header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON OR OPERATIVE PODIATRIST?



Abstract

Introduction: In 2005, 88 patients (19M/69 F, mean age 55) initially referred by their GP to a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon were seen by an Operative Podiatrist as a waiting list initiative. The mean delay between GP referral and clinic appointment was 632 days. The majority of patients were listed for a surgical procedure. The podiatrist left the Trust before any listed surgery was performed. The cohort was subsequently reviewed by a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon prior to surgical intervention, creating a unique opportunity to compare podiatric and orthopaedic input in one patient group

Materials & Methods: Casenotes and clinic correspondence were identified by merging clinic datasets & retrieved in 86/88 cases. Medical records and documentation of peripheral vascular status were examined as a standard of care. Correlation of surgical decision making was examined qualitatively

Results: Circulatory status was found to be documented in 0/58 (0%) records available for patients seen by the podiatrist and 70/74 (95%) seen by the orthopaedic surgeon respectively. Vascular investigation or referral was initiated by the orthopaedic surgeon in 8 patients listed for surgery by the podiatrist. The listed procedure was postponed or cancelled by the orthopaedic surgeon in a further 11 patients (5 medically unfit for listed surgery, 4 treated conservatively & 2 unable to obtain valid consent). No written or dictated contemporaneous records were made for 23/88 (26%) of index podiatric consultations. Clinically significant drug history was documented by the podiatrist in 1/13 (8%) cases recorded by the orthopaedic surgeon

Discussion: Reasonable correlation was observed between proposed surgical interventions for forefoot problems. Poor correlation was observed for mid- and/or hind foot problems. Avoidable adverse outcomes might have been anticipated in 19/88 (22%) patients listed for surgery by the Operative Podiatrist

Conclusion: The employment of unsupervised non-medical surgical practitioners in hospital based orthopaedic practice is not appropriate.

Correspondence should be addressed to: D. Singh, BOFAS, c/o BOA, The Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE.