Search

Introduction Missed fractures are the most frequent diagnostic error attributed to clinicians in UK emergency departments and a significant cause of patient morbidity. Recently, advances in computer vision have led to artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced model developments, which can support clinicians in the detection of fractures. Previous research has shown these models to have promising effects on diagnostic performance, but their impact on the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in the National Health Service (NHS) setting has not yet been fully evaluated.Methods and analysis A dataset of 500 plain radiographs derived from Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) NHS Foundation Trust will be collated to include all bones except the skull, facial bones and cervical spine. The dataset will be split evenly between radiographs showing one or more fractures and those without. The reference ground truth for each image will be established through independent review by two senior musculoskeletal radiologists. A third senior radiologist will resolve disagreements between two primary radiologists. The dataset will be analysed by a commercially available AI tool, BoneView (Gleamer, Paris, France), and its accuracy for detecting fractures will be determined with reference to the ground truth diagnosis. We will undertake a multiple case multiple reader study in which clinicians interpret all images without AI support, then repeat the process with access to AI algorithm output following a 4-week washout. 18 clinicians will be recruited as readers from four hospitals in England, from six distinct clinical groups, each with three levels of seniority (early-stage, mid-stage and later-stage career). Changes in the accuracy, confidence and speed of reporting will be compared with and without AI support. Readers will use a secure web-based DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) viewer (www.raiqc.com), allowing radiograph viewing and abnormality identification. Pooled analyses will be reported for overall reader performance as well as for subgroups including clinical role, level of seniority, pathological finding and difficulty of image.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the UK Healthcare Research Authority (IRAS 310995, approved on 13 December 2022). The use of anonymised retrospective radiographs has been authorised by OUH NHS Foundation Trust. The results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numbers This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN19562541) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06130397). The paper reports the results of a substudy of STEDI2 (Simulation Training for Emergency Department Imaging Phase 2).

Objectives To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery.Design Two-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study.Setting National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals.Participants Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers.Intervention Usual care: usual NHS care. Experimental: usual NHS care plus a caregiver–patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions.Randomisation and blinding Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding.Main outcome measures Data collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals.Results 102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable.Conclusions The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient–caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site’s ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT.Trial registration number ISRCTN13270387.

Objectives To explore patient and staff experience of best-practice rehabilitation advice (one session of face-to-face self-management advice with up to two additional optional sessions) compared with progressive functional exercise (up to six sessions of face-to-face physiotherapy) after ankle fracture.Design The study drew on phenomenology using interviews and a focus group.Setting Participants were from three NHS Trusts in England, UK.Participants A purposive sample of 20 patients with ankle (malleolar) fractures from the Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation-pilot trial (now completed) were interviewed (median 50 min) from May 2019 to January 2020. They were 6 months post injury, over 50 years of age, (median 66, 12 females) and had received surgical or non-surgical treatment (seven internal fixation surgery, seven close contact casting, six walking boot). A focus group of five physiotherapists who had provided the study interventions (2.5 hours) was undertaken.Results The findings show the acceptability of both interventions through the themes, ‘being helped’ (for patients) and ‘developing expertise’ (for staff) with subthemes of choosing and progressing. Progressive exercise added value with a perceived increase in strength, motion, ability to undertake activities and continued use of the workbook. Both staff and patients valued physiotherapy expertise demonstrated through interpersonal skills, advice, individualised exercise plans and active monitoring of progression. Best practice advice was particularly helpful in the early stages of recovery and with the use of mobility aids.Conclusion Both interventions were acceptable but progressive exercise was highly valued by patients. Developing expertise through experiential learning enabled staff to facilitate progression. Adjustments to the workbook and the addition of exercises for continued recovery in the best practice advice would enhance a future study. Research during treatment provision may provide further insights into the challenges of facilitating progression of exercise.Trial registration ISRCTN16612336; AFTER-pilot trial).

