The Australian litigation landscape - Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and general dentistry (oral surgery procedures): An analysis of litigation cases

Background: There are persistent concerns about litigation in the dental and medical professions. These concerns arise in a setting where general dentists are more frequently undertaking a wider range of oral surgery procedures, potentially increasing legal risk. Methods: Judicial cases dealing with medical negligence in the fields of general dentistry (oral surgery procedure) and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were located using the three main legal databases. Relevant cases were analysed to determine the procedures involved, the patients’ claims of injury, findings of negligence, and damages awarded. A thematic analysis of the cases was undertaken to determine trends. Results: Fifteen cases over a twenty-year period were located across almost all Australian jurisdictions (eight cases involved general dentists; seven cases involved Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons). Eleven of the fifteen cases involved determinations of whether or not the practitioner had failed in their duty of care; negligence was found in six cases. Eleven of the fifteen cases related to molar extractions (eight specifically to third molar). Conclusions: Dental and medical practitioners wanting to manage legal risk should have regard to circumstances arising in judicial cases. Adequate warning of risks is critical, as is offering referral in appropriate cases. Pre-operative radiographs, good medical records, and processes to ensure appropriate follow-up are also important.

Rehabilitation of individuals with bone-anchored prosthesis: State-of-the-art and challenges

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket-related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. Bone-anchored prostheses are increasingly acknowledged as viable alternative method of attachment of artificial limb. In this case, the prosthesis is attached directly to the residual skeleton through a percutaneous fixation. To date, a few osseointegration fixations are commercially available. Several devices are at different stages of development particularly in Europe and the US.[1-15] Clearly, surgical procedures are currently blooming worldwide. Indeed, Australia and Queensland in particular have one of the fastest growing populations. Previous studies involving either screw-type implants or press-fit fixations for bone-anchorage have focused on fragmented biomechanics aspects as well as the clinical benefits and safety of the procedure. However, very few publications have synthetized this information and provided an overview of the current developments in bone-anchored prostheses worldwide, let alone in Australia. The purposes of the presentation will be: 1. To provide an overview of the state-of-art developments in bone-anchored prostheses with as strong emphasis on the design of fixations, treatment, benefits, risks as well as future opportunities and challenges, 2. To present the current international developments of procedures for bone-anchored prostheses in terms of numbers of centers, number of cases and typical case-mix, 3. To highlight the current role Australia is playing as a leader worldwide in terms of growing population, broadest range of case-mix, choices of fixations, development of reimbursement schemes, unique clinical outcome registry for evidence-based practice, cutting-edge research, consumer demand and general public interest.

Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prosthesis: the Queensland experience

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket-related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. Bone-anchored prostheses are increasingly acknowledged as viable alternative method of attachment of artificial limb. In this case, the prosthesis is attached directly to the residual skeleton through a percutaneous fixation. To date, a few osseointegration fixations are commercially available. Several devices are at different stages of development particularly in Europe and the US. [1-15] Clearly, surgical procedures are currently blooming worldwide. Indeed, Australia and Queensland, in particular, have one of the fastest growing populations. Previous studies involving either screw-type implants or press-fit fixations for bone-anchorage have focused on biomechanics aspects as well as the clinical benefits and safety of the procedure. In principle, bone-anchored prostheses should eliminate lifetime expenses associated with sockets and, consequently, potentially alleviate the financial burden of amputation for governmental organizations. Unfortunately, publications focusing on cost-effectiveness are sparse. In fact, only one study published by Haggstrom et al (2012), reported that “despite significantly fewer visits for prosthetic service the annual mean costs for osseointegrated prostheses were comparable with socket-suspended prostheses”. Consequently, governmental organizations such as Queensland Artificial Limb Services (QALS) are facing a number of challenges while adjusting financial assistance schemes that should be fair and equitable to their clients fitted with bone-anchored prostheses. Clearly, more scientific evidence extracted from governmental databases is needed to further consolidate the analyses of financial burden associated with both methods of attachment (i.e., conventional sockets prostheses, bone-anchored prostheses). The purpose of the presentation will be to share the current outcomes of a cost-analysis study lead by QALS. The specific objectives will be: • To outline methodological avenues to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses compared to conventional sockets prostheses, • To highlight the potential obstacles and limitations in cost-effectiveness analyses of bone-anchored prostheses, • To present cohort results of a cost-effectiveness (QALY vs cost) including the determination of fair Incremental cost-effectiveness Ratios (ICER) as well as cost-benefit analysis focusing on the comparing costs and key outcome indicators (e.g., QTFA, TUG, 6MWT, activities of daily living) over QALS funding cycles for both methods of attachment.

