A service evaluation of e-triage in the osteoporosis outpatient clinic-an effective tool to improve patient access?

Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation

Background

Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.

Objectives

To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.

Methods

The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.

Results

Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.

Limitations

The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.

Conclusions

The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.

Future research

Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.

Study registration

This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Screening tool to improve patient referral to acute surgical care from accident and emergency

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed, first, to audit the appropriateness of surgical referrals to an acute surgical unit for urgent assessment and, second, to devise a screening tool for use in the emergency department to categorise patients into those who need an urgent surgical review and those who can be seen in an ambulatory setting within the next few days.

METHODS

The first phase of the study was an audit of surgical referrals between 1 and 18 February 2020 to check the appropriateness of the surgical referral. In the second phase, a tool was designed to screen patients who did not require urgent surgical review and could be seen in the ambulatory clinic. A prospective questionnaire study was conducted from 1 February to 24 March 2020 with patients who were admitted to an acute surgical ward. Based on responses to the screening tool, patients were given the outcome of whether they can be discharged and seen in an ambulatory clinic. The accuracy of the screening tool outcome was assessed and compared with actual patient discharge outcomes by the surgical team evaluating patients' electronic medical records.

RESULTS

In the first audit of referrals to the acute surgical ward, 206 patients were referred to the acute surgical unit and seen by the senior surgeon. Of these, 142 (68.9%) were discharged on the same day with or without follow-up in the ambulatory surgical clinic. In the prospective questionnaire phase of the study, 98 patients completed the questionnaire. The most common presentation was abdominal pain (n=60) followed by urological symptoms (n=11), symptoms of hernia complication (n=10), abscess (n=7), testicular pain (n=2) and trauma (n=2). Of the patients discharged on the same day, 50% were given ambulatory care appointments and 50% were discharged with no further follow-up. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening tool were 100% and 60.7%, respectively; the overall accuracy was 88.4%.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients who are referred to the acute surgical unit can be deferred and seen in the ambulatory clinic. The screening tool used for acute surgical referral had reasonable sensitivity and high specificity to screen patients who can be seen in ambulatory clinics. At the same time, it identified patients who were unwell and required urgent surgical admission.

Remote Management of Osteoporosis

Purpose of Review

Osteoporosis management has evolved significantly over the past decade, with telehealth emerging as an effective tool to manage bone health in a growing patient population. This review explores the advantages and disadvantages of telehealth use for osteoporosis management while highlighting recent studies of clinical importance.

Recent Findings

A wide variety of telehealth approaches are used today, from phone or video telemedicine appointments with physicians and advanced practice providers, to electronic systems for triage and consultation with osteoporosis specialists. Contemporary studies show that telehealth can facilitate health care access to underserved communities and enhance physician-patient communication, as well as provide patient education. However, barriers such as inexperience or lack of access to technology, suboptimal patient-clinician relationship building process, and difficulties with follow-up have limited the use of telehealth to certain situations.

Summary

Telehealth has proven to be an effective resource for managing and treating osteoporosis patients. As its use continues to grow, important limitations must be accounted for to avoid lapses in care. Further research should keep these factors in mind as the use of this technology progresses.

Digital health interventions for osteoporosis and post-fragility fracture care

The growing burden from osteoporosis and fragility fractures highlights a need to improve osteoporosis management across healthcare systems. Sub-optimal management of osteoporosis is an area suitable for digital health interventions. While fracture liaison services (FLSs) are proven to greatly improve care for people with osteoporosis, such services might benefit from technologies that enhance automation. The term 'Digital Health' covers a variety of different tools including clinical decision support systems, electronic medical record tools, patient decision aids, patient apps, education tools, and novel artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Within the scope of this review are AI solutions that use algorithms within health system registries to target interventions. Clinician-targeted, patient-targeted, or system-targeted digital health interventions could be used to improve management and prevent fragility fractures. This review was commissioned by The Royal Osteoporosis Society and Bone Research Academy during the production of the 2020 Research Roadmap (https://theros.org.uk), with the intention of identifying gaps where targeted research funding could lead to improved patient health. We explore potential uses of digital technology in the general management of osteoporosis. Evidence suggests that digital technologies can support multidisciplinary teams to provide the best possible patient care based on current evidence and to support patients in self-management. However, robust randomised controlled studies are still needed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these technologies.

