CURRENT FRACTURE-RELATED INFECTION PRACTICE IN THE UK: IS THERE A CASE FOR CHANGE?

Abstract

IntroductionA greater emphasis has been placed on fracture related infection (FRI) orthopaedic practice as a separate entity in recent years. Since the publication of the FRI consensus definition and guidelines, there has been an increase in the published literature on the topic and a move towards considering FRI as separate from general orthopaedic practice and as work that requires a more specialist approach. The aim of this study was to audit current FRI practice in the UK.Materials & MethodsOrthopaedic practice related to FRI in the UK was audited using a semi-structured questionnaire. Respondents were from a range of institutions, specialties and clinical roles to reflect the multi-disciplinary nature of treating FRI. The online tool SurveyMonkey was used to share the survey at the 2022 annual meeting of the British Limb Reconstruction Society. Twenty-one questions were asked in the following domains: scope of practice, theatre and clinic capacity, availability of the multidisciplinary team, renumeration for work and scope of FRI networks.ResultsOf the 36 respondents, the majority (64%) worked in a major trauma centre. In the majority of cases, bone infection was managed by the limb reconstruction team (68%) although in most centres the wider team was often also involved including the general on call, the trauma team and the arthroplasty team. When referrals were made elsewhere, this was usually done to known individuals rather than established FRI networks. 80% of respondents said that there was a bone infection MDT in their unit and this usually met weekly. This usually included orthopaedics and microbiology but plastics in only 43% of cases and radiology in only 23% of cases. Most respondents said that the lack of funding and appropriate tariffs were the main barrier to FRI management locally (62%) and nationally (83%). Most respondents (83%) said that bone infection practice should be centralised. The overwhelming majority of this cohort (90%) said that patient outcomes would be improved by cases being managed in dedicated centres.ConclusionsThere is variation in practice for the management of bone infection in the UK. This reflects the lack of clear national guidelines and the lack of established networks for management and onward referral. There is agreement that patient outcomes would be improved by more formal networks and specialised centres but also recognition that remuneration is a significant barrier to implementing change. This survey reflects practice in units with an interest in limb reconstruction and bone infection. Further work is needed to evaluate practice across district general hospitals in the UK and to build consensus around best practice and national strategies for improved care.