Aims. Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care. Methods. Questionnaires were sent to orthopaedic waiting list patients at the start of the UK’s first COVID-19 lockdown to capture key quantitative and qualitative aspects of patients’ health. A total of 888 respondents were divided into quintiles, with sampling stratified based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD); level 1 represented the ‘most deprived’ cohort and level 5 the ‘least deprived’. Results. The least deprived cohort were older (mean 65.95 years (SD 13.33)) than the most deprived (mean 59.48 years (SD 13.85)). Mean symptom duration was lower in the least deprived areas (68.59 months (SD 112.26)) compared to the most deprived (85.85 months (SD 122.50)). Mean pain visual analogue scores (VAS) were poorer in the most compared to the least deprived cohort (7.11 (SD 2.01) vs 5.99 (SD 2.57)), with mean mood scores also poorer (6.06 (SD 2.65) vs 4.71 (SD 2.78)). The most deprived areas exhibited lower mean quality of life (QoL) scores than the least (0.37 (SD 0.30) vs 0.53 (SD 0.31)). QoL findings correlated with health VAS and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD2) scores, with the most deprived areas experiencing poorer health (health VAS 50.82 (SD 26.42) vs 57.29 (SD 24.19); GAD2: 2.94 (SD 2.35) vs 1.88 (SD 2.07)). Least-deprived patients had the highest self-reported activity levels and lowest sedentary cohort, with the converse true for patients from the most deprived areas. Conclusion. The most deprived patients experience poorer physical and mental health, with this most adversely impacted by lengthy waiting list delays. Interventions to address inequalities should focus on prioritizing the most deprived. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):777–785

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to “frontline” specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education. Methods. A 42-point questionnaire was designed, validated, and disseminated via e-mail and an instant-messaging platform. Results. A total of 101 orthopaedic trainees, representing the four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), completed the questionnaire. Overall, 23.1% (23/101) of trainees were redeployed to non-surgical roles. Of these, 73% (17/23) were redeployed to intensive treatment units (ITUs), 13% (3/23) to A/E, and 13%(3/23%) to general medicine. Of the trainees redeployed to ITU 100%, (17/17) received formal induction. Non-deployed or returning trainees had a significant reduction in sessions. In total, 42.9% (42/101) % of trainees were not timetabled into fracture clinic, 53% (53/101) of trainees had one allocated theatre list per week, and 63.8%(64/101) of trainees did not feel they obtained enough experience in the attached subspecialty and preferred repeating this. Overall, 93% (93/101) of respondents attended at least one weekly online webinar, with 79% (79/101) of trainees rating these as useful or very useful, while 95% (95/101) trainees attended online deanery teaching which was rated as more useful than online webinars (p = 0.005). Conclusion. Orthopaedic specialist trainees occupied an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic training. It is imperative this is properly understood to ensure orthopaedic specialist trainees achieve competencies set out in the training curriculum. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:676–682

Aims. We aim to objectively assess the impact of COVID-19 on mean total operative cases for all indicative procedures (as outlined by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST)) experienced by orthopaedic trainees in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Subjective experiences were reported for each trainee using questionnaires. Methods. During the first four weeks of the nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19, the objective impact of the pandemic on each trainee’s surgical caseload exposure was assessed using data from individual trainee logbook profiles in the deanery of the Republic of Ireland. Independent predictor variables included the trainee grade (ST 3 to 8), the individual trainee, the unit that the logbook was reported from, and the year in which the logbook was recorded. We used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to assess for any statistically significant predictor variables. The subjective experience of each trainee was captured using an electronic questionnaire. Results. The mean number of total procedures per trainee over four weeks was 36.8 (7 to 99; standard deviation (SD) 19.67) in 2018, 40.6 (6 to 81; SD 17.90) in 2019, and 18.3 (3 to 65; SD 11.70) during the pandemic of 2020 (p = 0.043). Significant reductions were noted for all elective indicative procedures, including arthroplasty (p = 0.019), osteotomy (p = 0.045), nerve decompression (p = 0.024) and arthroscopy (p = 0.024). In contrast, none of the nine indicative procedures for trauma were reduced. There was a significant inter-unit difference in the mean number of total cases (p = 0.029) and indicative cases (p = 0.0005) per trainee. We noted that 7.69% (n = 3) of trainees contracted COVID-19. Conclusion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean number of operative cases per trainee has been significantly reduced for four of the 13 indicative procedures, as outlined by the JCST. Reassignment of trainees to high-volume institutions in the future may be a plausible approach to mitigate significant training deficits in those trainees worst impacted by the reduction in operative exposure

