RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Pre-operative fasting of patients awaiting non-emergency surgeries has been a common practice to minimise the risk of vomiting and aspiration at the time of induction of anaesthesia. Current standard guidelines recommend that this fasting time be limited to two hours for clear fluids and six hours for solids and semi-solids, as prolonged fasting has been shown to be harmful to the patient. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study of the fasting times of all adult trauma orthopaedic patients who were operated on under anaesthesia between June 1 and 30, 2023. Fifty patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. RESULTS: The minimum and maximum fasting times observed for solids and semi-solids were 9 and 24 hours, respectively. The mean fasting time for solids and semi-solids was 15.8 hours. The minimum and maximum fasting times observed for clear fluids were 2 and 20 hours, respectively. The mean fasting time for clear fluids was 10.5 hours. Elderly patients accounted for a significant portion of the patients, with 64% (n=32) being above the age of 70 years. CONCLUSION: A significant disparity was noted between the current fasting practices and the recommended standards set out by the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and the American Society of Anaesthesiologists. The knowledge of pre-operative fasting among the orthopaedic team doctors and the ward nursing staff was found to be inadequate.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Doctors are bound to obtain informed written consent prior to any form of surgical procedure on a patient. The General Medical Council (GMC) and the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) provide guidance on what constitutes valid consent. Failure to obtain valid and adequate consent can have legal ramifications. All relevant material risks associated with the surgery must be discussed with the patient during the consenting process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of the consenting practices for neck of femur fracture surgeries, covering a period of three months, from the 15th of April to the 15th of July 2023. We evaluated the consent forms of 100 patients, of which 63 were consent form-1 and were included in the study. The British Orthopaedics Association (BOA)-endorsed consent forms, together with the RCS and GMC guidance on consent, which were used as the standard for the audit. RESULTS: The majority of the consents were obtained by senior house officers (SHO) and core surgical trainees who did not have prior formal orthopaedic training (52.4%). The risks that were most frequently documented were infection, blood clots (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), and bleeding, with documentation rates of over 90%. Prosthetic joint dislocation following hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement was not mentioned in 22.2% of the forms. Neurovascular injury was not documented in 20.6% of the consent forms. Less than 75% documentation rates were observed for postoperative pain (74.6%), anesthetic complications (73%), failure (malunion/non-union/loosening of prosthesis) (68.3%), leg length discrepancy (60.3%), bone damage/fracture (50.8%), death (49.2%), wound-related complications/scars (42.9%), and hip stiffness (14.3%). None of the patients had been advised about the probable need for catheterization following surgery. We also noted that 22.2% (n=14) of the consent forms did not contain the diagnosis or the indication for surgery, 12.7% (n=8) did not mention the intended benefits, and 28.6% (n=18) of the consent forms had no mention of the responsible consultant. We also noted that in 25.4% (n=16) of the cases, the possible requirement of a blood transfusion had not been mentioned. CONCLUSION: The audit revealed several deficiencies in the consenting of patients for neck and femur fracture surgeries. There were poor documentation rates for risks associated with surgery, especially the less common and rare ones. We also identified several deficiencies in the remaining aspects of the consent forms that were not in keeping with the GMC and RCS guidance on consent. The lack of orthopaedic training and knowledge among the senior house officers and core trainees may be a contributing factor.
