Application of generative language models to orthopaedic practice

Objective: To explore whether large language models (LLMs) Generated Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-3 and ChatGPT can write clinical letters and predict management plans for common orthopaedic scenarios. Design: Fifteen scenarios were generated and ChatGPT and GPT-3 prompted to write clinical letters and separately generate management plans for identical scenarios with plans removed. Main outcome measures: Letters were assessed for readability using the Readable Tool. Accuracy of letters and management plans were assessed by three independent orthopaedic surgery clinicians. Results: Both models generated complete letters for all scenarios after single prompting. Readability was compared using Flesch-Kincade Grade Level (ChatGPT: 8.77 (SD 0.918); GPT-3: 8.47 (SD 0.982)), Flesch Readability Ease (ChatGPT: 58.2 (SD 4.00); GPT-3: 59.3 (SD 6.98)), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index (ChatGPT: 11.6 (SD 0.755); GPT-3: 11.4 (SD 1.01)), and reach (ChatGPT: 81.2%; GPT-3: 80.3%). ChatGPT produced more accurate letters (8.7/10 (SD 0.60) vs 7.3/10 (SD 1.41), p=0.024) and management plans (7.9/10 (SD 0.63) vs 6.8/10 (SD 1.06), p<0.001) than GPT-3. However, both LLMs sometimes omitted key information or added additional guidance which was at worst inaccurate. Conclusions: This study shows that LLMs are effective for generation of clinical letters. With little prompting, they are readable and mostly accurate. However, they are not consistent, and include inappropriate omissions or insertions. Furthermore, management plans produced by LLMs are generic but often accurate. In the future, a healthcare specific language model trained on accurate and secure data could provide an excellent tool for increasing the efficiency of clinicians through summarisation of large volumes of data into a single clinical letter

A cross‐sectional evaluation of the current state of wound healing education in the United Kingdom's undergraduate medical curriculum

Between 2013 and 2018, there has been a 71% increase in the number of patients who have required wound care in the NHS and such large numbers has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems. However, there is currently no evidence as to whether medical students are equipped with the necessary skills to deal with an increasing number of wound care related issues that patients present with. A total of 323 medical students across 18 UK medical schools completed an anonymous questionnaire evaluating the wound education received at their medical school, encompassing the volume, content, format and efficacy of teaching. 68.4% (221/323) of respondents had received some form of wound education during their undergraduate studies. On average students received 2.25 h of structured, preclinical teaching and only 1 h of clinical based teaching in total. All students that received wound education reported undertaking teaching on the physiology of, and factors affecting wound healing, with only 32.2% (n = 104) of students receiving clinically based wound education There was very weak correlation and no significant association in student's ability to assess wounds (R2 = 0.190, p = 0.013), manage wounds (R2 = 0.060, p = 0.37), and prescribe wound care products (R2 = 0.093, p = 0.18) with their stage of training. Students strongly agreed that wound education is an important part of the undergraduate curriculum and post graduate practice, and do not feel their learning needs have been met. This is the first study to assess the provision of wound education in the United Kingdom, demonstrating a clear deficit in the provision of wound education compared to expectation of junior doctors. Wound education is largely overlooked in the medical curriculum, lacks a clinical focus and does not prepare junior doctors with the necessary clinical abilities to deal with wound related pathology. Expert opinion to direct changes to future curriculum and further evaluation of teaching methodology is required to address this deficit and ensure students have the necessary clinical skills to excel as newly graduated doctors

Undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK: systematic review

Background: Students must be proficient in surgical skills according to General Medical Council and Royal College of Surgeons of England guidelines. If these skills are not appropriately taught, there is a risk of an incoming junior workforce with inadequate surgical skills. This paper aimed to review the literature relating to undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK and summarize future suggested training methods. Methods: The databases MEDLINE, Embase and SCOPUS were searched, and the existing literature relating to methodology of undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK over the past 10 years was summarized. The Medical Education Research Quality Instrument was used to assess research quality. Results: A total of 19 papers were included. Cross-sectional evaluations and survey-based studies highlight a clear deficit in surgical skills teaching in the UK. Medical students are currently unable to fulfil their own learning needs and meet requirements set out by the General Medical Council. This lack of surgical teaching appears to negatively affect student desire to pursue a surgical career. The three main themes for improvement are extracurricular surgical skills days, near-peer teaching and simulation. Each method appeared to improve learning, although no studies utilized medium- to long-term follow-up to demonstrate efficacy and there lacks a clear consensus as to the ‘standard’ of undergraduate surgical skill education. There was also potential for selection bias and response shift bias in many of the studies assessing pre- and postintervention confidence and opinions. Conclusion: There is a concerning lack of surgical skills teaching that has resulted in medical students and junior doctors not having the necessary surgical skills as per General Medical Council guidance and students feel that their own learning needs are not met. This failure to address the learning deficit may be responsible for the fall in surgical competition ratios. While surgical skills teaching must be improved urgently, more robust evidence is required to evaluate the optimal ways of approaching this issue

Four consecutive yearly point-prevalence studies in Wales indicate lack of improvement in sepsis care on the wards

The ‘Sepsis Six’ bundle was promoted as a deliverable tool outside of the critical care settings, but there is very little data available on the progress and change of sepsis care outside the critical care environment in the UK. Our aim was to compare the yearly prevalence, outcome and the Sepsis Six bundle compliance in patients at risk of mortality from sepsis in non-intensive care environments. Patients with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled into four yearly 24-h point prevalence studies, carried out in fourteen hospitals across Wales from 2016 to 2019. We followed up patients to 30 days between 2016–2019 and to 90 days between 2017 and 2019. Out of the 26,947 patients screened 1651 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were recruited. The full ‘Sepsis Six’ care bundle was completed on 223 (14.0%) occasions, with no significant difference between the years. On 190 (11.5%) occasions none of the bundle elements were completed. There was no significant correlation between bundle element compliance, NEWS or year of study. One hundred and seventy (10.7%) patients were seen by critical care outreach; the ‘Sepsis Six’ bundle was completed significantly more often in this group (54/170, 32.0%) than for patients who were not reviewed by critical care outreach (168/1385, 11.6%; p < 0.0001). Overall survival to 30 days was 81.7% (1349/1651), with a mean survival time of 26.5 days (95% CI 26.1–26.9) with no difference between each year of study. 90-day survival for years 2017–2019 was 74.7% (949/1271), with no difference between the years. In multivariate regression we identified older age, heart failure, recent chemotherapy, higher frailty score and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders as significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality. Our data suggests that despite efforts to increase sepsis awareness within the NHS, there is poor compliance with the sepsis care bundles and no change in the high mortality over the study period. Further research is needed to determine which time-sensitive ward-based interventions can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis and how can these results be embedded to routine clinical practice

Undergraduate education of trauma and orthopaedic surgery in the UK: a systematic review

Aims: Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. Methods: This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results: The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a “poor” understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. Conclusion: There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549–556

The impact of adopting low-molecular-weight heparin in place of aspirin as routine thromboprophylaxis for patients with hip fracture

Purpose of the study In 2010, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended the use of anticoagulants rather than aspirin as pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after hip fracture. We examine the impact of implementing this change in guidance on the clinical incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Study design Demographic, radiographic and clinical data were retrospectively collected for 5039 patients admitted to a single tertiary centre in the UK for hip fracture between 2007 and 2017. We calculated rates of lower-limb DVT and examined the impact of the June 2010 change of departmental policy, from use of aspirin to use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) in hip fracture patients. Results Doppler scans were performed in 400 patients in the 180 days after a hip fracture, and identified 40 ipsilateral and 14 contralateral DVTs (p<0.001). The rate of DVT reduced significantly following the 2010 change in departmental policy from aspirin to LMWH in these patients (1.62% vs 0.83%, p<0.05). Conclusions The rate of clinical DVT halved following the change from aspirin to LMWH for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, but the number needed to treat was 127. A figure of <1% for the incidence of clinical DVT in a unit that routinely uses LMWH monotherapy following hip fracture provides a context for discussions of alternative strategies, and for power calculations for future research. These figures are important to policy makers and to researchers as they will inform the design of the comparative studies on thromboprophylaxis agents for which NICE has called