Evaluation framework to assess orthopaedic procedures

Introduction & aims The demand for evidence of efficacy of treatments in general and orthopaedic surgical procedures in particular is ever increasing in Australia and worldwide. The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework recently implemented in Australia to determine the efficacy of bone-anchored prostheses. Method The proposed evaluation framework to determine the benefit and harms of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with limb loss was extracted from a systematic review of the literature including seminal studies focusing on clinical benefits and safety of procedures involving screw-type implant (e.g., OPRA) and press-fit fixations (e.g., EEFT, ILP, OPL). [1-64] Results The literature review highlighted that a standard and replicable evaluation framework should focus on: • The clinical benefits with a systematic recording of health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-26, Q-TFA), mobility predictor (e.g., AMPRO), ambulation abilities (e.g., TUG, 6MWT), walking abilities (e.g., characteristic spatio-temporal) and actual activity level at baseline and follow-up post Stage 2 surgery, • The potential harms with systematic recording of residuum care, infection, implant stability, implant integrity, injuries (e.g., falls) after Stage 1 surgery. There was a general consensus around the instruments to monitor most of the benefits and harms. The benefits could be assessed using a wide spectrum of complementary assessments ranging from subjective patient self-reporting to objective measurements of physical activity. However, this latter was assessed using a broad range of measurements (e.g., pedometer, load cell, energy consumption). More importantly, the lack of consistent grading of infections was sufficiently noticeable to impede cross-fixation comparisons. Clearly, a more universal grading system is needed. Conclusions Investigators are encouraged to implement an evaluation framework featuring the domains and instruments proposed above using a single database to facilitate robust prospective studies about potential benefits and harms of their procedure. This work is also a milestone in the development of national and international clinical outcome registries.

Improving SEA procedures within Italian regions: Towards a more effective evaluation of urban sustainability

Sustainable urban development, a major issue at global scale, will become more relevant according to population growth predictions in developed and developing countries. Societal and international recognition of sustainability concerns led to the development of specific tools and procedures, known as sustainability assessments/appraisals (SA). Their effectiveness however, considering that global quality life indicators have worsened since their introduction, has promoted a re-thinking of SA instruments. More precisely, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), – a tool introduced in the European context to evaluate policies, plans, and programmes (PPPs), – is being reconsidered because of several features that seem to limit its effectiveness. Over time, SEA has evolved in response to external and internal factors dealing with technical, procedural, planning and governance systems thus involving a shift of paradigm from EIA-based SEAs (first generation protocols) towards more integrated approaches (second generation ones). Changes affecting SEA are formalised through legislation in each Member State, to guide institutions at regional and local level. Defining SEA effectiveness is quite difficult. Its’ capacity-building process appears quite far from its conclusion, even if any definitive version can be conceptualized. In this paper, we consider some European nations with different planning systems and SA traditions. After the identification of some analytical criteria, a multi-dimensional cluster analysis is developed on some case studies, to outline current weaknesses.

Therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children : An audit of 443 procedures and literature review

The safety, effectiveness and capabilities of therapeutic upper fibreoptic endoscopy in children undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures (n = 443) was studied. Therapy for gastrointestinal bleeding formed the major group (injection sclerotherapy for varices, n = 197 procedures; thermocoagulation for haemorrhagic gastritis, n = 1; and photocoaulation for Dieulafoy's disease, n = 1). Sclerotherapy was 97% effective in controlling acute bleeding and 84% effective in obliterating varices with no serious complications or deaths. Oesophageal dilatations for surgical, caustic, congenital and peptic strictures and achalasia (n = 193) were performed with no oesophageal perforations or deaths. Foreign bodies were retrieved (n = 34) with no failures or complications. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was performed (n = 11) with one failure, proceeding to an unsuccessful surgical gastrostomy. Miscellaneous procedures included endoscopic transpyloric tube placement (n = 5) and endoscopic diathermy of pyloric web (n = 1). Therapeutic fibreoptic endoscopy is therefore concluded to be safe and effective in children, replacing rigid oesophagoscopy and some traditional surgical approaches.

Comparison of Radiation Doses for Catheter Ablation Procedures for Atrial Fibrillation with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Cases

Background: Catheter ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF) may frequently require long fluoroscopic times. We sought to undertake a review of radiation safety practice in our Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory and implement changes to minimize fluoroscopic doses. We also sought to compare the results with radiation doses for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cases performed in our hospital. Methods: Fluoroscopic times and doses for AF ablation procedures performed by a single operator on a Philips Integris H3000 image-intensifier were analysed for 11-month period. Results were compared with all PCI procedures performed over a similar period by multiple operators on a Philips Integris Allura FD system. Comprehensive review of radiation practice in the Electrophysiology laboratory identified the potential to reduce pulse frame rates and doses, and to narrow the field of interest without impacting the performance of the procedure. These changes were implemented and results analysed after a further 11 months. Results: In the pre-intervention period 50 AF catheter ablations had a mean fluoroscopic time of 86.4 min and mean fluoroscopic dose 68.4 Gy/cm2. Post-intervention 75 procedures had a mean fluorosocopic time of 68.9 min (p < 0.0001) and mean dose of 14.3 Gy/cm2 (p < 0.0001) 128 PCI procedures had a mean combined fluoroscopic and image acquisition time of 10.0 min and mean total dose 38.8 Gy/cm2. Conclusions: Catheter ablation procedures for AF may require lengthy use of fluoroscopy but simple modifications to radiation practice can result in marked reductions in radiation dose that compare favourably with PCI case doses