Differences in Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Radiation Exposure During Ankle Fracture Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Between Orthopaedic Surgery and Podiatry.

Surgical ankle fractures pose a unique situation because both podiatrists and orthopaedic surgeons manage these injuries. Intraoperative fluoroscopy is routinely used; however, excessive radiation can be harmful to both the patient and the surgical team. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in the amount of intraoperative radiation exposure during ankle fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) when performed by orthopaedic surgeons versus podiatrists. This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent ankle fracture ORIF at an urban level I trauma center between January 1st, 2018, and April 1st, 2023. The electronic health record was queried using International Classification of Diseases nine and 10 codes associated with ankle fractures. Patients aged older than 18 years with an ankle fracture managed surgically were included. Subjects were then stratified by procedure. The mean total radiation dose (mRad) and mean total fluoroscopic time (seconds) were then compared between those performed by orthopaedic surgeons and podiatrists. Of the 333 included procedures, 186 were done by orthopaedic surgeons and 147 were done by podiatrists. Using multiple linear regression analysis to control for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and body mass index, patients undergoing isolated malleolus ORIF with syndesmosis repair performed by orthopaedic surgery were found to have a significantly lower mean fluoroscopic time compared with those performed by podiatry (68.4 s versus 104.8 s; P = 0.028). In addition, trimalleolar ORIF with syndesmotic repair performed by orthopaedic surgery had a significantly lower mean total radiation dose compared with those performed by podiatry (244.6 mRad v 565.6 mRad; P = 0.009). Patients and surgical teams are exposed to markedly less radiation in isolated malleolar and trimalleolar fracture ORIF with syndesmosis repair when performed by an orthopaedic surgeon as compared with those performed by a podiatrist.

Repeat Irrigation and Debridement of Upper Extremity Infections: Do Repeat Cultures Change Antibiotic Treatment Regimens?

BACKGROUND: Organism identification and their antibiotic sensitivity profile are critical for the successful treatment of upper extremity infections. Although many infections resolve with antibiotics alone, some require 1 or more surgical procedures in which culture data are obtained. The purpose of this study was to determine whether repeat cultures taken at subsequent irrigation and debridement of upper extremity infections changed antibiotic treatment. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes to identify all adult patients with an upper extremity infection treated with 2 irrigation and debridement procedures with 2 separate culture data sets over a period of 5 years. Culture organisms and antibiotic sensitivity profiles were compared from each procedure, and changes in antibiotic treatment based on repeat culture information were identified. RESULTS: In all, 183 patients who underwent 2 irrigation and debridement procedures with repeat culture data were identified. Organisms identified with repeat culture were the same or there was no growth in 153 patients and were different in 30 patients. The antibiotic treatment did not require a change in 170 (92.9%) of 183 patients. Of the 30 patients with different repeat cultures, antibiotic treatment changed in only 13 patients (43.3%). Patients who had a change in antibiotic treatment were more likely to have hepatitis C (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat culture data changed antibiotic treatment in only 7.1% of patients from our cohort. Patients with hepatitis C were more likely to require a change in antibiotic management after obtaining repeat cultures.

Patient Safety Issues From Information Overload in Electronic Medical Records.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous in medicine and continue to grow in informational content. Little has been documented regarding patient safety from the resultant information overload. The objective of this literature review is to better understand how information overload in EHR affects patient safety. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards for literature review. PubMed and Web of Science were searched and articles selected that were relevant to EHR information overload based on keywords. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 28 articles meeting the criteria for the study. Information overload was found to increase physician cognitive load and error rates in clinical simulations. Overabundance of clinically irrelevant information, poor data display, and excessive alerting were consistently identified as issues that may lead to information overload. CONCLUSIONS: Information overload in EHRs may result in higher error rates and negatively impact patient safety. Further studies are necessary to define the role of EHR in adverse patient safety events and to determine methods to mitigate these errors. Changes focused on the usability of EHR should be considered with the end user (physician) in mind. Federal agencies have a role to play in encouraging faster adoption of improved EHR interfaces.