Search

Background: Although telemedicine emerged more than 100 years ago, the recent pandemic underlined the role of remote assessment of different diseases. The diagnoses of cutaneous conditions, especially malignant lesions, have placed significant stress on the fast-track pathway for general practitioners (GPs), dermatologists, and plastic surgeons. The aim of the study was to compare (pre- and during the pandemic) the ability of professionals to face the challenge. Methods: The study was composed of 1943 consecutive patients (mean age 61.9 ± 18.3, 53.8% female) assessed by GPs, face-to-face (988 patients, 50.8%, between October 2019 and March 2020) and by virtual (video/photo) visits (955 patients, 49.2%, between March 2020 and October 2020) for skin lesions, and referred to secondary care via the two-week wait pathway for suspected skin malignancy. Results: The two groups had similar primary skin malignancies identification rates (24.3% vs. 22.1%, p = 0.25). The virtual visits identified squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) better than face-to-face consultations (p = 0.04), but identified basal cell carcinoma less-well (BCC, p = 0.02), whereas malignant melanoma (MM) was equally identified in the two groups (p = 0.13). There was no difference in the median breach time (days) of the two-week wait pathway (12, IQR = 6 vs. 12, IQR = 5, p = 0.16) in the two groups. Virtual assessments (by GPs) of skin lesions suspected of malignancy, and referred via the two-week wait pathway, increased the probability of diagnosing SCC by 42.9% (p = 0.03), while for malignant melanomas, face-to-face and virtual consultations were alike (p = 0.12). Conclusions: The equivalent outcomes in the management of skin cancers (SCC, MM) via the two-week pathway through virtual consultations and face-to-face appointments underline the role of telemedicine as a reliable alternative to face-to-face assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: As the incidence of HIV increases, the occupational risk of human immuno deficiency virus (HIV) infection also increases, leading to heightened anxiety within surgical practice. This study assessed the attitudes of surgeons treating HIV-infected patients. Methods: Seventy surgical trainees working in two district general hospitals were requested to complete a survey assessing their attitudes regarding the surgical management of HIV-infected patients. Results: A needle-stick injury was reported by 64% of the trainees. Fifty-four percent of trainees were concerned about acquiring HIV from patients when performing a surgical procedure. There was a significant difference between the number of trainees worried about treating a patient with HIV and the number of trainees wearing eye protection when performing invasive procedures ( p < 0.002). Eighty-six percent of trainees were confident they could treat HIV patients safely, but only 63% were aware of the hospital protocol for needle-stick injuries. Conclusion: There appears to be increasing concern among surgical trainees about carrying out surgical procedures on HIV-infected patients. Despite equipment being fully available, many trainees are not considering the full use of protective theatre garments to minimize the risk of HIV contamination. Further education and training is required to stress the importance of the increasing HIV prevalence and the need for safety during surgical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communication in the healthcare setup is essential for patient safety and for seamless delivery of services to the patient. We have adopted a novel way of communication in the form of a colour-coded visual aid in the form of a traffic light system to guide the patients through the course of their treatment. This shows the treatment plan in the form of Red, Amber, Green and Blue. The Red (Stop) denotes complete immobilisation with Splints, Amber (Proceed with caution) denotes active movements only, Green (Go forward) denotes Passive and Active movements and Blue shows when the patient can undergo guided weight bearing and strengthening exercises without a splint. The implementation of this system has created a streamlining of our protocol and improvement in the quality of the care we deliver. Level of Evidence: Level V (Therapeutic) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid microwave processing allows core biopsy results to be obtained within a 3- to 4-h time period. This study was designed to compare the accuracy and reporting time of microwave-processed breast biopsies with samples processed using traditional methods. Methods: Concordance of the preoperative biopsy report with postoperative histology for tumor type, grade, and detection of lymphovascular invasion was recorded for both techniques. Also reviewed were the time taken between day of biopsy and day of reporting, waiting time between biopsy and surgery, and number of preoperative outpatient appointments. Results: In the microwave-processed group (MG; n = 43), there was a 92% concordance rate between preoperative biopsy and postoperative histology for tumor type. In the traditional group (TG; n = 43), it was 80% ( P > 0.05). For tumor grade, there was a concordance rate of 64% in MG and 93% in TG ( P > 0.05). For detection of lymphovascular invasion, there was agreement in 88% of cases in MG and 67% in TG ( P > 0.05). Twenty-five patients from MG were informed of their diagnosis on the day of biopsy. There was no difference in waiting time from biopsy to surgery or number of preoperative outpatient appointments between MG and TG ( P > 0.05). Conclusions: Microwave processing allows safe and accurate immediate histological reporting. As a result, surgical management can be planned at the initial outpatient consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Climate change has serious consequences for our wellbeing. Healthcare systems themselves contribute significantly to our total carbon footprint, of which emissions from surgical practice are a major component. The primary sources of emissions identified are anaesthetic gases, disposal of single-use equipment, energy usage, and travel to and from clinical areas. We sought to quantify the waste generated by laser surgery which, to our knowledge, has not been previously reported. Methods: The carbon footprint of two laser centres operating within the United Kingdom were measured. The internationally recognised Greenhouse Gas Protocol was used as a guiding framework to classify sources of waste and conversion factors issued by the UK government were used to quantify emissions. Results: The total carbon footprints per day at each unit were 299.181 carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCo2eq) and 121.512 kgCO2eq, respectively. We found the carbon footprint of individual laser treatments to be approximately 15 kgCO2eq per procedure. The biggest overall contributor to the carbon footprint was found to be the emissions generated from staff, patient and visitor travel. This was followed by electricity usage, and indirect emissions from physical waste and laundry. Conclusions: The carbon footprint of laser procedures was considerably less than the average surgical operation in the UK. This initial study measures the carbon footprint of a laser center in a clinical setting and allows us to identify where improvements can be made to eventually achieve a net carbon zero health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]