Summary Background & aims International guidance advocates the avoidance of prolonged preoperative fasting due to its negative impact on perioperative hydration. This study aimed to assess the adherence to these guidelines for fasting in patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery in the East Midlands region of the UK. Methods This prospective audit was performed over a two-month period at five National Health Service (NHS) Trusts across the East Midlands region of the UK. Demographic data, admission and operative details, and length of preoperative fasting were collected on adult patients listed for emergency and elective surgery. Results Of the 343 surgical patients included within the study, 50% (n = 172) were male, 78% (n = 266) had elective surgery and 22% (n = 77) underwent emergency surgery. Overall median fasting times (Q1, Q3) were 16.1 (13.0, 19.4) hours for food and 5.8 (3.5, 10.7) hours for clear fluids. Prolonged fasting >12 h was documented in 73% (n = 250) for food, and 21% (n = 71) for clear fluids. Median fasting times from clear fluids and food were longer in the those undergoing emergency surgery when compared with those undergoing elective surgery: 13.0 (6.4, 22.6) vs . 4.9 (3.3, 7.8) hours, and 22.0 (14.0, 37.4) vs . 15.6 (12.9, 17.8) hours respectively, p < 0.0001. Conclusions Despite international consensus on the duration of preoperative fasting, patients continue to fast from clear fluids and food for prolonged lengths of time. Patients admitted for emergency surgery were more likely to fast for longer than those having elective surgery.

Background: Research has led to substantial improvement in health and quality of life. It is pertinent for doctors to participate in research to keep up with the advances of modern medicine and forms one of the seven pillars of clinical governance defined by the General Medical Council. However, clinicians face multiple barriers to participating in research. The objective of this study was to identify barriers in participation and to recommend solutions for better engagement in orthopaedic research. Methodology: Trauma and Orthopaedic consultants and junior doctors in Wales were asked to complete a web-based survey with 15 questions about barriers to participation and suggestions for increasing involvement in clinical research. Results: A total of 148 completed forms were received which included 60 consultants and 88 junior doctors. The response rate was 86%. The most frequently reported barriers to clinical research were time constraints, excess paperwork, lack of knowledge about research methods, and lack of awareness of ongoing research studies. Most participants were keen to be involved in research in the future. Majority responded that they would more likely take part in research activity if there were formal training sessions and more dedicated research sessions scheduled into their timetable. Need for more incentives and allocation of a research officer were other suggestions. Most orthopaedic staff recognised the relevance of research to their job/training. Conclusion: There are multiple perceived barriers to participating in research at all levels in the orthopaedic community; however, these could be mitigated by implementing simple measures.