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

GIRFT was published in the United Kingdom with the aim of streamlining primary care pathways, secondary care, creating a network of hospitals and treatment centres and to better regulate introduction of new implants. It also proposed the use of Orthopaedic Devices Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* rated cemented implants in hip arthroplasty. Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of adopting GIRFT on surgical time, length of stay, changes to the implants used and number of cases per surgical list. Prior to adopting GIRFT, elective primary total hip replacement (THR) was predominantly uncemented THR. Age, sex, Body Mass Index (BMI), American Society of Anesthetiss (ASA), closure technique and surgical time of 50 consecutive primary uncemented THR were analysed to identify the appropriate statistical methods. Mean and standard deviation for surgical time were identified. Threshold increase in surgical time was set at 20 minutes. Based on expected difference of 20 minutes and standardised difference, minimum sample size was calculated to be 19. Prospective data on 60 consecutive uncemented THR and 30 consecutive cemented primary THR were included in this study. Inclusion criteria – primary THR for arthritis by single surgeon. Exclusion criteria – previous hip surgery, complex primary, abnormal anatomy. No differences in age, sex, BMI, ASA and length of stay between the two groups. Surgical time was significantly increased by 28 minutes (p<0.001). Implants used changed from 7A*/5A* uncemented THR to 10A* (18/30) and 7A*(12/30) cemented THR. There was a reduction in number of THR done per surgical list due to the increase in surgical time (3 instead of 4). GIRFT compliance improved from 0% cemented to 100% cemented. 0% 10A* rated implants to 66% 10A* rated implants. Undertaking cemented THR instead of uncemented THR is associated with significantly increased surgical time. Hence, number of THR surgeries performed in a day's list is accordingly reduced. There is potential for financial loss when the savings in the implants used is compared with the reduction in the number of surgeries performed