Introduction of a virtual trauma meeting in response to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on all our lives, both personally and professionally, and in many ways has been a catalyst for change. Limitations on social gathering have called the wisdom of a conventional trauma meeting into question. We have initiated our virtual trauma meeting and report our early results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Daily morning trauma meetings are now conducted online. Following instigation, we collated the results of a feedback form completed online to assess the relative merits of a virtual trauma meeting. RESULTS: There were 27 responses received to the electronically administered virtual trauma meeting evaluation survey, from a range of trauma and orthopaedic department personnel. There were no concerns regarding patient safety or decision making and, apart from the quality of the audio (63% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied) positive feedback outweighed negative feedback in every category. At 74%, the majority of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied overall with the virtual trauma meeting. CONCLUSION: Trauma meetings can be safely conducted in a virtual environment with high standards of patient care maintained. Virtual trauma meeting offers service enhancements such as early subspecialty input and enhanced cross-site communication and rapid solution development to logistical difficulties. Adapting to conference call etiquette will enhance user experience and opportunity for training opportunities, but adequate investment in high-quality equipment is essential.

Standards in Operation Notes--Is It Time to Re-Emphasise Their Importance?

Guidelines exist for operation notes from the Royal College of Surgeons of England but compliance has been shown to be variable. The authors performed a closed loop audit of compliance with RCS standards in an Irish Plastic Surgery department. Thirty random operation notes were selected from a conserved pool of authors--before and after an educational intervention to increase awareness of the RCS guidelines. Following education, improvements were noted but also deteriorations--time increased from 12 (40%) to 16 (53%), emergency/elective status from none (0%) to 11 (36%), and operative diagnosis from seven (23%) to 21 (70%). However notably among the findings, surgeon's name decreased from 30 (100%) to 26 (86%), findings from 27 (90%) to 21 (53%) and tissue altered from 27 (90%) to 20 (66%). As some specialities are developing operation note standards specific to individual procedures, the findings are compared with previous similar published work.