Electronic referrals for virtual fracture clinic service using the National Integrated Medical Imaging System (NIMIS)

A national multicentre study of outcomes and patient satisfaction with the virtual fracture clinic and the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic: The MAVCOV study

BACKGROUND

Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are advocated by the British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST). We aimed to assess the impact of the transition from face-to-face fracture clinic review and identify any change in clinical outcome and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A national, cross-sectional cohort study of VFCs across the UK over two separate two-week periods pre- and during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown was undertaken. Data comprising patient and injury characteristics, unplanned reattendance and complications within three months following discharge from VFC were collected by local collaborators. Telephone questionnaires were conducted to determine patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcome for patients discharged without face-to-face consultation. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of unplanned reattendances after direct discharge from VFC.

RESULTS

Data was analysed for 51 UK VFCs comprising 6134 patients from the pre-pandemic group (06/05/2019-19/05/2019) and 4366 patients from the first UK lockdown (04/05/2020-17/05/2020). During lockdown, the rate of direct discharge from VFC increased significantly (odds ratio (OR) 2.01, p<0.001) from 30 % (n = 1856/6134) to 46 % (n = 2021/4366). The rate of compliance with BOAST guidance recommending fracture clinic review within three days increased (OR 1.93, p<0.001) from 82 % (n = 5003/6134) to 89 % (n = 3883/4366). There were no differences in the rates of unplanned reattendance (6 % pre- and 7 % during lockdown, p = 0.281) or complications (0.2 % for both, p = 0.815). There were 1527/3877 patients discharged without face-to-face review from VFC who completed telephone questionnaires (mean follow-up 18-months in pre-pandemic group and 6-months in lockdown group). Satisfaction was high in both cohorts (80 % pre- and 76 % lockdown, p = 0.093). Dissatisfaction was associated with an unplanned reattendance (p<0.001) or a missed injury (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Despite a significant rise in direct discharge from VFC, there was no significant change in unplanned attendances, complications, or patient satisfaction. However, there are factors associated with dissatisfaction and these should be considered in the evolution of VFC.

Letter-only discharge process for virtual fracture clinic, a safe alternative to telephone discharge, outcomes and 12 month follow up for 1140 patients

Telephone consult has become the accepted discharge method for virtual fracture clinic (VFC) within the United Kingdom. Telephone consultations are time consuming; many orthopaedic units lack the resources and staff to deliver large numbers of daily telephone consultations which may block the development of an effective VFC. Our study aim was to validate a letter only VFC discharge process for safety and efficacy. A letter only discharge VFC was instigated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020). No ethical approval was required, the protocol was designed as a phased service evaluation and improvement project after change in practice. After smaller pilot audits, a comprehensive review of discharges outcomes from the VFC August-September 2021 (Phase 1) and January-March 2022 (Phase 2) was completed. Electronic letters, AE (accident and emergency) attendances and PACS database images (radiography and scans) taken over a 12 month follow up were analysed for failed discharges and adverse outcomes. Of 4810 patients reviewed in VFC, 1140 were discharged (24%). Mean patient age; 35 years (range 2-98), two thirds of patients were adults (>16 years). 116 (10%) returned with symptoms related to their initial presentation usually within the first few weeks via contact with the VFC helpline. Of the returning patients 65 were discharged again with the same advice, 48 underwent further imaging (CT/ MRI/ US scanning). 6 patients (0.5%) underwent surgery for problems relating to the initial injury; 2 knee meniscal repair/debridement, 1 ACL reconstruction, 1 fixation fifth metatarsal non-union, 2 shoulder arthroscopy. All surgeries were performed on elective timescales between 4 and 12 months after injury. Discharging letters detailed rehabilitation and symptom resolution timeframes. Our approach did not result in high return rates or adverse events (unexpected operations) in comparison to published traditional telephone discharge VFC. Units with limited staffing resources wishing to implement a VFC could safely adopt this approach as an alternative to telephone discharge.

