ArticleCureus2025
A Clinical Audit of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Intraoperative Monitoring in Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery: An Audit Cycle.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major cause of morbidity following orthopaedic trauma surgeries. Effective perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, alongside intraoperative blood pressure and temperature monitoring, is essential to reduce infection risk and postoperative complications. Methods This retrospective audit was carried out at a National Health Service (NHS) hospital over a three-month period (November 2024 to January 2025). A total of 104 trauma orthopaedic surgical cases were reviewed. The audit assessed adherence to the Local Orthopaedic Surgery Antibiotic Prophylaxis Guidelines and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standards for intraoperative blood pressure and temperature management. Results The audit found that 65.4% (n = 68) of cases were compliant with the recommended intraoperative antibiotic choice. However, 100% (n = 104) of patients received antibiotics within the recommended 60-minute window prior to incision. Postoperative antibiotic compliance was noted in 64.4% (n = 67) of cases, while 24% (n = 25) of patients were prescribed antibiotics for longer than the guideline-recommended duration. Blood pressure monitoring met the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliance in all cases. In contrast, intraoperative temperature documentation was found in only 35% (n = 36) of cases. Conclusion While the timing of antibiotic administration was reliably adhered to, overall compliance with antibiotic selection and postoperative use was suboptimal. Documentation of temperature was particularly poor. A multifaceted quality improvement plan, including electronic patient record (EPR) alerts, mandatory documentation prompts, clinical education, and feedback dashboards, is being implemented. A re-audit is planned in six months to assess the impact of these interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.