Objective The aim of the Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation (AFTER) study, a multicentre external pilot parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT), was to assess feasibility of a definitive trial comparing rehabilitation approaches after ankle fracture.Setting Five UK National Health Service hospitals.Participants Participants were aged 50 years and over with an ankle fracture requiring immobilisation for at least 4 weeks.Interventions Participants were allocated 1:1 via a central web-based randomisation system to: (1) best practice advice (one session of physiotherapy, up to two optional additional advice sessions) or (2) progressive exercise (up to six sessions of physiotherapy).Primary outcome measures Feasibility: (1) participation rate, (2) intervention adherence and (3) retention.Results Sixty-one of 112 (54%) eligible participants participated, exceeding progression criteria for participation of 25%. Recruitment progression criteria was 1.5 participants per site per month and 1.4 was observed. At least one intervention session was delivered for 28/30 (93%) of best practice advice and 28/31 (90%) of progressive exercise participants, exceeding the 85% progression criteria. For those providing follow-up data, the proportion of participants reporting performance of home exercises in the best practice advice and the progressive exercise groups at 3 months was 20/23 (87%) and 21/25 (84%), respectively. Mean time from injury to starting physiotherapy was 74.1 days (95% CI 53.9 to 94.1 days) for the best practice advice and 72.7 days (95% CI 54.7 to 88.9) for the progressive exercise group. Follow-up rate (6-month Olerud and Molander Ankle Score) was 28/30 (93%) for the best practice advice group and 26/31 (84%) in the progressive exercise group with an overall follow-up rate of 89%.Conclusions This pilot RCT demonstrated that a definitive trial would be feasible. The main issues to address for a definitive trial are intervention modifications to enable earlier provision of rehabilitation and ensuring similar rates of follow-up in each group.Trial registration number ISRCTN16612336.

Introduction Patients with rib fractures commonly experience significant acute pain and are at risk of hypoxia, retained secretions, respiratory failure and death. Effective analgesia improves these outcomes. There is widespread variation in analgesic treatments given to patients including oral, intravenous and epidural routes of administration. Erector spinae plane (ESP) blockade, a novel regional analgesic technique, may be effective, but high-quality evidence is lacking.Methods and analysis To determine if a definitive trial of ESP blockade in rib fractures is possible, we are conducting a multicentre, randomised controlled pilot study with feasibility and qualitative assessment. Fifty adult patients with rib fractures will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to ESP blockade with multimodal analgesia or placebo ESP blockade with multimodal analgesia. Participants and outcome assessors will be blinded. The primary feasibility outcomes are recruitment rate, retention rate and trial acceptability assessed by interview.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Oxford B Research Ethics Committee on 22 February 2022 (REC reference: 22/SC/0005). All participants will provide written consent. Trial results will be reported via peer review and to grant funders.Trial registration number ISRCTN49307616.

IntroductionIn the UK, 150 000 people every year experience mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy. Typically patients are offered a range of treatment options such as exercise, electrotherapy, injections and surgery. With large variations in current practice, there is a pressing need to establish which treatments are effective and which are not. This is the protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of platelet rich plasma (PRP) versus placebo injection for patients with Achilles tendinopathy.Methods and analysisAdult patients with mid-substance Achilles tendinopathy for longer than 3 months will be screened. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by centre and bilateral presentation. Participants will be allocated to either a single PRP injection or placebo injection. A minimum of 240 patients will be recruited into the study; this number will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 12 points in Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles score at 6 months. Quality of life, pain and complications data will be collected at baseline, 2-week, 3-month and 6-month post-randomisation. The differences between treatment groups will be assessed on an intention-to-treat basis.Ethics, registration and disseminationThis trial was funded by Versus Arthritis and commenced on 1 September 2015 (Versus Arthritis 20831). National Research Ethic Committee approved this study on 30 October 2015 (15/WM/0359). It was registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry with reference number ISRCTN 13254422 on 28 October 2015. The first site opened to recruitment on 27 April 2016 and the trial was in active recruitment at the point of submitting the protocol paper. The results of this trial will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will inform clinical practice with regard to the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy.

