PURPOSE Emergency laparotomy (EL) encompasses a high-risk group of operations, which are increasingly performed on a heterogeneous population of patients, making preoperative risk assessment potentially difficult. The UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) recently produced a risk predictive tool for EL that has not yet been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate and potentially improve the NELA tool for mortality prediction after EL. METHODOLOGY We reviewed computer and paper records of EL patients from May 2012 to June 2017 at Middlemore Hospital (New Zealand). The inclusion criteria mirrored the UK NELA. We examined the NELA, Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II), and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs risk predictive tools for 30-day mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess calibration, and the c statistic, to evaluate discrimination (accuracy) of the tools. We added the modified frailty index (mFI) and nutrition to improve the accuracy of risk predictive tools. RESULTS A total of 758 patients met the inclusion criteria, with an observed 30-day mortality of 7.9%. The NELA was the only well calibrated tool, with predicted 30-day mortality of 7.4% (p = 0.22). When combined with mFI and nutritional status, the c statistic for NELA improved from 0.83 to 0.88. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs, APACHE-II, and P-POSSUM had lower c statistics, albeit also showing an improvement (0.84, 0.81, and 0.74, respectively). CONCLUSION We have demonstrated the NELA tool to be most predictive of mortality after EL. The NELA tool would therefore facilitate preoperative risk assessment and operative decision making most precisely in EL. Future research should consider adding mFI and nutritional status to the NELA tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV; Retrospective observational cohort study.

Patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) is an initiative that allows patients to initiate hospital follow-up appointments on an 'as required' basis compared with the traditional 'physician-initiated' model. The main principle is to reduce inappropriate regular follow-up appointments. In this systematic review, we attempt to address its efficacy for outpatient secondary level care. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, an electronic literature search was performed independently by two authors using pre-defined search terms across EMBASE, Ovid MedLine, PubMed, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library databases. Articles were included if they specifically evaluated any aspect of PIFU. Studies evaluating non-outpatient-based, primary level-based and nurse-led clinic appointments were excluded. A total of 747 articles was reviewed, and six were finally included for the systematic review. Three studies analysed efficacy of PIFU with regards to rheumatological disease and found that there was no deleterious clinical effect and a trend towards increased satisfaction and quality of life including lower costs in the PIFU group. Two studies looked at PIFU and inflammatory bowel disease and identified some clinical benefit and lower costs and equivalent satisfaction and QoL with the PIFU group. A further study looked at PIFU in stage 1 breast cancer and did not find any significant differences in outcomes. There is evidence to suggest that PIFU systems result in fewer overall outpatient appointments in secondary care led services while maintaining equivalent if not better patient satisfaction, quality of life and clinical outcomes across a range of chronic conditions.

Abstract. Background: To assess using a retrospective case control study, whether patients undergoing primary, elective total hip or knee arthroplasty who receive blood transfusion have a higher rate of post-operative infection compared to those who do not.Materials and Methods: Data on elective primary total hip or knee arthroplasty patients, including patient characteristics, co-morbidities, type and duration of surgery, blood transfusion, deep and superficial infection was extracted from the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI). Logistic regression analysis was used to compare deep infection and superficial infection in blood-transfused and non-transfused cohorts.Results: Of the 27892 patients identified, 3098 (11.1%) received blood transfusion (TKA 9.7%; THA 13.1%). Overall, the rate of superficial infection (SI) was 0.5% and deep infection (DI) was 1.1%. The infection rates in the transfused cohort were SI 1.0% and DI 1.6%, and in the non-transfused cohort were SI 0.5% and DI 1.0%. The transfused cohort had an increased risk of superficial infection (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.9 [95% CI 1.2-2.9, p-value 0.005]) as well as deep infection (adjusted OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.2, p-value 0.008]).Conclusion: The odds of superficial and deep wound infection are significantly increased in primary, elective total hip and knee arthroplasty patients who receive blood transfusion compared to those who did not. This study can potentially help in reducing periprosthetic hip or knee infections.

Objective:  Many rheumatology patients report exacerbation of joint symptoms with weather changes. We report the first of a two‐part study on the influence of weather on rheumatological conditions. This survey aims to describe perceived weather sensitivity in our patient population. Methods:  Two hundred rheumatology patients seen consecutively in a tertiary hospital were given a 10‐item questionnaire (Jamieson). This questionnaire has been well validated with good test‐retest reliability (r = 0.91) and ability to distinguish patients with weather sensitivity. New patients and soft tissue clinic patients were not included. Results:  Seventy‐four percent of patients reported weather sensitivity, with humidity and low temperature reported most frequently as being associated with worsening of symptoms (66% and 72%, respectively). Seventy percent of weather sensitive subjects described pain exacerbation prior and/or during weather changes. Various rheumatological conditions had similar rates of weather sensitivity, except fibromyalgia which reported 100% weather sensitivity. Conclusion:  A significant proportion of rheumatology patients report weather sensitivities. Further studies would be useful to further explore actual versus perceived effects of weather as this may have behavioural, housing and medical implications. Our discussion includes a brief summary of current literature and various postulates why patients may have increased weather sensitivity.

Background: General practitioners with specialty interests (GPwSIs) have been an emerging entity in the last decade or so and aim to improve patient's access to specialist level care in the primary care setting. This is achieved by them providing equivalent quality and outcomes to secondary consultant-led services, while not necessarily providing the same breadth of clinical care as them. In this systematic review, we attempt to address their efficacy for surgical procedures and specialties. Methods: PRISMA guidelines were followed and an electronic literature search was performed independently by two authors using predefined search terms across EMBASE, Ovid MedLine, PubMed, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library databases. A total of 817 articles were reviewed after which only six were included for the systematic review. Results: Of the six articles selected, three studies analysed efficacy of GPwSIs with regard to surgical excision of skin lesions. One study looked at the economic evaluation of a GPwSI-led dermatology service in primary care and included GPwSIs carrying out skin excisions. The remaining two included studies were from the same institution and evaluated hernia repairs at a single centre general practitioner practice. Conclusion: There is generally, a paucity of evidence looking at the efficacy of GPwSIs for surgical procedures. While they seem to provide an acceptable standard of specialist care in the primary care setting, they do not appear to save money. However, they provide an alternative workforce and the improved access to care that results from it may offset their higher costs.