Women in trauma and orthopaedics: are we losing them at the first hurdle?

INTRODUCTION

Diversity in the healthcare workforce is associated with improved performance and patient-reported outcomes. Gender disparity in Trauma and Orthopaedics (T&O) is well recognised. The aim of this study was to compare factors that influence career choice in T&O between male and female final-year students. Furthermore, the trend of representation of women in T&O over the last decade was also compared with other surgical specialities.

METHODS

An online survey of final-year students who attended nationally advertised T&O courses over a 2-year period was conducted. Data from NHS digital was obtained to assess gender diversity in T&O compared with other surgical specialities.

RESULTS

A total of 414 students from 13 UK medical schools completed the questionnaire. Compared with male students (34.2%), a significantly higher proportion of women (65.8%) decided against a career in T&O, p<0.001. Factors that dissuaded a significantly higher percentage of women included gender bias, technical aspects of surgery, unsociable hours, on-call commitments, inadequate undergraduate training and interest in another specialty (p<0.05). Motivating factors for choosing a career in T&O were similar between both sexes. T&O was the surgical specialty with the lowest proportion of women at both consultant and trainee level over the last decade.

CONCLUSION

T&O remains an unpopular career choice among women. To enhance recruitment of women in T&O, future strategies should be directed toward medical students. Universities, orthopaedic departments and societies must work collaboratively to embed culture change, improve the delivery of the undergraduate curriculum, and facilitate students' exposure to operating theatres and female role models.

172 Septic Arthritis of the Wrist: Audit of Management and Awareness of National Guidelines Amongst Orthopaedic Surgeons in a District General Hospital

Aim

Septic arthritis (SA) of the wrist is relatively uncommon and, in contrast to SA of large joints, can safely be managed with serial aspiration to dryness rather than traditional open surgical drainage. This is supported by BSR & BHPR, BOA, RCGP and BSAC guidelines for management of the hot swollen joint in adults. We conducted an audit of management of suspected wrist SA patients and surveyed awareness of relevant guidelines amongst orthopaedic surgeons.

Method

Electronic records of patients referred as suspected wrist SA to the orthopaedic department over a six-month period (August 2020 to February 2021) were retrospectively reviewed. Data analysis included demographics, diagnosis, management, and treatment outcome.

In addition, knowledge of wrist SA management amongst orthopaedic medical staff was determined via a multiple-choice questionnaire.

Results

11 patients were identified (5M:6F, age range 62–91).

6/11 patients underwent wrist aspiration though only one patient had a positive gram stain.

No patients underwent serial aspiration as advocated by national guidelines.

2/11 patients underwent formal surgical washout in theatre.

15 orthopaedic doctors were surveyed (8 Junior Doctors, 4 Registrars, 3 Consultants). 2/15 were aware of national guidelines. 11/15 chose joint aspiration as an initial investigation. 2/15 considered repeated joint aspiration to dryness as definitive management.

Conclusions

This audit highlighted low compliance with national guidelines when managing wrist SA, although this did not adversely affect patient outcomes. We demonstrated lack of awareness of relevant guidelines amongst orthopaedic surgeons. We propose relevant teaching and incorporation of national guidelines into Trust policy.

Informed consent in orthopaedics

Aims

Informed patient consent is a legal prerequisite endorsed by multiple regulatory institutions including the Royal College of Surgeons and the General Medical Council. It is also recommended that the provision of written information is available and may take the form of a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) with multiple PILs available from leading orthopaedic institutions. PILs may empower the patient, improve compliance, and improve the patient experience. The national reading age in the United Kingdom is less than 12 years and therefore PILs should be written at a readability level not exceeding 12 years old. We aim to assess the readability of PILs currently provided by United Kingdom orthopaedic institutions.

Patients and Methods

The readability of PILs on 58 common conditions provided by seven leading orthopaedic associations in January 2017, including the British Orthopaedic Association, British Hip Society, and the British Association of Spinal Surgeons, was assessed. All text in each PIL was analyzed using readability scores including the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) test.

Results

The mean FKGL was 10.4 (6.7 to 17.0), indicating a mean reading age of 15 years. The mean SMOG score was 12.8 (9.7 to 17.9) indicating a mean reading age of 17 years.

Conclusion

Orthopaedic-related PILs do not comply with the recommended reading age, with some requiring graduate-level reading ability. Patients do not have access to appropriate orthopaedic-related PILs. Current publicly available PILs require further review to promote patient education and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1253–9.