Introduction Hip fracture is a serious injury in adults, especially those aged over 60 years. The most common type of hip fracture (displaced intracapsular) is treated for the majority of patients with a partial hip replacement (hemiarthroplasty). The hemiarthroplasty implant can be fixed to the bone with or without bone cement. Cement is the current recommended technique but recently some risks have been identified, which could potentially be avoided by using uncemented implants. Controversy, therefore, remains about which type of hemiarthroplasty offers patients the best outcomes.This is the protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing cemented hemiarthroplasty versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for patients 60 years and over with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture.Methods and analysis Multicentre (a minimum of seven UK hospitals), multisurgeon, parallel group, two-arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 60 years and older with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty surgery are eligible. Participants will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to either a cemented hemiarthroplasty or a modern hydroxyapatite coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Otherwise all care will be in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. A minimum of 1128 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a 0.075-point difference in the primary endpoint: health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels) at 4 months postinjury. The treatment effect will be estimated using a two-sided t-test adjusted for age, gender and cognitive impairment based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications including revision surgery and cause, mobility status, residential status, health-related quality of life at 1 and 12 months and health resource use. A within-trial economic analysis will be conducted.Ethics, dissemination and funding Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approved the feasibility phase on 2 December 2016 (16/WA/0351) and the definitive trial on 22 November 2017 (17/WA/0383). This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit (PB-PG-0215–36043 and PB-PG-1216–20021). A manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal will be prepared and the results shared with patients via local mechanisms at participating centres.Trial registration number ISRCTN18393176

Objective To determine research priorities for the management of broken bones of the upper limb in people over 50, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/setting A national (UK) research priority setting partnership.Participants People aged 50 and over who have experienced a fracture of the upper limb, carers involved in their care, family and friends of patients, healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of these patients.Methods Using a multiphase methodology in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 15 months (September 2017 to December 2018), a national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties. These were amalgamated into a smaller number of research questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 25 questions was taken to a multi-stakeholder workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.Results There were 1898 original uncertainties submitted by 328 respondents to the first survey. These original uncertainties were refined into 51 research questions of which 50 were judged to be true uncertainties following a review of the research evidence. There were 209 respondents to the second (interim prioritisation) survey. The top 10 priorities encompass a broad range of uncertainties in management and rehabilitation of upper limb fractures.Conclusions The top 10 UK research priorities highlight uncertainties in how we assess outcomes, provide information, achieve pain control, rationalise surgical intervention, optimise rehabilitation and provide psychological support. The breadth of these research areas highlights the value of this methodology. This work should help to steer research in this area for the next 5–10 years and the challenge for researchers now is to refine and deliver answers to these research priorities.

Introduction Ankle fractures result in significant morbidity in adults, with prognosis worsening with increasing age. Previous trials have not found evidence supporting supervised physiotherapy sessions, but these studies have not focused on older adults or tailored the exercise interventions to the complex needs of this patient group. The Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation study is a pilot randomised controlled trial to assess feasibility of a later definitive trial comparing best-practice advice with progressive functional exercise for adults aged 50 years and over after ankle fracture.The main objectives are to assess: (i) patient engagement with the trial, measured by the participation rate of those eligible; (ii) establish whether the interventions are acceptable to participants and therapists, assessed by intervention adherence levels, participant interviews and a therapist focus group; (iii) participant retention in the trial, measured by the proportion of participants providing outcome data at 6 months; (iv) acceptability of measuring outcomes at 3 and 6 month follow-up.Methods and analysis A multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. At least 48 patients aged 50 years and over with an ankle fracture requiring surgical management, or non-operative management by immobilisation for at least 4 weeks, will be recruited from a minimum of three National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Participants will be allocated 1:1 via a central web-based randomisation system to: (i) best-practice advice (one session of face-to-face self-management advice delivered by a physiotherapist and up to two optional additional sessions) or (ii) progressive functional exercise (up to six sessions of individual face-to-face physiotherapy). An embedded qualitative study will include one-to-one interviews with up to 20 participants and a therapist focus group.Ethics and dissemination Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee (18/SC/0281) gave approval on 2nd July 2018.Trial registration number ISRCTN16612336