Standardization of global hip fracture audit could facilitate learning, improve quality, and guide evidence-based practice

National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD. The highest MCD adherence was demonstrated by the most recently established registries. The first-generation registries in Scandinavia collect data for 60% of MCD fields, second-generation registries (UK, other European, and Australia and New Zealand) collect for 75%, and third-generation registries collect data for 85% of MCD fields. Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age; sex; surgery date/time of operation; surgery type; and death during acute admission). Two fields were collected by most (16/17; 94%) registries (date/time of presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), and five more by the majority (15/17; 88%) registries (type, side, and pathological nature of fracture; anaesthetic modality; and discharge destination). Three core fields were each collected by only 11/17 (65%) registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living; cognition on admission; and bone protection medication prescription. There is moderate but improving compatibility between existing registries and the FFN MCD, and its introduction in 2022 was associated with an improved level of adherence among the most recently established programmes. Greater interoperability could be facilitated by improving consistency of data collection relating to prefracture function, cognition, bone protection, and follow-up duration, and this could improve international collaborative benchmarking, research, and quality improvement

Standardization of global hip fracture audit could facilitate learning, improve quality, and guide evidence-based practice

National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD. The highest MCD adherence was demonstrated by the most recently established registries. The first-generation registries in Scandinavia collect data for 60% of MCD fields, second-generation registries (UK, other European, and Australia and New Zealand) collect for 75%, and third-generation registries collect data for 85% of MCD fields. Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age; sex; surgery date/time of operation; surgery type; and death during acute admission). Two fields were collected by most (16/17; 94%) registries (date/time of presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), and five more by the majority (15/17; 88%) registries (type, side, and pathological nature of fracture; anaesthetic modality; and discharge destination). Three core fields were each collected by only 11/17 (65%) registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living; cognition on admission; and bone protection medication prescription. There is moderate but improving compatibility between existing registries and the FFN MCD, and its introduction in 2022 was associated with an improved level of adherence among the most recently established programmes. Greater interoperability could be facilitated by improving consistency of data collection relating to prefracture function, cognition, bone protection, and follow-up duration, and this could improve international collaborative benchmarking, research, and quality improvement.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

The impact of the introduction of selective screening in the UK on the epidemiology, presentation, and treatment outcomes of developmental dysplasia of the hip

Aims: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) can be managed effectively with non-surgical interventions when diagnosed early. However, the likelihood of surgical intervention increases with a late presentation. Therefore, an effective screening programme is essential to prevent late diagnosis and reduce surgical morbidity in the population. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiological literature from the last 25 years in the UK. Articles were selected from databases searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane; 13 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results: The incidence of DDH within the UK over the last 25 years is 7.3/1,000 live births with females making up 86% of the DDH population (odds ratio 6.14 (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 11.5); p < 0.001). The incidence of DDH significantly increased following the change in the Newborn and Infant Physical Examination (NIPE) guidance from 6.5/1,000 to 9.4/1,000 live births (p < 0.001). The rate of late presentation also increased following the changes to the NIPE guidance, rising from 0.7/1,000 to 1.2/1,000 live births (p < 0.001). However, despite this increase in late-presenting cases, there was no change in the rates of surgical intervention (0.8/1,000 live births; p = 0.940). Conclusion: The literature demonstrates that the implementation of a selective screening programme increased the incidence of DDH diagnosis in the UK while subsequently increasing the rates of late presentation and failing in its goal of reducing the rates of surgical intervention for DDH. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):635–642