search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
SURGERY


specific level, which means that practice rarely changes despite best practice and an increasing body of research knowledge. GIRFT has decided that an audit of patients with SSIs should be undertaken to examine the care of patients peri- and postoperatively. Data will be collected prospectively and retrospectively by volunteers (doctors in training). The prospective data is being collected from May 2017 to October 2017 and retrospectively from November 2016 to May 2017. The key intention is for clinicians to examine SSIs per surgical team and decide whether key aspects of best practice are being followed.


This audit based initiative will encourage the scrutiny of SSIs and will not interfere with the surveillance data which is regularly collected and submitted to Public Health England.


Outcomes from GIRFT


It is too early to give more than a passing glance at the outcome data although there is to be a study on the original orthopaedic project, starting later this year. There are already rumours of high value cash savings being bandied about, and it may well be true as Trusts re-negotiate the cost of their orthopaedic implants (cost of plates, range £22-£1,583; cost of rods £72-£1,066; cost of cages and spacers £22- £1,583), their post –operative care costs which vary from £531- £2,803 and the cost of loan kit sent into the Trust by the medical device


companies, range of costs (200k average - £760 max per site). The claims made by the orthopaedic project are significant. They cite improved patient outcomes, improved patient experience and safety, re-empowered clinicians, increased functional bed capacity, a reduced flow of work to independent providers, significant taxpayer savings and an overall improvement in Trust balance sheets. They also identify reduced complications and re-admissions, reduced length of stay, better directed care pathways, a more productive workforce and reduction in locum costs as well as a reduction in procurement and loan kit costs.


Conclusion


Based on the above outcomes it is hard to see why this data is not being shouted from the hill tops - as after so many years when


such small marginal costs have been saved from some specialty budgets, these are possibly massive.


They are not without challenges, these local projects. Primary care, social care difficulties, reduced hospital staffing across teams including trainee doctor hours, reduced beds and even scarcer resources year on year reduce the opportunities for these actions to work but if they can, and they release cash and add quality and value to a patients experience – bring them on. We await the results with hope and patience.


CSJ References


1. Department of Health England. Next Steps on the Five Year Forward View. March 2017 accessed at https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/NEXT-STEPS-ON-THE- NHS-FIVE-YEAR-FORWARD-VIEW.pdf


2. NHS Atlases of Variation in health and care accessed at https://improvement.nhs.uk/ resources/atlas-variation-health-and-care/ and http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/atlas-of-variation


3. British Orthopaedic Association. 2015 A national review of adult, elective orthopaedic services in England. Getting it Right First Time. Accessed at https://www.boa.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/GIRFT-National-Report- Mar15.pdf


4. Kings Fund. Tackling variations in clinical care. Assessing the Getting it right first time programme. June 2017, Nicholas Timmins. Accessed at https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/tackling- variations-clinical-care


SEPTEMBER 2017


WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM I


25


© Sylvain Sonnet


t


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72