Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):411–413.
As we evolve into an era of integrated care services, we have seen more frequent collaboration between trusts, community teams, allied health workers, and key stakeholders responsible for providing increasing levels of integrated care to our population. The integration of services delivering regionalized trauma care over the last decade within the UK has provided us with opportunities to learn from this process, and reasonably evaluate how this model could be emulated for elective orthopaedic surgery.
A national system of regional trauma networks was launched in England in 2012, designating one or more hospitals as major trauma centres (MTCs) in each region, establishing a ‘hub and spoke’ model.1 This reconfiguration has led to alterations to hospitals’ case mix, workloads, clinical processes, and orthopaedic training.1-4 The regionalization of services has improved quality of care (e.g. greater consultant-led care, faster imaging, improved compliance with guidelines), patient flow (reduced secondary hospital transfers), patient recovery outcome scores, and was associated with an increase in the odds of survival following major trauma.1,5
Despite significant improvement in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patient outcomes (reduced length of stay, pain, complications, and improved functional outcomes) over the last decade,6 there are still substantial variations in patient outcomes after adjusting for patient case mix and surgical factors across regions within the NHS.7 There is a national and international impetus for change, supported by the literature reporting superior care quality and efficiency by consolidating and ring-fencing high-volume orthopaedic elective care, with appropriate multidisciplinary expertise and suitably experienced surgeons, in particular for complex cases.8-13
Centralization of complex orthopaedic elective services within the UK was piloted in 2015,14 with more recent studies from the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) providing an exploratory analysis and hypothetical models of case redistribution in a network reconfiguration.15 Despite these early steps, or perhaps, in part, because of some of the methods employed, this arthroplasty network is yet to come to fruition. Evidence of the need for change is strong; there has been exponential growth in waiting lists without resolution,9 and there is potential for improvement in patient outcomes, collaborative research opportunities, and dissemination of best practice.
Yapp et al’s9 recent publication within The Bone & Joint Journal demonstrated a linear relationship between increased hospital case volume of revision total knee arthroplasty and relative risk reduction of re-revision at ten years follow-up. Furthermore, this association was independent of age, sex, comorbid health, socio-economic deprivation, individual surgeon volume, and infection status. The authors elaborated upon the many immeasurable system factors, which intuitively appear to be fundamental, including the value of multidisciplinary input for complex cases and experienced theatre teams.15
The NHS-England Trauma Networks have already facilitated the regular production of pragmatic, multicentre, randomized control trials through collaboration, including the WOLFF, WHIST, and WHITE collaboratives, among many others.16-21 While we eagerly await the current trauma networks’ collaborative trials,22,23 we should investigate how we can replicate this collaborative research strategy for our elective service.
We are beginning to see elective care transformation with the introduction of dedicated elective orthopaedic centres (EOCs) assimilating multiple trusts. None of these are more recent than the North Central London EOCs, or larger than the South West London EOC (SWLEOC), the highest volume joint arthroplasty centre in the UK.24,25 The genesis of elective orthopaedic networks, with or without designated EOCs, could bring the collective research elements together in the development of a robust research and education framework. This would strengthen research capabilities, increase participant numbers, while mirroring intercollegiate collaboration to further improve our orthopaedic elective care with patient benefits accruing. For example, collaborative data from the UK major trauma network has recently validated a new objective and patient-outcome-correlated Orthopaedic Trauma Society open fracture classification.26,27
There are, however, potential limitations to elective orthopaedic networks, which it would be remiss not to recognize or address. Preservation of co-existing/codependent services is paramount for any elective reconfiguration involving the integration of services. Fundamental to the success of the introduction of MTCs was the retention of non-specialist delivery of care, best demonstrated by equivocal quality of care for elderly hip fracture patients prior to and following the introduction of MTCs.28 We should continue to embrace each facet of musculoskeletal care while we look to encompass these new approaches.
With the increased burden of periprosthetic fractures and prosthetic infections,29,30 specialist hubs have been introduced in some regions across the UK, but not as a national entity. Although similar to experiences following the introduction of MTCs, remuneration concerns pose a threat to elective networks. Financial implications and net losses have been demonstrated for both specific trauma31,32 and elective33,34 work within the NHS over the last decade, heightening the importance of appropriate funding and incentives for receiving units. In addition, synonymous with the trauma reconfiguration, there is a challenge in initially determining the specialist units and surgeons. Collaborative EOCs may, however, provide resolution to this debate, providing the benefits of reduced procurement, experienced theatre staff, and ring-fenced pathways, while facilitating surgical access to more consultants and maintaining relative surgical autonomy.
While we must embrace this change, for orthopaedic surgeons there should be an impetus to clinically lead this transformation, where the clinicians’ knowledge and experience of the patient flows specific to each integrated care system are invaluable to the process. A clinically-agreed and clinically-led model would facilitate multidisciplinary working and clear network communication.35 In some geographical areas, such as London, UK, integrated care systems will require multiple network hubs for complex orthopaedic workload historically associated with specific units and their reputation for “surpraregional” referrals. There will be with little doubt faults and oversights throughout the process. However, it is integral to the introduction of each elective orthopaedic network that they are clinically led and bespoke to the individual integrated care system, as “no one-size-fits-all”.
