Rune Bruhn Jakobsen

Background: Compensation claims caused by medical treatment errors provide valuable insights into patients' experiences with received medical treatment and can help identify injuries and disabilities that might be preventable through optimized care. The objective of this retrospective descriptive study was to characterize accepted compensation claims filed after treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) in Norway, and to explore whether claim outcomes were associated with treatment modality or institutional catchment area. Methods: All claims filed to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) after treatment of ATR between 2010 and 2020 were collected and categorized. The claims were organised based on whether they were accepted or denied, the initial treatment given, patient demographics, the reasons given by patients for filing claims, and the rationale provided by the NPE for accepting or rejecting compensation claims. Additionally, hospital patient catchment population were analyzed in relation to accepted claims. Results: One hundred forty-six compensation claims were received, of which 61 (41.8%) were accepted. Most accepted claims were related to surgical treatment (n = 30, 49%) or insufficient treatment (n = 22, 36%). The most frequent reason for claim acceptance was delayed diagnosis and/or treatment (15/61, 25%), followed by postoperative infections (10/61, 16%). There was no statistically significant correlation between accepted claims and institutional catchment area population. Conclusion: Delayed or missed diagnosis was the most common reason for accepted compensation claims following treatment for ATR. The study found no correlation between accepted claims and the catchment area population of the institution delivering the treatment. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

This is a semidouble-blind randomized controlled trial comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes of fixation of displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures with an intramedullary nail versus a locking plate. Seventy-nine patients aged 45 to 81 years (mean 66.5 years) were randomized to open reduction and osteosynthesis with either locking nails or plates. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at 2 years after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the Constant score (CS), Oxford shoulder score (OSS), visual analog scale for pain at rest and during activity, and complication and reoperation rates. The patients were assessed at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after inclusion. Physiotherapists who were blinded to the choice of implant performed assessments at 6 months and 2 years. Patients were also blinded to the choice of implant. Three patients were lost to follow-up, leaving data from 38 patients in each group available for analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the DASH score, CS, OSS, or pain score at any time. The DASH score at 2 years was 12.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.8-17.0) for the nail group and 10.0 (95% CI 5.6-16.1) for the plate group (p = 0.48). Twelve (32%) patients underwent reoperation in the nail group, whereas 2 (5%) patients underwent reoperation in the plate group (p = 0.006). Fourteen (37%) patients in the nail group and 4 (11%) patients in the plate group experienced complications (p = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or function 2 years after surgery for fixation of displaced 3- and 4-part part proximal humerus fractures with nails or plates. However, there were more complications and reoperations in the nail group. Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: This is a semidouble-blind randomized controlled trial comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes of fixation of displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures with an intramedullary nail versus a locking plate. Methods: Seventy-nine patients aged 45 to 81 years (mean 66.5 years) were randomized to open reduction and osteosynthesis with either locking nails or plates. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at 2 years after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the Constant score (CS), Oxford shoulder score (OSS), visual analog scale for pain at rest and during activity, and complication and reoperation rates. The patients were assessed at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after inclusion. Physiotherapists who were blinded to the choice of implant performed assessments at 6 months and 2 years. Patients were also blinded to the choice of implant. Results: Three patients were lost to follow-up, leaving data from 38 patients in each group available for analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the DASH score, CS, OSS, or pain score at any time. The DASH score at 2 years was 12.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.8-17.0) for the nail group and 10.0 (95% CI 5.6-16.1) for the plate group (p = 0.48). Twelve (32%) patients underwent reoperation in the nail group, whereas 2 (5%) patients underwent reoperation in the plate group (p = 0.006). Fourteen (37%) patients in the nail group and 4 (11%) patients in the plate group experienced complications (p = 0.05). Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or function 2 years after surgery for fixation of displaced 3- and 4-part part proximal humerus fractures with nails or plates. However, there were more complications and reoperations in the nail group. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Purpose: The aim of the study is to identify the most common avoidable patient injuries related to hallux valgus surgery. Methods: We assessed the claims reported to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) following surgery for hallux valgus in light of hospital volume. Data from NPE was categorized according to age, sex, reason for claim, and reason for accepted/rejected claim. The institutions were grouped by catchment population into low volume (300,000) institutions. The effect of hospital volume on the likelihood of an accepted claim was estimated. Results: NPE received 369 claims of which 173 (46.9%) were accepted. The main reason for accepted claims was recurrence of the deformity, wrong level osteotomy or insufficient fixation. A quarter of the claims were accepted because of lack of indication and one in 5 accepted claims was due to a postoperative infection. Patient treated at low-volume institutions had a higher fraction of accepted claims (P < 0.01). The odds ratio for an accepted claim in the low volume hospitals was 5.8 (95% confidence interval 4.1–8.3) compared with the middle- and high-volume institutions. Conclusions: The likelihood of a treatment error that leads to compensation was higher in low-volume institutions. Level of Evidence: Level II Prospective cohort study

Systematic analysis of compensation claims following patient injuries is helpful in improving patient safety. The objective of the current study was to assess compensation claims after arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff ruptures, impingement, and acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis reported to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation and evaluate if there was regional variation on the risk of patient injuries leading to an accepted compensation claim. Data from the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation and the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) from 2008 to 2018 were collected. Demographics (age and sex) and type of claim and reasons for accepted claims were obtained from the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation, while the number of arthroscopic procedures was collected from NPR. The treating institutions were grouped on geography according to Norway’s four regional Health Trusts and private institutions and the effect of geography on the probability of an accepted claim was estimated. NPR registered 69,097 shoulder arthroscopies during the study period, of which 216 (0.3%) compensation claims were filed for patient injury. A total of 38% of the claims were accepted, representing 0.1% of the arthroscopic procedures. Infection (37.8%) was the most common reason for accepted claim, followed by no surgical indication (15.9%) and wrong surgical technique (12.2%). We found a statistically significantly increased odds ratio for a claim being accepted in both the smallest and largest regional Health Trusts compared to the other regional Health Trusts and private institutions. Compensation claims due to patient injury following shoulder arthroscopy are rare (0.3% of patients file a claim, of which a third is accepted (0.1% of all shoulder arthroscopy patients)). The most common reason for accepted claim was infection followed by lack of indication.

Background: Introducing interprofessional education (IPE) in healthcare curricula can prepare students for healthcare practices that have become increasingly complex. The use of simulation is promoted to support IPE. This study explores healthcare students’ experiences of participating in common, sub-acute patient scenarios that routinely occur in clinical practice in primary care. More specifically, it looks at how sub-acute patient scenarios from primary care can help develop interprofessional collaborative competence. Methods: Medical students (N = 10), master’s students in advanced geriatric nursing (N = 8) and bachelor’s students in nursing (N = 9) participated in the simulations. The students were in their last or second-to-last year of education. We conducted five semi-structured focus group interviews with the participants’ directly after the simulation training to elicit experiences related to the scenarios, the simulation and interprofessional collaboration. The transcripts were analysed using systematic text condensation. To supplement the focus group interviews, the students also completed the interprofessional collaborative competency attainment survey (ICCAS), which measures the students’ self-assessed interprofessional competence. Results: Three main themes emerged from the analysis of the focus group interviews: realism, uncertainty and reflection. The students emphasised the importance of authentic and recognisable scenarios. They said the vague and unspecific patient symptoms created uncertainty in the situation, making it difficult to understand the patient’s diagnosis. Despite that uncertainty, they described the experience as positive. Further, the students expressed that the simulation increased their confidence in interprofessional collaboration and prepared them for future work. The results from the ICCAS questionnaire showed that the students reported a subjective positive change in their interprofessional competence after participating in the scenarios. Conclusions: This study showed that simulation-based IPE with sub-acute primary care scenarios contributes to develop interprofessional collaborative competence in healthcare education. Sub-acute scenarios can supplement the more common approaches with acute care scenarios and aid in developing the collaborative competence required to work in healthcare teams.

Purpose: To compare patients with a concomitant full‐thickness cartilage lesion and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury to patients with an isolated ACL injury at 10–15 years post ACL reconstruction.Methods: This is a longitudinal follow‐up of a cohort of 89 patients that were identified in the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry and included in the index study in 2007. The study group consisted of 30 patients that underwent ACL reconstruction and had a concomitant, isolated full‐thickness cartilage lesion (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade 3–4). Each study patient was matched with two control patients who underwent ACL reconstruction but had no cartilage lesions (ICRS grade 1–4) (n = 59). At a median follow‐up of 10.2 years (range 9.9–15.6), 65 patients (74%) completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which was the main outcome measure, resulting in 23 pairs after matching.Results: At a follow‐up of 10–15 years after ACL reconstruction, no significant differences in KOOS were found between patients with a concomitant full‐thickness cartilage lesion and patients without cartilage lesions. There was also no significant difference between the two groups when comparing the change over time in KOOS scores from preoperative to follow‐up. Both groups showed significant improvement in all KOOS subscales from preoperative to follow‐up, except for in the Symptoms subscale for the control group. The greatest improvement was in the QoL subscale for the study group.Conclusion: ACL‐reconstructed patients with a full‐thickness cartilage lesion did not report worse outcomes at 10–15 years after surgery compared with patients with an isolated ACL injury. Our findings support that there is no long‐term negative effect of a concomitant cartilage lesion in an ACL‐reconstructed knee. These findings should be considered when discussing treatment and informing about the expected long‐term outcome after ACL reconstruction to patients with such combined injuries.Level of evidence: II.

Background: Primary care providers assume responsibility for patients with increasingly complex problems requiring interprofessional collaboration. Introducing interprofessional education in healthcare curricula prepares healthcare students for this reality. Solving simulation scenarios as an educational strategy is promoted to support interprofessional education in health care, and is mostly used in acute clinical situations. This paper aims to explore how healthcare students’ actions influence interprofessional collaboration and treatment plan identification when they solve common, sub-acute patient scenarios in primary care situations. Methods: Interaction analysis of video recordings from the simulation scenarios was performed with a focus on the students’ joint actions; specifically how these actions unfold and how productive the students were in terms of developing treatment plans. Results: We found variation in the groups’ interactions, the paths they followed, and the quality of their knowledge output in their shared treatment plan. The groups with the capacity to collaborate and engage in sharing information, and explain and elaborate on concepts, were more successful in developing comprehensive treatment plans. Furthermore, these groups managed the duality of defining and solving the immediate problem and collaboratively preparing for future care. Conclusions: Analysis of the activities in our scenarios showed the students’ potential to practice interprofessional collaboration. Our study illustrates that simulation of sub-acute scenarios in primary care is an underexplored but suitable arena to train communication and teamwork in complex situations. The simulation scenarios are also feasible for use on-site in an educational facility or in practice with minimal equipment and resources.