the United Kingdom: Guidelines, registries, carrots and sticks

Lack of regional pathways impact on surgical delay: Analysis of the Orthopaedic Trauma Hospital Outcomes-Patient Operative Delays (ORTHOPOD) study

INTRODUCTION

Current practice following injury within the United Kingdom is to receive surgery, at the institution of first contact regardless of ability to provide timely intervention and inconsiderate of neighbouring hospital resource and capacity. This can lead to a mismatch of demand and capacity, delayed surgery and stress within hospital systems, particularly with regards to elective services. We demonstrate through a multicentre, multinational study, the impact of this at scale.

METHODOLOGY

ORTHOPOD data collection period was between 22/08/2022 and 16/10/2022 and consisted of two arms. Arm 1 captured orthopaedic trauma caseload and capacity in terms of sessions available per centre and patients awaiting surgery per centre per given week. Arm 2 recorded patient and injury demographics, time of decision making, outpatient and inpatient timeframes as well as time to surgery. Hand and spine cases were excluded. For this regional comparison, regional trauma networks with a minimum of four centres enroled onto the ORTHOPOD study were exclusively analysed.

RESULTS

Following analysis of 11,202 patient episodes across 30 hospitals we found no movement of any patient between hospitals to enable prompt surgery. There is no current system to move patients, between regional centres despite clear discrepancies in workload per capacity across the United Kingdom. Many patients wait for days for surgery when simple transfer to a neighbouring hospital (within 10 miles in many instances) would result in prompt care within national guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Most trauma patients in the United Kingdom are managed exclusively at the place of first presentation, with no consideration of alternative pathways to local hospitals that may, at that time, offer increased operative capacity and a shorter waiting time. There is no oversight of trauma workload per capacity at neighbouring hospitals within a regional trauma network. This leads to a marked disparity in waiting time to surgery, and subsequently it can be inferred but not proven, poorer patient experience and outcomes. This inevitably leads to a strain on the overall trauma system and across several centres can impact on elective surgery recovery. We propose the consideration of inter-regional network collaboration, aligned with the Major Trauma System.

Regional variation in the provision of major trauma services for the older injured patient

INTRODUCTION

The establishment of national trauma networks have resulted in significant benefits to injured patients. Older people are the majority of major trauma patients and there is need to study variations in care and performance against clinical metrics for them. We aim to describe this patient group in terms of injury, demographics, episode of care assessment and variation between component regions of the Major Trauma Network of England and Wales.

METHOD

The Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database was analysed from April 2017 to March 2019. Patients aged 65 years and above with injury severity score (ISS) greater than eight were selected for analysis. Patients were compared by care pathway in terms of first and second treating hospitals and by demographics, injury mechanism, severity, physiology at arrival to hospital (including Glasgow Coma Score (GCS)) and mortality, where known, at discharge.

RESULTS

Fifty-three thousand three hundred and forty-seven older injured patients (median age 82.5 years and 58.2% female), were treated in 165 hospitals within the 17 regional trauma networks over the two-year study period. Aside from GCS and gender, all other patient characteristics were significantly different between networks and specifically, a large variation between the network with the highest proportion of older patients (60.4%) and that with a preponderance of younger patients (40.2%) is seen. 84% of cases were due to a fall <2 m and 36.7% of cases had a brain injury. 73.5% of cases had one or more comorbidities.

DISCUSSION

We have increased the understanding of how older patients contribute to and are managed by a national trauma service. We have demonstrated variation in numbers and patient characteristics throughout regional trauma networks. We have detailed the whole patient episode, allowing us to comment on disparities in management such as senior review and access to specialist clinical care settings. Older patients dominate United Kingdom major trauma and considerable variations and shortfalls have been identified. Work is needed to focus on the whole clinical episode for these patients both to improve outcome and patient experience but to also to ensure sustainable clinical care in a resource deplete era.