Surgeons and providers have a responsibility to recognize the need for change. Healthcare commissioners must develop and adequately fund high-quality local to regional orthopaedic services for common major elective procedures, and stimulate innovative models of service delivery that drive-up proficiency and productivity through collaboration. We would encourage the warranted change in these processes to establish clear and integrated patient pathways, and allow network changes where they are appropriately based upon the literature and safe practice. It is time to evolve, and we must learn from and aspire to meet the successes of our colleagues who delivered the UK trauma networks.
References
1. Metcalfe D , Perry DC , Bouamra O , Salim A , Woodford M , Edwards A , et al. Regionalisation of trauma care in England . Bone Joint J . 2016 ; 98-B ( 9 ): 1253 – 1261 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
2. Hipps D , Jameson S , Murty A , Gregory R , Large D , Gregson J , et al. The effect of introducing a Trauma Network on patient flow, hospital finances and trainee operating . Injury . 2015 ; 46 ( 2 ): 195 – 200 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
3. Wordsworth M , Lawton G , Nathwani D , Pearse M , Naique S , Dodds A , et al. Improving the care of patients with severe open fractures of the tibia: the effect of the introduction of Major Trauma Networks and national guidelines . Bone Joint J . 2016 ; 98-B ( 3 ): 420 – 424 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Talbot C , Davis N , Majid I , Young M , Bouamra O , Lecky FE , et al. Fractures of the femoral shaft in children: national epidemiology and treatment trends in England following activation of major trauma networks . Bone Joint J . 2018 ; 100-B ( 1 ): 109 – 118 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
5. Moran CG , Lecky F , Bouamra O , Lawrence T , Edwards A , Woodford M , et al. Changing the system - major trauma patients and their outcomes in the NHS (england) 2008-17 . EClinicalMedicine . 2018 ; 2–3 : 13 – 21 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
6. Garriga C , Murphy J , Leal J , Price A , Prieto-Alhambra D , Carr A , et al. Impact of a national enhanced recovery after surgery programme on patient outcomes of primary total knee replacement: an interrupted time series analysis from “The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.” Osteoarthritis Cartilage . 2019 ; 27 ( 9 ): 1280 – 1293 . Google Scholar
7. Garriga C , Leal J , Sánchez-Santos MT , et al. Geographical variation in outcomes of primary hip and knee replacement . JAMA Netw Open . 2019 ; 2 ( 10 ): e1914325 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Gabor JA , Padilla JA , Feng JE , Anoushiravani AA , Slover J , Schwarzkopf R . A dedicated Revision total knee service: A surgeon’s perspective . Bone Joint J . 2019 ; 101-B ( 6 ): 675 – 681 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. Yapp LZ , Walmsley PJ , Moran M , Clarke JV , Simpson A , Scott CEH . The effect of hospital case volume on re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 4 ): 602 – 609 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
10. Karczewski D , Winkler T , Renz N , Trampuz A , Lieb E , Perka C , et al. A standardized interdisciplinary algorithm for the treatment of prosthetic joint infections . Bone Joint J . 2019 ; 101-B ( 2 ): 132 – 139 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
11. Ricciardi BF , Liu AY , Qiu B , Myers TG , Thirukumaran CP . What is the association between hospital volume and complications after revision Total joint arthroplasty: A large-database study . Clin Orthop . 2019 ; 477 ( 5 ): 1221 – 1231 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Liddle AD , Pandit H , Judge A , Murray DW . Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales . Bone Joint J . 2015 ; 97-B ( 11 ): 1506 – 1511 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
13. Liddle AD , Pandit H , Judge A , Murray DW . Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2016 ; 98-A ( 1 ): 1 – 8 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. Bloch B , Raglan M , Manktelow A , James P . The East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network: the future of revision arthroplasty? Bull R Coll Surg Engl . 2017 ; 99 ( 2 ): 66 – 70 . Google Scholar
15. Kalson NS , Mathews JA , Miles J , Bloch BV , Price AJ , Phillips JRA , et al. Provision of revision knee surgery and calculation of the effect of a network service reconfiguration: An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man . Knee . 2020 ; 27 ( 5 ): 1593 – 1600 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
16. Parker B , Petrou S , Masters JPM , Achana F , Costa ML . Economic outcomes associated with deep surgical site infection in patients with an open fracture of the lower limb . Bone Joint J . 2018 ; 100-B ( 11 ): 1506 – 1510 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
17. Petrou S , Parker B , Masters J , Achten J , Bruce J , Lamb SE , et al. Cost-effectiveness of negative-pressure wound therapy in adults with severe open fractures of the lower limb: evidence from the WOLLF randomized controlled trial . Bone Joint J . 2019 ; 101-B ( 11 ): 1392 – 1401 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
18. Png ME , Madan JJ , Dritsaki M , Achten J , Parsons N , Fernandez M , et al. Cost-utility analysis of standard dressing compared with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy among patients with closed surgical wounds following major trauma to the lower limb . Bone Joint J . 2020 ; 102-B ( 8 ): 1072 – 1081 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
