Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G Quin

Publications and source records attributed to G Quin.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

Proximal tibiofibular dislocation.

Proximal tibiofibular joint dislocation is an uncommon injury, which may be easily missed on plain radiography. If recognised, it can be treated in the emergency department, avoiding surgery and long term problems. The case is presented of a 22 year old male rugby player who was tackled from the left hand side while turning to the left. He heard a "pop" from his knee as he fell to the ground. Clinical examination revealed a prominence in the area of the fibular head. There was no evidence of peroneal nerve injury. Plain x rays confirmed a clinical suspicion for anterior dislocation of the proximal tibiofibular joint. Proximal tibiofibular joint dislocation typically occurs when the knee is slightly flexed and the foot is rotated and plantar flexed. Antero lateral dislocation is the most common pattern. Diagnosis is largely clinical, but the findings may be subtle. Plain films may not show any abnormality and computed tomography is the investigation of choice if there is clinical suspicion for the injury. The dislocation should be reduced in the emergency department, but controversy exists whether early mobilisation or casting is the most appropriate course of action.

Adult↗

Accident and emergency department access to the child protection register: a questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain how UK accident and emergency (A&E) departments access the child protection register, their levels of satisfaction with that access and their criteria for checking the register. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 254 "major" A&E departments listed in the 1996 British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine directory. RESULTS: 190 questionnaires were returned (response rate 75%). Ninety (48%) responding departments access the register through the duty social worker, 33 (17%) use a computerised copy, 32 (17%) a hard copy and 27 (14%) a combination. Twenty seven of 33 respondents (82%) using a computerised copy were satisfied with their mode of access. This compares with figures of 21 (66%) for hard copy, 45 (50%) for duty social worker and 14 (50%) for a combination. No departments using the duty social worker checked all patients routinely compared with 23 (72%) for hard copy, 22 (67%) for computer copy and 12 (44%) for departments using a combination of modes of access. CONCLUSION: There is no uniformity of the way in which UK A&E departments access the child protection register and there is also substantial variation in the criteria used to check the register. This survey suggests that the most common form of access (via the duty social worker) often fails to meet the needs of A&E departments, principally because it takes so long.

Access to Information↗