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has had a significant impact on trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) departments worldwide. To manage the peak of the epidemic, orthopaedic staff were redeployed to frontline medical care; these roles included managing minor injury units, forming a “proning” team, and assisting in the intensive care unit (ICU). In addition, outpatient clinics were restructured to facilitate virtual consultations, elective procedures were cancelled, and inpatient hospital admissions minimized to reduce nosocomial COVID-19 infections. Urgent operations for fractures, infection and tumours went ahead but required strict planning to ensure patient safety. Orthopaedic training has also been significantly impacted during this period. This article discusses the impact of COVID-19 on T&O in the UK and highlights key lessons learned that may help to proactively prepare for the next global pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:420–423

Aims. The aim of this paper is to describe the impact of COVID-19 on spine surgery services in a district general hospital in England in order to understand the spinal service provisions that may be required during a pandemic. Methods. A prospective cohort study was undertaken between 17 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 and compared with retrospective data from same time period in 2019. We compared the number of patients requiring acute hospital admission or orthopaedic referrals and indications of referrals from our admission sheets and obtained operative data from our theatre software. Results. Between 17 March to 30 April 2020, there were 48 acute spine referrals as compared to 68 acute referrals during the same time period last year. In the 2019 period, 69% (47/68) of cases referred to the on-call team presented with back pain, radiculopathy or myelopathy compared to 43% (21/48) in the 2020 period. Almost 20% (14/68) of spine referrals consisted of spine trauma as compared to 35% (17/48) this year. There were no confirmed cases of cauda equine last year during this time. Overall, 150 spine cases were carried out during this time period last year, and 261 spine elective cases were cancelled since 17 March 2020. Recommendations. We recommend following steps can be helpful to deal with similar situations or new pandemics in future:. 24 hours on-call spine service during the pandemic. Clinical criteria in place to prioritize urgent spinal cases. Pre-screening spine patients before elective operating. Start of separate specialist trauma list for patients needing urgent surgeries. Conclusion. This paper highlights the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in a district general hospital of England. We demonstrate a decrease in hospital attendances of spine pathologies, despite an increase in emergency spine operations. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:281–286

Aims. COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. Methods. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19. Results. A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019. Conclusion. Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520–529

We evaluated the top 13 journals in trauma and orthopaedics by impact factor and looked at the longer-term effect regarding citations of their papers. All 4951 papers published in these journals during 2007 and 2008 were reviewed and categorised by their type, subspecialty and super-specialty. All citations indexed through Google Scholar were reviewed to establish the rate of citation per paper at two, four and five years post-publication. The top five journals published a total of 1986 papers. Only three (0.15%) were on operative orthopaedic surgery and none were on trauma. Most (n = 1084, 54.5%) were about experimental basic science. Surgical papers had a lower rate of citation (2.18) at two years than basic science or clinical medical papers (4.68). However, by four years the rates were similar (26.57 for surgery, 30.35 for basic science/medical), which suggests that there is a considerable time lag before clinical surgical research has an impact. We conclude that high impact journals do not address clinical research in surgery and when they do, there is a delay before such papers are cited. We suggest that a rate of citation at five years post-publication might be a more appropriate indicator of importance for papers in our specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:414–19

Aims

Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre.

