RESUMEN
Background Orthopaedic ankle fractures are common injuries that require careful assessment, management, and documentation to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Proper documentation plays a critical role in facilitating communication among healthcare professionals, ensuring accurate diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring patient progress. Moreover, it is essential for medico-legal purposes and quality improvement initiatives. This article presents a comprehensive clinical audit aimed at evaluating the quality of orthopaedic ankle fracture documentation within a healthcare setting. The aim of this project was to assess the quality and accuracy of ankle fracture documentation within a single centre against the audit standards set by the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Methods The study was a closed-loop audit utilising both retrospective and prospective analysis of ankle fracture clerking documentation performed by members of the trauma and orthopaedics team. Two audit cycles were completed in total; the first cycle was carried out in January 2020 where data were collected retrospectively from all orthopaedic admissions of ankle fractures. This was then re-audited against the BOA and NICE guidelines and presented to the local clinical governance meeting. A targeted educational intervention was then implemented with the goal of educating and reinforcing to key team members the documentation standards and the importance of accurate clerking documentation. The second cycle was carried out during July 2020 prospectively. All data were collected and collated with a total of nine data parameters analysed. Patients were included if they were skeletally mature and presented with closed malleolar and syndesmotic ankle injuries. Excluded patients were those who presented with open fractures, pilon fractures, and/or were skeletally immature. Data were then re-presented at the clinical governance meeting. Results A total of 23 patients were identified in the initial audit cycle and 22 patients in re-audit. On admission, it was found that 86% of patients presenting with ankle fractures had adequate documentation of their injury mechanism, which subsequently improved to 100% following the intervention. Similarly, there was a 71% improvement in precise documentation of clinical findings of ankle fractures. There was a marked improvement in the consistency of examination findings as well, with over 30% improvement in the rate of documentation for sensation status, skin integrity, circulation, and motor function. Results also revealed a 71% improvement in the documentation rates of vascular examinations where a Doppler ultrasound was used or pulses named in the documentation. Conclusion Through a targeted educational scheme focussing on the proposed documentation guidelines, we noted a significant improvement in documentation standards and accuracy of ankle fractures in the trauma and orthopaedic department. With ongoing educational input and reinforcement, team members can be supported to maintain a high level of documentation that meets all available standards, which will ultimately lead to improved patient care.
RESUMEN
In aortic root aneurysms, the challenge of a valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) procedure is to ensure durable aortic valve function without reintervention. Although the Bentall procedure defers the durability of valve function to the prosthesis, short- and long-term complications tend to be higher. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of VSRR and Bentall procedures in patients with aortic root aneurysms. A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed regarding the outcomes of the Bentall procedure compared with those of VSRR from the inception of the 2 procedures until July 2018. Studies with short- and long-term comparative data were included. An initial search yielded 9517 titles. Thirty-four studies were finally included for meta-analysis (all retrospective, non-randomized), comprising 7313 patients (2944 valve-sparing and 4369 Bentall procedures) with no evidence of publication bias. Operative mortality was found to be significantly lower in the VSRR group [odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.70; P < 0.001] despite overall higher cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. The 5-year survival rate was also more favourable in the VSRR group (OR 1.93 95% CI 1.15-3.23; P < 0.05). Significantly lower rates of cerebral thromboembolism (OR 0.668, 95% CI 0.477-0.935; P = 0.019) and heart block (OR 0.386, 95% CI 0.195-0.767; P = 0.007) were also found after VSRR. There was no significant difference in rates of reoperation between the groups at long-term follow-up (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75-2.33; P = 0.336). Meta-regression of patient and operative covariates yielded no influence on the main outcomes (P > 0.05). These findings suggest that VSRR is an appropriate and potentially better treatment option for a root aneurysm when the aortic valve is repairable.