Objectives Treatment of open fractures is complex and patients may require muscle and skin grafts. The aim of this study was to gain a greater understanding of patient experience of recovery from open fracture of the lower limb 2–4 years postinjury.Design A phenomenological approach was used to guide the design of the study. Interviews took place between October 2016 and April 2017 in the participants’ own homes or via telephone.Setting England, UK.Participants A purposive sample of 25 patients were interviewed with an age range of 26–80 years (median 51), 19 were male and six female, and time since injury was 24–49 months (median 35 months).Results The findings identified a focus on struggling to recover as participants created a new way of living, balancing moving forward with accepting how they are, while being uncertain of the future and experiencing cycles of progress and setbacks. This was expressed through three themes: (i) ‘being disempowered’ with the emotional impact of dependency and uncertainty, (ii) ‘being changed’ and living with being fragile and being unable to move freely and (iii) ‘being myself’ with a loss of self, feeling and looking different, alongside recreation of self in which they integrated the past, present and future to find meaningful ways of being themselves.Conclusion This study identified the long-term disruption caused by serious injury, the hidden work of integration that is required in order to move forward and maximise potential for recovery. Supportive strategies that help people to self-manage their everyday emotional and physical experience of recovery from injury are required. Research should focus on developing and testing effective interventions that provide support and self-management within a holistic rehabilitation plan.Trial registration number Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33756652; Post-results.

Objective To predict functional outcomes 6 months after ankle fracture in people aged ≥60 years using post-treatment and 6-week follow-up data to inform anticipated recovery, and identify people who may benefit from additional monitoring or rehabilitation.Design Prognostic model development and internal validation.Setting 24 National Health Service hospitals, UK.Methods Participants were the Ankle Injury Management clinical trial cohort (n=618) (ISRCTN04180738), aged 60–96 years, 459/618 (74%) female, treated surgically or conservatively for unstable ankle fracture. Predictors were injury and sociodemographic variables collected at baseline (acute hospital setting) and 6-week follow-up (clinic). Outcome measures were 6-month postinjury (primary) self-reported ankle function, using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), and (secondary) Timed Up and Go (TUG) test by blinded assessor. Missing data were managed with single imputation. Multivariable linear regression models were built to predict OMAS or TUG, using baseline variables or baseline and 6-week follow-up variables. Models were internally validated using bootstrapping.Results The OMAS baseline data model included: alcohol per week (units), postinjury EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS), sex, preinjury walking distance and walking aid use, smoking status and perceived health status. The baseline/6-week data model included the same baseline variables, minus EQ-5D-3L VAS, plus five 6-week predictors: radiological malalignment, injured ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion range of motion, and 6-week OMAS and EQ-5D-3L. The models explained approximately 23% and 26% of the outcome variation, respectively. Similar baseline and baseline/6 week data models to predict TUG explained around 30% and 32% of the outcome variation, respectively.Conclusions Predictive accuracy of the prognostic models using commonly recorded clinical data to predict self-reported or objectively measured ankle function was relatively low and therefore unlikely to be beneficial for clinical practice and counselling of patients. Other potential predictors (eg, psychological factors such as catastrophising and fear avoidance) should be investigated to improve predictive accuracy.Trial registration number ISRCTN04180738; Post-results.

Objective To explore whether older adults with isolated hip fractures benefit from treatment in high-volume hospitals.Design Population-based observational study.Setting All acute hospitals in California, USA.Participants All individuals aged ≥65 that underwent an operation for an isolated hip fracture in California between 2007 and 2011. Patients transferred between hospitals were excluded.Primary and secondary outcomes Quality indicators (time to surgery) and patient outcomes (length of stay, in-hospital mortality, unplanned 30-day readmission, and selected complications).Results 91 401 individuals satisfied the inclusion criteria. Time to operation and length of stay were significantly prolonged in low-volume hospitals, by 1.96 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.73) and 0.70 (0.38 to 1.03) days, respectively. However, there were no differences in clinical outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, 30-day re-admission, and rates of pneumonia, pressure ulcers, and venous thromboembolism.Conclusions These data suggest that there is no patient safety imperative to limit hip fracture care to high-volume hospitals.