We examined the usefulness of neutrophil CD64 expression in detecting local musculoskeletal infection and the impact of antibiotics on its expression. Of 141 patients suspected of musculoskeletal infection, 46 were confirmed by microbiological culture to be infected and 95 had infection excluded. The median CD64 count of patients with localised infection was 2230 molecules per cell (interquartile range (IQR) 918 to 4592) and that of the patients without infection was 937 molecules per cell (IQR 648 to 1309) (p < 0.001). The level of CD64 correlated with the CRP level in patients with infection, but not in those without infection (r = 0.59, p < 0.01). Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis revealed that CD64 was a good predictor of local infection. When the patients were subdivided into two groups based on the administration of antibiotics at the time of CD64 sampling, the sensitivity for detecting infection was better in those who had not received antibiotics. These results suggest that measurement of CD64 expression is a useful marker for local musculoskeletal infection

Aims

COVID-19 remains the major focus of healthcare provision. Managing orthopaedic emergencies effectively, while at the same time protecting patients and staff, remains a challenge. We explore how the UK lockdown affected the rate, distribution, and type of orthopaedic emergency department (ED) presentations, using the same period in 2019 as reference. This article discusses considerations for the ED and trauma wards to help to maintain the safety of patients and healthcare providers with an emphasis on more remote geography.

Aims. It is well described that patients with bone and joint infections (BJIs) commonly experience significant functional impairment and disability. Published literature is lacking on the impact of BJIs on mental health. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the impact on mental health in patients with BJIs. Methods. The AO Trauma Infection Registry is a prospective multinational registry. In total, 229 adult patients with long-bone BJI were enrolled between 1 November 2012 and 31 August 2017 in 18 centres from ten countries. Clinical outcome data, demographic data, and details on infections and treatments were collected. Patient-reported outcomes using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36), Parker Mobility Score, and Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living were assessed at one, six, and 12 months. The SF-36 mental component subscales were analyzed and correlated with infection characteristics and clinical outcome. Results. The SF-36 physical component summary mean at baseline was 30.9 (95% CI 29.7 to 32.0). At one month, it was unchanged (30.5; 95% CI 29.5 to 31.5; p = 0.447); it had improved statistically significantly at six months (35.5; 95% CI 34.2 to 36.7; p < 0.001) and at 12 months (37.9; 95% CI 36.4 to 39.3; p < 0.001). The SF-36 mental component summary mean at baseline was 42.5 (95% CI 40.8 to 44.2). At one month, it was unchanged (43.1; 95% CI 41.4 to 44.8; p = 0.458); it had improved statistically significantly at six months (47.1; 95% CI 45.4 to 48.7; p < 0.001) and at 12 months (46.7; 95% CI 45.0 to 48.5; p < 0.001). All mental subscales had improved by the end of the study, but mental health status remained compromised in comparison with the average USA population. Conclusion. BJIs considerably impact HRQoL, particularly mental health. Patients suffering from BJIs reported considerable limitations in their daily and social activities due to psychological problems. Impaired mental health may be explained by the chronic nature of BJIs, and therefore the mental wellbeing of these patients should be monitored closely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):721–728

Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640

Aims. As the world continues to fight successive waves of COVID-19 variants, we have seen worldwide infections surpass 100 million. London, UK, has been severely affected throughout the pandemic, and the resulting impact on the NHS has been profound. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on theatre productivity across London’s four major trauma centres (MTCs), and to assess how the changes to normal protocols and working patterns impacted trauma theatre efficiency. Methods. This was a collaborative study across London’s MTCs. A two-month period was selected from 5 March to 5 May 2020. The same two-month period in 2019 was used to provide baseline data for comparison. Demographic information was collected, as well as surgical speciality, procedure, time to surgery, type of anaesthesia, and various time points throughout the patient journey to theatre. Results. In total, 1,243 theatre visits were analyzed as part of the study. Of these, 834 patients presented in 2019 and 409 in 2020. Fewer open reduction and internal fixations were performed in 2020 (33.5% vs 38.2%), and there was an increase in the number of orthoplastic cases in 2020 (8.3% vs 2.2%), both statistically significant results (p < 0.000). There was a statistically significant increase in median time from 2019 to 2020, between sending for a patient and their arrival to the anaesthetic room (29 vs 35 minutes; p = 0.000). Median time between arrival in the anaesthetic room and commencement of anaesthetic increased (7 to 9 minutes; p = 0.104). Conclusion. Changes in working practices necessitated by COVID-19 led to modest delays to all aspects of theatre use, and consequently theatre efficiency. However, the reality is that the major concerns of impact of service did not occur to the levels that were expected. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):886–892

Aims. The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature. Methods. A bibliometric search of journals’ online archives and multiple databases was undertaken in March 2024, to identify articles using qualitative research methods in the top 12 trauma and orthopaedic journals based on the 2023 impact factor and SCImago rating. The bibliometric search was conducted and reported in accordance with the preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO). Results. Of the 7,201 papers reviewed, 136 included qualitative methods (0.1%). There was no significant difference between the journals, apart from Bone & Joint Open, which included 21 studies using qualitative methods, equalling 4% of its published articles. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that there is a very low number of qualitative research papers published within trauma and orthopaedic journals. Given the increasing focus on patient outcomes and improving the patient experience, it may be argued that there is a requirement to support both quantitative and qualitative approaches to orthopaedic research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods may effectively address the complex and personal aspects of patients’ care, ensuring that outcomes align with patient values and enhance overall care quality

Aims. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Systematic reviews of RCTs testing orthopaedic procedures published in 2022 were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A random sample of 100 systematic reviews was selected, and all included RCTs were retrieved. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews must have tested an orthopaedic procedure as the primary intervention, included at least one study identified as a RCT, been published in 2022 in English, and included human clinical trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 Tool was used to assess random sequence generation as ‘adequate’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘no information’; we then calculated the proportion of trials in each category. We also collected data to test the association between these categories and characteristics of the RCTs and systematic reviews. Results. We included 917 unique RCTs. We found that 374 RCTs (40.8%) reported adequate sequence generation, 61 (6.7%) were inadequate, 410 (44.7%) lacked information, and 72 (7.9%) were observational studies incorrectly included as RCTs within the systematic review. Publication year, an author with statistical or epidemiological qualifications, and journal impact factor were each associated with adequate randomization. We found that 45 systematic reviews (45%) included at least one inadequately randomized RCT or an observational study incorrectly treated as a RCT. Conclusion. There is evidence of a lack of random allocation in RCTs included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. The conduct of RCTs and systematic reviews should be improved to minimize the risk of bias from inadequate randomization in RCTs and mislabelling of non-randomized studies as RCTs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1072–1080

Aims. The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Results. The four intersecting themes identified were: 1) validity in traditional research, 2) confusion around the definition of AI, 3) an inability to validate AI research, and 4) cautious optimism about AI research. Underpinning these themes is the notion of a validity heuristic that is strongly rooted in traditional research teaching and embedded in medical and surgical training. Conclusion. Research involving AI sometimes challenges the accepted traditional evidence-based framework. This can give rise to confusion among orthopaedic surgeons, who may be unable to confidently validate findings. In our study, the impact of this was mediated by cautious optimism based on an ingrained validity heuristic that orthopaedic surgeons develop through their medical training. Adding to this, the integration of AI into everyday life works to reduce suspicion and aid acceptance. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):696–703

Aims. Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this. Methods. Included RCTs were ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation), a two-arm study of surgery versus non-surgical treatment for proximal humerus fractures, and UK FROST (United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial), a three-arm study of two surgical and one non-surgical treatment for frozen shoulder. To determine whether early treatment effects were present, the primary outcome of Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was compared on forest plots for: the chief investigator’s (CI) site to the remaining sites, the first five sites opened to the other sites, and patients grouped in quintiles by randomization date. Potential for bias was assessed by comparing mean age and proportion of patients with indicators of poor outcome between included and excluded/non-consenting participants. Results. No bias in treatment effect was observed overall for the CI site, or the first five sites, compared with the remaining sites in either trial. An early treatment effect on the OSS was observed for the first quintile of participants recruited to ProFHER only (clinically relevant difference of seven points). Selection bias for age was observed in the ProFHER trial only, with slightly younger patients being recruited into the study. Both trials showed some selection bias for markers of poor prognosis, although these did not appear to change over time. Conclusion. No bias in treatment effects overall were found at the CI or early sites set-up. An early treatment effect was found in one of the two trials, which was likely a chance effect as this did not continue during the study. Selection bias was observed in both RCTs, however this was minimal and did not impact on outcome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):96–103

Aims. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence of hip fracture has not changed. Evidence has shown increased mortality rates associated with COVID-19 infection. However, little is known about the outcomes of COVID-19 negative patients in a pandemic environment. In addition, the impact of vitamin D levels on mortality in COVID-19 hip fracture patients has yet to be determined. Methods. This multicentre observational study included 1,633 patients who sustained a hip fracture across nine hospital trusts in North West England. Data were collected for three months from March 2020 and for the same period in 2019. Patients were matched by Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), hospital, and fracture type. We looked at the mortality outcomes of COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients sustaining a hip fracture. We also looked to see if vitamin D levels had an impact on mortality. Results. The demographics of the 2019 and 2020 groups were similar, with a slight increase in proportion of male patients in the 2020 group. The 30-day mortality was 35.6% in COVID-19 positive patients and 7.8% in the COVID-19 negative patients. There was a potential association of decreasing vitamin D levels and increasing mortality rates for COVID-19 positive patients although our findings did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. In 2020 there was a significant increase in 30-day mortality rates of patients who were COVID-19 positive but not of patients who were COVID-19 negative. Low levels of vitamin D may be associated with high mortality rates in COVID-19 positive patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):782–787

Aims. Healthcare systems have been rapidly restructured to meet COVID-19 demand. Clinicians are working to novel clinical guidelines, treating new patient cohorts and working in unfamiliar environments. Trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) has experienced cancellation of routine clinics and operating, with redistribution of the workload and human resources. To date, no studies have evaluated the mental health impact of these changes on the T&O workforce. We report the results of a novel survey on the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of our orthopaedic workforce and the contributory factors. Methods. A 20-question survey-based cross-sectional study of orthopaedic team members was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective was to identify the impact of the pandemic on mental health in the form of major depressive disorder (MDD) and general anxiety disorder (GAD). The survey incorporated the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-2), which is validated for screening of MDD, and the generalized anxiety disorder questionnaire (GAD-2), which is validated for screening of GAD. Results. There were 62 respondents (18 females and 44 males). As compared to the general population, we noted a greater estimated prevalence of GAD (17.7% vs 5.9%, p = 0.0009297) and MDD (19.4% vs 3.3%, p = 0.0000007731). The prevalence of MDD symptoms was greatest among senior house officers (SHOs) (p = 0.02216). Female respondents scored higher for symptoms of MDD (p = 0.03583) and GAD (p = 0.0001086). Those identifying as ‘Black, African, Caribbean or Black British’ displayed a higher prevalence of GAD symptoms (p = 0.001575) and felt least supported at work (p = 0.001341). Conclusion. Our study, in the first of its kind, shows a significant prevalence of GAD and MDD in the workforce. We found that SHOs, females and those of Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British origin were disproportionately affected. Action should be taken to help prevent adverse mental health outcomes for our colleagues during the pandemic. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:316–325

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted all segments of daily life, with the healthcare sector being at the forefront of this upheaval. Unprecedented efforts have been taken worldwide to curb this ongoing global catastrophe that has already resulted in many fatalities. One of the areas that has received little attention amid this turmoil is the disruption to trainee education, particularly in specialties that involve acquisition of procedural skills. Hand surgery in Singapore is a standalone combined programme that relies heavily on dedicated cross-hospital rotations, an extensive didactic curriculum and supervised hands-on training of increasing complexity. All aspects of this training programme have been affected because of the cancellation of elective surgical procedures, suspension of cross-hospital rotations, redeployment of residents, and an unsustainable duty roster. There is a real concern that trainees will not be able to meet their training requirements and suffer serious issues like burnout and depression. The long-term impact of suspending training indefinitely is a severe disruption of essential medical services. This article examines the impact of a global pandemic on trainee education in a demanding surgical speciality. We have outlined strategies to maintain trainee competencies based on the following considerations: 1) the safety and wellbeing of trainees is paramount; 2) resource utilization must be thoroughly rationalized; 3) technology and innovative learning methods must supplant traditional teaching methods; and 4) the changes implemented must be sustainable. We hope that these lessons will be valuable to other training programs struggling to deliver quality education to their trainees, even as we work together to battle this global catastrophe