Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management
of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce
serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either
alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are
not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently
issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states
must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication. In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative
focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives
in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating
Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation
of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted
the importance of informing and educating clinicians. Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications
in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical
care. Cite this article:
As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection. If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.
Over a two-year period, 265 Norwegian orthopaedic surgeons working at 71 institutions performed 63 484 operations under a tourniquet. Their replies to a questionnaire revealed that they mostly followed modern guidelines in their use of the tourniquet. Most felt that the tourniquet could be left on for two hours, and that it could be re-applied after 15 minutes. A total of 26 complications (one in 2442 operations) that might have been due to the tourniquet were reported, of which 15 were neurological. Three were in the upper limb (one in 6155 operations) and 12 in the lower limb (one in 3752 operations). Two were permanent (one in 31742 operations), but the remainder resolved within six months. One permanent and one transient complication occurred after tourniquet times of three hours. The incidence of tourniquet complications is still at least as high as that estimated in the 1970s.
The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service established the Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme in order to standardise the collection of information about infections acquired in hospital in the United Kingdom and provide national data with which hospitals could measure their own performance. The definition of superficial incisional infection (skin and subcutaneous tissue), set by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), should meet at least one of the defined criteria which would confirm the diagnosis and determine the need for specific treatment. We have assessed the interobserver reliability of the criteria for superficial incisional infection set by the CDC in our current practice. The incisional site of 50 patients who had an elective primary arthroplasty of the hip or knee was evaluated independently by two orthopaedic clinical research fellows and two orthopaedic ward sisters for the presence or absence of surgical-site infection. Interobserver reliability was assessed by comparison of the criteria for wound infection used by the four observers using kappa reliability coefficients. Our study demonstrated that some of the components of the current CDC criteria were unreliable and we recommend their revision.
