Prevention of surgical site infection in total joint arthroplasty : an international tertiary care center survery

Background Prevention strategies are critical to reduce infection rates in total joint arthroplasty (TJA), but evidence-based consensus guidelines on prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) remain heterogeneous and do not necessarily represent this particular patient population. Questions/Purposes What infection prevention measures are recommended by consensus evidence-based guidelines for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection? How do these recommendations compare to expert consensus on infection prevention strategies from orthopedic surgeons from the largest international tertiary referral centers for TJA? Patients and Methods A review of consensus guidelines was undertaken as described by Merollini et al. Four clinical guidelines met inclusion criteria: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's, British Orthopedic Association, National Institute of Clinical Excellence's, and National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC). Twenty-eight recommendations from these guidelines were used to create an evidence-based survey of infection prevention strategies that was administered to 28 orthopedic surgeons from members of the International Society of Orthopedic Centers. The results between existing consensus guidelines and expert opinion were then compared. Results Recommended strategies in the guidelines such as prophylactic antibiotics, preoperative skin preparation of patients and staff, and sterile surgical attire were considered critically or significantly important by the surveyed surgeons. Additional strategies such as ultraclean air/laminar flow, antibiotic cement, wound irrigation, and preoperative blood glucose control were also considered highly important by surveyed surgeons, but were not recommended or not uniformly addressed in existing guidelines on SSI prevention. Conclusion Current evidence-based guidelines are incomplete and evidence should be updated specifically to address patient needs undergoing TJA.

Towards a smart cancer registry

Aims Pathology notification for a Cancer Registry is regarded as the most valid information for the confirmation of a diagnosis of cancer. In view of the importance of pathology data, an automatic medical text analysis system (Medtex) is being developed to perform electronic Cancer Registry data extraction and coding of important clinical information embedded within pathology reports. Methods The system automatically scans HL7 messages received from a Queensland pathology information system and analyses the reports for terms and concepts relevant to a cancer notification. A multitude of data items for cancer notification such as primary site, histological type, stage, and other synoptic data are classified by the system. The underlying extraction and classification technology is based on SNOMED CT1 2. The Queensland Cancer Registry business rules3 and International Classification of Diseases – Oncology – Version 34 have been incorporated. Results The cancer notification services show that the classification of notifiable reports can be achieved with sensitivities of 98% and specificities of 96%5, while the coding of cancer notification items such as basis of diagnosis, histological type and grade, primary site and laterality can be extracted with an overall accuracy of 80%6. In the case of lung cancer staging, the automated stages produced were accurate enough for the purposes of population level research and indicative staging prior to multi-disciplinary team meetings2 7. Medtex also allows for detailed tumour stream synoptic reporting8. Conclusions Medtex demonstrates how medical free-text processing could enable the automation of some Cancer Registry processes. Over 70% of Cancer Registry coding resources are devoted to information acquisition. The development of a clinical decision support system to unlock information from medical free-text could significantly reduce costs arising from duplicated processes and enable improved decision support, enhancing efficiency and timeliness of cancer information for Cancer Registries.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Skill development for innovative procurement environments in construction

The construction industry should be a priority to all governments because it impacts economically and socially on all citizens. Sector turnover in industrialised economies typically averages 8-12% of GDP. Further, construction is critical to economic growth. Recent Australian studies estimate that a 10% gain in efficiency in construction translates to a 2.5% increase in GDP Inefficiencies in the Australian construction industry have been identified by a number of recent studies modelling the building process. They have identified potential savings in time of between 25% and 40% by reducing non-value added steps in the process. A culture of reform is now emerging in the industry – one in which alternate forms of project delivery are being trialed. Government and industry have identified Alliance Contracting as a means to increase efficiency in the construction industry as part of a new innovative procurement environment. Alliance contracting requires parties to form relationships and work cooperatively to provide a more complete service. This is a significant cultural change for the construction industry, with its well-known adversarial record in traditional contracting. Alliance contracts offer enormous potential benefits, but the Australian construction industry needs to develop new skills to effectively participate in the new relationship environment. This paper describes a collaborative project identifying skill needs for clients and construction professionals to more effectively participate in an increasingly sophisticated international procurement environment. The aim of identifying these skill needs is to assist industry, government, and skill developers to prepare the Australian construction workforce for the future. The collaborating Australian team has been fortunate to secure the Australian National Museum in Canberra as its live case study. The Acton Peninsula Development is the first major building development in the world awarded on the basis of a joint alliance contract.