Abstract. INTRODUCTION. In the NHS the structure of a “regular healthcare team” is no longer the case. The NHS is facing a workforce crisis where cross-covering of ward-based health professionals is at an all-time high, this includes nurses, doctors, therapists, pharmacists and clerks. Comprehensive post-operative care documentation is essential to maintain patient safety, reduce information clarification requests, delays in rehabilitation, treatment, and investigations. The value of complete surgical registry data is emerging, and in the UK this has recently become mandated, but the completeness of post-operative care documentation is not held to the same importance, and at present there is no published standard. This project summarises a 4-stage approach, including 6 audit cycles, >400 reviewed operation notes, over a 5 year period. OBJECTIVE. To deliver a sustainable change in post operative care documentation practices through quality improvement frameworks. METHODS. Stage 1: Characterise the problem and increase engagement through: SMART aims, process mapping, hybrid action-effect and driver diagram and stakeholder analysis. Multi disciplinary stakeholders were involved in achieving a consensus of evidence-based auditable criteria. Stage 2: Baseline audit to assess current practice. Stage 3: Intervention planning by stakeholders. Stage 4: Longitudinal monitoring through run charts and iterative refinement. RESULTS. Stage 1: Process mapping identified numerous downstream effects of the absence of critical information from operation notes, and the action-effect diagram highlighted the multiple unnecessary mitigating actions performed by ward staff. An MDT consensus was achieved on 15 essential criteria for complete documentation, including important negative fields. Interest-influence matrix identified stakeholder groups with high influence but low interest who needed engagement to deliver change. Stage 2: Baseline audit demonstrated unexpectedly poor documentation: >75% compliance in 4 criteria, and <50% compliance in 10 criteria, which elevated the interest of key stakeholders. Stage 3: A post-operative care template based on the 15 criteria was embedded within the existing IT software. It allowed use of existing operative templates, with a non-overwriting suffix requiring only two mouse clicks. Stage 4: Re-audit at 3 and 12 months showed improved and sustained compliance. At 24 months compliance had declined. Questionnaire of template usage identified problems of criteria response options, and lack of awareness of template by newly appointed staff. Template update improved compliance over the next 6 months (>75% compliance in 11 criteria). Finally, a further reaudit conducted 12 months after the template update (5 years post baseline audit) showed a sustained improvement in compliance (>75% compliance in 13 criteria). CONCLUSIONS. Simple innovation through quality improvement frameworks has changed documentation practices by 1) achieving a consensus from stakeholders, 2) a “shock and awe” moment to highlight existing poor documentation and increase engagement 3) implementing change which fit easily into existing systems, 4) respecting autonomy rather than enforcing change and 5) longitudinal monitoring using run charts and an iterative process to ensure the template remains fit for purpose. This model has now successfully been translated to other subspecialities within the orthopaedic department. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Low back pain (LBP) is the main cause of disability worldwide and is primarily triggered by intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD). Although several treatment options exist, no therapeutic tool has demonstrated to halt the progressive course of IDD. Therefore, several clinical trials are being conducted to investigate different strategies to regenerate the intervertebral disc, with numerous studies not reaching completion nor being published. The aim of this study was to analyze the publication status of clinical trials on novel regenerative treatments for IDD by funding source and identify critical obstacles preventing their conclusion. Prospective clinical trials investigating regenerative treatments for IDD and registered on . ClinicalTrials.gov. were included. Primary outcomes were publication status and investigational treatment funding. Fisher's exact test was utilized to test the association for categorical variables between groups. 25 clinical trials were identified. Among these, only 6 (24%) have been published. The most common source of funding was university (52%), followed by industry (36%) and private companies (12%). Investigational treatments included autologous (56%) or allogeneic (12%) products alone or in combination with a carrier or delivery system (32%). The latter were more likely utilized in industry or privately funded studies (Fig. 1, p=0.0112). No significant difference was found in terms of funding regarding the publication status of included trials (Table 1, p=0.9104). Most clinical trials investigating regenerative approaches for the treatment of IDD were never completed nor published. This is likely due to multiple factors, including difficult enrollment, high dropout rate, and publication bias. 3. More accurate design and technical support from stakeholders and clinical research organization (CROs) may likely increase the quality of future clinical trials in the field. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. Hip prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a debilitating complication following joint replacement surgery, with significant impact on patients and healthcare systems. The INFection ORthopaedic Management: Evidence into Practice (INFORM: EP) study, builds upon the 6-year INFORM programme by developing evidence-based guidelines for the identification and management of hip PJI. Methods. A panel of 21 expert stakeholders collaborated to develop best practice guidelines based on evidence from the previous INFORM research programme. An expert consensus process was used to refine guidelines using RAND/UCLA criteria. The guidelines were then implemented over a 12-month period through a Learning Collaborative of 24 healthcare professionals from 12 orthopaedic centres in England. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 members of the collaborative and findings used to inform the development of an implementation support toolkit. Patient and public involvement contextualised the implementation of the guidelines. The study is registered with the ISCRTN (34710385). Result. The INFORM guidelines, structured around the stages of PJI management, were largely supported by surgeons, although barriers included limited awareness among non-surgical team members, lack of job planning for multidisciplinary teams, and challenges in ensuring timely referrals from primary care. Psychological support for patients was identified as a critical gap. Advanced Nurse Practitioners and multidisciplinary team (MDT) coordinators were seen as potential bridges to address these knowledge gaps. The guidelines were also viewed as a useful tool for service development. Conclusions. This study presents the first evidence-based guidelines for hip PJI management, offering a comprehensive approach to prevention, treatment, and postoperative care. Effective implementation is crucial, involving wider dissemination amongst primary and community care, as well as non-specialist treatment centres. Further resources are needed to ensure job planning for MDTs and psychological support for patients. Overall, this study lays the foundation for improved PJI management, benefiting patients and healthcare systems

Around 20% of patients who have total knee replacement find that they experience long-term pain afterwards. There is a pressing need for better treatment and management for patients who have this kind of pain but there is little evidence about how to improve care. To address this gap we are developing a complex intervention comprising a clinic to assess potential causes of a patient's long-term pain after knee replacement and onwards referral to appropriate, existing services. The Medical Research Council recommends that development of complex interventions include several stages of development and refinement and involvement of stakeholders. This study comprises the penultimate stage in the comprehensive development of this intervention. Earlier stages included a survey of current practice, focus groups with healthcare professionals, a systematic review of the literature and expert deliberation. Healthcare professionals from diverse clinical backgrounds with experience of caring for patients with long-term pain after knee replacement were sent a study information pack. Professionals who wished to participate were asked to return their signed consent form and completed study questionnaire to the research team. Participants rated the appropriateness of different aspects of the assessment process and care pathway from 1–9 (not appropriate to very appropriate). Data were collated and a document prepared, consisting of anonymised mean appropriateness ratings and summaries of free-text comments. This document was then discussed in 4 facilitated meetings with healthcare professional held at the future trial centres. A summary report and revised care pathway was then prepared and sent to participants for further comments. 28 professionals completed the questionnaire and/or attended a meeting. Participants included surgeons, physiotherapists, nurses, pain specialists and rheumatologists. Mean appropriateness scores ranged from 6.9 to 8.4. Taking a score of 7–9 as agreement, consensus was achieved that the assessment should be performed at 3 months post-operative by an extended scope practitioner/nurse, treatment be guided by a standardised assessment of pain, and treatment individualised. There was also agreement that referrals in the care pathway to surgical review, GP and pain clinics were appropriate. Nurse-led/self-monitoring was rated lower (6.9) because of considerations about the need to ensure that patients receive appropriate support, follow-up and referral to other services. This work demonstrates the research methods that can be used to refine the design of a complex intervention. The process and findings enable refinement of an intervention for patients with long-term pain after knee replacement. The next stage of intervention development will assess the acceptability and reliability of the assessment process, and the usability of the intervention's standard operating procedures. The intervention will then be evaluated by a larger research team in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, starting in late 2016

Background. Evidence suggests classification system (CS) guided treatments are more effective than generalized and practice guidelines based treatments for low back pain (LBP) patients. This study evaluated clinicians' and managers' attitudes towards LBP classification and its usefulness in guiding LBP management. Methods. Data from 3 semi-structured interviews with physiotherapy service managers and advanced spinal physiotherapy practitioner and a focus group (5 physiotherapists) in two NHS Health Boards, South Wales, UK, was thematically analysed. Results. Five themes emerged. CS knowledge: Clinicians and managers know different CSs and agree with its usefulness. Clinicians have specific CSs knowledge, managers viewed classification related to referral pathways and prognosis. Current CS use: Clinicians classify using their experience and clinical reasoning skills shifting between multiple CSs. Managers are confident that staff provide evidence-based service though believe classification is not always practiced across services. CS advantages/disadvantages: Effectively targeting the right patients for right treatments using evidence-based practice is advantageous. Prevalence of “guru led” CSs developed for research and of limited clinical use is disadvantageous. Barriers: Patients' treatment expectations, threat to clinical autonomy, lack of sufficiently complex CSs, lack of resources to up-skill clinicians and overall CSs fit into complex referral pathways. Enablers: CSs sufficiently complex & placed within clinical reasoning process, mentoring for inexperienced staff, positive engagement with all stakeholders and patients. Conclusion. Clinicians and managers are aware of CSs and agree with its usefulness to guide LBP management. Clinicians classify LBP though there is no formalized CS process in place. Whilst clinicians view classification as the relationship between patients and physiotherapy managers have a broader, whole service view. Conflicts of interest: None. Sources of funding: Wales School of Primary Care Research, Cardiff, UK. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has been presented previously at a national meeting