19. Costa ML , Achten J , Knight R , et al. Effect of incisional negative pressure wound therapy vs standard wound dressing on deep surgical site infection after surgery for lower limb fractures associated with major trauma: The WHIST randomized clinical trial . JAMA . 2020 ; 323 ( 6 ): 519 – 526 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
20. Costa ML , Achten J , Bruce J , Tutton E , Petrou S , Lamb SE , et al. Effect of negative pressure wound therapy vs standard wound management on 12-month disability among adults with severe open fracture of the lower limb: the WOLLF randomized clinical trial . JAMA . 2018 ; 319 ( 22 ): 2280 – 2288 : 2280 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
21. Griffin XL , Achten J , O’Connor HM , Cook JA , Costa ML , WHiTE Four Investigators . Effect on health-related quality of life of the X-Bolt dynamic plating system versus the sliding hip screw for the fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip in adults: the WHiTE Four randomized clinical trial . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 2 ): 256 – 263 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
22. Flett L , Adamson J , Barron E , Brealey S , Corbacho B , Costa ML , et al. A multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of external frame versus internal locking plate for complete articular pilon fracture fixation in adults . Bone Jt Open . 2021 ; 2 ( 3 ): 150 – 163 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
23. Masters J , Cook J , Achten J , Costa ML . A feasibility study of standard dressings versus negative-pressure wound therapy in the treatment of adult patients having surgical incisions for hip fractures: the WHISH randomized controlled trial . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B (( 4 ): 755 – 761 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
24. Judge A , Arden NK , Cooper C , Kassim Javaid M , Carr AJ , Field RE , et al. Predictors of outcomes of total knee replacement surgery . Rheumatology . 2012 ; 51 ( 10 ): 1804 – 1813 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
25. No listed authors . North London partners in health and care: Adult elective orthopaedic services: Decision-making business case partnership for Orthopaedic Excellence: North London. Draft version 0 1 . 2020 . https://conversation.northlondonpartners.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/200904_NLP-Orthopaedic-Care-Consultation-Report-v-0-17e.pdf ( date last accessed 8June2021). Google Scholar
26. Trompeter AJ , Furness H , Kanakaris NK , Costa ML . Classification of open fractures: the need to modernize . Bone Joint J . 2020 ; 102-B ( 11 ): 1431 – 1434 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
27. Trompeter AJ , Knight R , Parsons N , Costa ML . The Orthopaedic Trauma Society classification of open fractures . Bone Joint J . 2020 ; 102-B ( 11 ): 1469 – 1474 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. Metcalfe D , Gabbe BJ , Perry DC , Harris MB , Ekegren CL , Zogg CK , et al. Quality of care for patients with a fracture of the hip in major trauma centres: a national observational study . Bone Joint J . 2016 ; 98-B ( 3 ): 414 – 419 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
29. Maggs JL , Swanton E , Whitehouse SL , Howell JR , Timperley AJ , Hubble MJW , et al. B2 or not B2? That is the question: a review of periprosthetic fractures around cemented taper-slip femoral components . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 1 ): 71 – 78 . Google Scholar
30. Ross LA , Keenan OJF , Magill M , Brennan CM , Clement ND , Moran M , et al. Management of low periprosthetic distal femoral fractures . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 4 ): 635 – 643 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
31. Tissingh EK , Memarzadeh A , Queally J , Hull P . Open lower limb fractures in Major Trauma Centers - A loss leader? Injury . 2017 ; 48 ( 2 ): 353 – 356 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
32. Sabharwal S , Carter AW , Rashid A , Darzi A , Reilly P , Gupte CM . Cost analysis of the surgical treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus: an evaluation of the determinants of cost and comparison of the institutional cost of treatment with the national tariff . Bone Joint J . 2016 ; 98-B ( 2 ): 249 – 259 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
33. Vanhegan IS , Malik AK , Jayakumar P , Ul Islam S , Haddad FS . A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: The economic burden in relation to the national tariff . J Bone Joint Surg Br . 2012 ; 94-B ( 5 ): 619 – 623 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
34. Kallala RF , Vanhegan IS , Ibrahim MS , Sarmah S , Haddad FS . Financial analysis of revision knee surgery based on NHS tariffs and hospital costs: does it pay to provide a revision service? Bone Joint J . 2015 ; 97-B ( 2 ): 197 – 201 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
35. Ahmed SS , Haddad FS . Networks in orthopaedics . Bone Joint J . 2020 ; 102-B ( 3 ): 273 – 275 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
Funding statement
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to writing of the manuscript.
ICMJE COI statement
F. S. Haddad reports editorial board membership by The Bone & Joint Journal and the Annals of the Royal College Of Surgeons, consultancy and royalties from Smith & Nephew, Corin, MatOrtho, and Stryker, and payment for lectures (including service on speakers’ bureaus) from Smith & Nephew and Stryker, all of which are unrelated to this article.
© 2021 Author(s) et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