Telemedicine trends in orthopaedics and trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis and review

Objectives

In the wake of recent widespread interest in telemedicine during the COVID-19 era, many orthopaedic surgeons may be unfamiliar with clinical examination skills, patients’ safety, data security, and implementation-related concerns in telemedicine. We present a bibliometric analysis and review of the telemedicine-related publications concerning orthopaedics care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such analysis can help orthopaedic surgeons become acquainted with the recent developments in telemedicine and its usage in regular orthopaedics practice.

Methods

We systematically searched the database of Thomson Reuters Web of Science for telemedicine-related articles in orthopaedics published during the COVID-19 pandemic. The selected articles were analysed for their source journals, corresponding authors, investigating institutions, countries of the corresponding authors, number of citations, study types, levels of evidence, and a qualitative review.

Results

Fifty-nine articles meeting the inclusion criteria were published in 28 journals. Three hundred forty-two authors contributed to these research papers. The United States (US) contributed the most number of articles to the telemedicine-related orthopaedics research during the COVID-19 era. All articles combined had a total of 383 citations and 66.1% were related to the Economic and Decision-making Analyses of telemedicine implementation. By and large, level IV evidence was predominant in our review.

Conclusion

Telemedicine can satisfactorily cover a major proportion of patients' visits to outpatient departments, thus limiting hospitals’ physical workload. Telemedicine has a potential future role in emergency orthopaedics and inpatient care through virtual aids. The issues related to patient privacy, data security, medicolegal, and reimbursement-related aspects need to be addressed through precise national or regional guidelines. Lastly, the orthopaedic physical examination is a weak link in telemedicine and needs to be strengthened.

A multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel reduces the time to referral and treatment for patients with a brain tumor

Background

Regional collaboration and appropriate referral management are crucial in neuro-oncological care. Lack of electronic access to medical records across health care organizations impedes interhospital consultation and may lead to incomplete and delayed referrals. To improve referral management, we have established a multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel (NOTP) with digital image exchange and determined the effects on lead times, costs, and time investment.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted from February 2019 to March 2020. All newly diagnosed patients referred to Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam were analyzed according to referral pathway: (1) standard referral (SR), (2) NOTP. The primary outcome was lead time, defined as time-to-referral, time-to-treatment, and total time (median days [interquartile range]). Secondary outcomes were costs and time investment.

Results

In total, 225 patients were included, of whom 153 had SR and 72 NOTP referral. Patients discussed in the NOTP were referred more frequently for first neurosurgical consultation (44.7% vs 28.8%) or combined neurological and neurosurgical consultation (12.8% vs 2.5%, P = .002). Time-to-referral was reduced for NOTP referral compared to SR (1 [0.25-4] vs 6 [1.5-10] days, P < .001). Total time decreased from 27 [14-48] days for the standard group to 15 [12-38.25] days for the NOTP group (P = .040). Costs and time investment were comparable for both groups.

Conclusion

Implementation of digital referral to a multidisciplinary NOTP is feasible and leads to more swift patient-tailored referrals at comparable costs and time investment as SR. This quality improvement initiative has the potential to improve collaboration and coordination of multidisciplinary care in the field of neuro-oncology.

Osteoporosis care amidst the prolonged pandemic

As SARS-CoV-2 stunned and overtook everyone's lives, multiple daily briefings, protocols, policies and incident command committees were mobilized to provide frontline staff with the tools, supplies and infrastructure needed to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical resources were immediately shifted. In light of the necessity for self-isolation, telemedicine was expanded, although there has been concern than non-pandemic disorders were being ignored. Ambulatory care services such as bone densitometry and osteoporosis centered clinics came to a near halt. Progress with fracture prevention has been challenged. Despite the prolonged pandemic and the consequent sense of exhaustion, we must re-engage with chronic bone health concerns and fracture prevention. Creating triaging systems for bone mineral testing and in person visits, treating individuals designated as high risk of fracture using fracture risk assessment tools such as FRAX, maintaining telemedicine, leveraging other bone health care team members to monitor and care for osteoporotic patients, and re-engaging our primary care colleagues will remain paramount but challenging. The pandemic persists. Thus, we will summarize what we have learned about COVID-19 and bone health and provide a framework for osteoporosis diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up with the extended COVID-19 pandemic. The goal is to preserve bone health, with focused interventions to sustain osteoporosis screening and treatment initiation/maintenance rates.