The benefit of introducing a virtual trauma assessment clinic during a global pandemic

Sars-CoV2/COVID-19 pandemic created a national emergency in Ireland. Our institution implemented a virtual trauma assessment clinic to reduce attendance to our district hospital which was stimulated by the development of 'safe-distanced' care. The audit aimed to evaluate the impact of our trauma assessment clinic on care provision and presentation to hospital. All patients were managed according to the newly implemented virtual trauma assessment clinic protocol. Data was prospectively collected over a 6.5 week period from 23rd March 2020 to 7th May 2020. These referrals were reviewed twice weekly by a Consultant-led multidisciplinary team. 142 patients were referred to the virtual trauma assessment clinic. Mean age of referrals was 33.04 years. 43% (n=61) were male patients. Overall 32.4% (n=46) of new referrals were discharged directly to their family doctor. 30.3% (n=43) were discharged for physiotherapy follow up. 36.6% (n=52) required presentation to the hospital for further clinical review and 0.7% (n=1) was admitted for surgical intervention. Overall, this represents a reduction of 63% of patients attending the hospital. A simple virtual trauma assessment clinic model resulted in significant reduction in unnecessary attendance at face-to-face fracture clinics enhancing patient and staff safety during a global pandemic. This virtual trauma assessment clinic model has allowed the mobilisation of staff to assist with other essential duties in other areas of our hospital without compromising care.

Lessons From the Virtual Fracture Clinic: An Efficient Model With Satisfied Patients

Introduction The virtual fracture clinic (VFC) can be an effective means of managing specific musculoskeletal injuries, including through protocol-driven direct discharge from the emergency department (ED) or minor injury unit (MIU). This study aimed to measure the efficiency of the VFC triage process while quantifying patient satisfaction after direct discharge from the VFC without routine face-to-face review. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database to ascertain VFC outcomes for 9064 patients from February 2017 to July 2018. We analysed consultant variation in VFC review and the mean time taken per patient. Patient satisfaction was investigated in 100 chronological patients initially managed via the VFC. Results The mean time to triage each patient was 74 seconds, and a mean of 503 patients was triaged each month. The telephone helpline received a mean of 0.9 calls per week. Seventy-seven percent of patients stated they were happy to be managed without a fracture clinic appointment, and 82% of patients received virtual leaflets in the ED or MIU as per protocol. The number of fracture clinic appointments was reduced by 24% as patients were discharged directly or seen instead by allied health professionals. The median patient satisfaction with VFC management was 90%, and the mean satisfaction with VFC communication was 80%. Conclusion Virtual review of fracture clinic referral enables stratification of patients according to clinical urgency and saves patients from attending unnecessary appointments. This is achieved in a patient population generally satisfied with their overall management. Our study results support the growing trend of VFCs as pivotal systems in streamlining the care of musculoskeletal injuries while adhering to British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma guidelines for Fracture Clinic Services.

Intervention rates are low after direct discharge from the Edinburgh trauma triage clinic: Outcomes of 6,688 patients

AIM

The Edinburgh Trauma Triage clinic (TTC) is an established form of Virtual Fracture clinic (VFC) that permits the direct discharge of simple, isolated fractures from the Emergency Department (ED). Small, short-term cohort studies of similar systems have been published, but to detect low rates of complications requires a large study sample and longer-term follow-up. This study details the outcomes of all patients with injuries suitable for a direct discharge protocol over a four-year period, reviewed at a minimum of three years after attendance.

PATIENTS

All TTC records between February 2014 and December 2017 were collated from a prospective database. Fractures of the radial head, little finger metacarpal, fifth metatarsal, toe phalanges and mallet finger injuries were included. TTC outcome, including any deviations from a well-established direct discharge protocol, were noted. All records were re-assessed at a minimum of 36 months after TTC triage (mean 54 months) to ascertain which injuries attended the trauma clinic after initial discharge. Reasons for attendance, the source of referral and any subsequent surgical procedures were identified.

