Acquired diverticular disease, common in the large bowel, can also occur throughout the small bowel. This article reviews the prevalence, various presentations and management options for acquired small bowel diverticular disease.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo ascertain clinicians' knowledge of their patients when requesting radiological investigations, as required legally by UK government legislation ‘Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000’ (IRMER 2000), following the implementation of European Working Time Directive.DesignCross sectional survey.ParticipantsAll doctors requesting radiological requests every Monday, following the weekend on-call, over an 8-week period. There were no exclusion criteria.Main outcome measuresBaseline data analysis, including grade and specialty of requesting doctor, types of modality requested, knowledge of their patient, addressograph signature confirming identity and appropriateness of investigation.Results164 requests were received, the majority (61%) were made by Foundation Programme 1 (FP1) doctors and general medical specialties accounted for the highest proportion of requests (45%). Ultrasound scanning was the most frequently requested investigation (47%), closely followed by computed tomography (CT) scans (42%). Almost a third (30%) of requests were made by doctors who had not seen the patient to be investigated, predominantly by FP1 doctors (p=0.003) and more frequently by general medical specialties (p=0.001). Signatures were absent on 20% of the addressographs and overall, 10% of requests were deemed inappropriate.ConclusionsIn almost a third of radiological requests, doctors have not seen patients to be investigated, most likely as a result of shift working patterns. This does not fulfil the IRMER 2000 criteria and potentially exposes patients to unnecessary and inappropriate radiation.

IntroductionLower limb amputation is a life-changing event for patients and can be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Research into this critical part of vascular surgery is limited.The Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland (VSGBI) in partnership with the James Lind Alliance (JLA) process, aimed to identify and develop key research priorities for amputation. MethodsA modified JLA Priority Setting Partnership was undertaken, encompassing all vascular practice. Two separate Delphi processes to identify research topics were undertaken with healthcare professionals, patients and carers, led by the VSGBI. The priorities were then ranked by the same participants and amalgamated to produce a list for final prioritisation.The final consensus meeting was attended by patients, carers and healthcare professionals from a variety of backgrounds involved in the care of people with amputation. Using a nominal group technique, the top ten research priorities were identified. ResultsA total of 481 clinicians submitted 1231 research questions relating to vascular surgery in general. 63 amputation-specific research questions were combined into 5 final clinical questions. 373 patients or carers submitted 582 research questions related to vascular surgery in general. Nine amputation-specific research questions were identified after combining similar questions. Amalgamating both the clinician and patient questions, 12 questions were discussed at the final prioritisation meeting and the top 10 identified. These related to amputation prevention, supporting rehabilitation, improving clinical outcomes following amputation (preventing/treating pain including phantom limb pain and improving wound healing) and research into information provision for patients undergoing amputation. ConclusionThe top 10 research priority areas in vascular amputation provide guidance for researchers, clinicians, and funders on the direction of future research questions that are important to both healthcare professionals and patients.

INTRODUCTION Chronic, non-healing wounds are often characterised by an excessive, and detrimental, inflammatory response. We review our experience of using a combined topical steroid, antibiotic and antifungal preparation in the treatment of chronic wounds displaying abnormal and excessive inflammation. METHODS A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients being treated with a topical preparation containing a steroid (clobetasone butyrate 0.05%), antibiotic and antifungal at a tertiary wound healing centre over a ten-year period. Patients were selected as the primary treating physician felt the wounds were displaying excessive inflammation. Healing rates were calculated for before and during this treatment period for each patient. Changes in symptom burden (pain, odour and exudate levels) following topical application were also calculated. RESULTS Overall, 34 ulcers were identified from 25 individual patients (mean age: 65 years, range: 37-97 years) and 331 clinic visits were analysed, spanning a total time of 14,670 days (7,721 days 'before treatment' time, 6,949 days 'during treatment' time). Following treatment, 24 ulcers demonstrated faster rates of healing, 3 ulcers showed no significant change in healing rates and 7 were healing more slowly (p=0.0006). Treatment generally reduced the burden of pain and exudate, without affecting odour. CONCLUSIONS In normal wound healing, inflammation represents a transient but essential phase of tissue repair. In selected cases, direct application of a steroid containing agent has been shown to improve healing rates, presumably by curtailing this phase. Further evaluation is required to establish the role of preparations containing topical steroids without antimicrobials in the management of chronic wounds.