RESULTS

There were 6688 patients with fractures of the radial head (1861), little finger metacarpal (1621), fifth metatarsal (1916), toe phalanges (920) and mallet finger injuries (370). 298 (6%) patients were re-referred after direct discharge and attended trauma clinic at a mean time after injury of 11.9 weeks, of whom 11 (0.2%) underwent a surgical intervention. Serious adverse events, defined as those in which a patient may not have come to harm if early clinical review had been undertaken, occurred in 1 patient (0.01%).

CONCLUSION

Intervention after direct discharge of simple pre-defined injuries of the elbow, hand and foot is low. Within a TTC system, patients with these injuries can be safely discharged without routine follow-up.

The introduction of the trauma triage clinic at a district general hospital: safety and efficacy during the first year of implementation

INTRODUCTION

Previously published work has shown that there are no missed injuries following the introduction of a trauma triage clinic (TTC). This study aimed to assess both the safety and efficacy of the TTC model in a district general hospital in the United Kingdom. We aimed to assess the rate of missed 'high-risk' injuries, including posterior shoulder dislocations, talar injuries, Lisfranc injuries and complex carpal instability.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively between November 2017 and October 2018 (inclusive). During this time, 3,721 patients were reviewed (mean age 38 years, SD 25.5, range 1-103 years). Case notes and x-rays were reviewed for all patients. Compliance was assessed against British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST 7) guidelines for fracture clinic services. The standard for adherence to guidelines was 100%.

RESULTS

Thirty-two of 3,721 patients had a missed injury during the study period, and 66% of these injuries were high risk. TTC was effective in reducing the number of patients seen in the fracture clinic, with 23% of patients discharged directly from the TTC. Eighty-nine per cent of patients were reviewed in clinic within 72 hours of presentation, with a median time to review of 2 days.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that TTC is efficient in reducing the burden of patients seen in the fracture clinic, but it is not as safe as reported previously. Although the prevalence of missed injuries is low, hospitals introducing a TTC model should consider departmental processes to help accurately identify and triage high-risk injuries.

Cost-effectiveness of direct discharge from the emergency department of patients with simple stable injuries in the Netherlands

Background

Approximately one-third of musculoskeletal injuries are simple stable injuries (SSIs). Direct discharge (DD) from the emergency department (ED) of patients with SSIs reduces healthcare utilization, without compromising patient outcome and experience, when compared with "traditional" care with routine follow-up. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of DD compared with traditional care from a societal perspective.

Methods

Societal costs, including healthcare, work absenteeism, and travel costs, were calculated for patients with an SSI, 6 months before (pre-DD cohort) and after implementation of DD (DD cohort). The pre-DD cohort was treated according to local protocols. The DD cohort was treated using orthoses, discharge leaflet, smartphone application, and telephone helpline, without scheduling routine follow-up. Effect measures included generic health-related quality of life (HR-QoL; EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire); disease-specific HR-QoL (functional outcome, different validated questionnaires, converted to 0-100 scale); treatment satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), 1-10); and pain (VAS, 1-10). All data were assessed using a 3-month postinjury survey and electronic patient records. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques.

Results

Before DD, 144 of 348 participants completed the survey versus 153 of 371 patients thereafter. There were no statistically significant differences between the pre-DD cohort and the DD cohort for generic HR-QoL (0.03; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.08), disease-specific HR-QoL (4.4; 95% CI -1.1 to 9.9), pain (0.08; 95% CI -0.37 to 0.52) and treatment satisfaction (-0.16; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.21). Total societal costs were lowest in the DD cohort (-€822; 95% CI -€1719 to -€67), including healthcare costs (-€168; 95% CI -€205 to -€131) and absenteeism costs (-€645; 95% CI -€1535 to €100). The probability of DD being cost-effective was 0.98 at a willingness-to-pay of €0 for all effect measures, remaining high with increasing willingness-to-pay for generic HR-QoL, disease-specific HR-QoL, and pain, and decreasing with increasing willingness-to-pay for treatment satisfaction.

Discussion

DD from the ED of patients with SSI seems cost-effective from a societal perspective. Future studies should test generalizability in other healthcare systems and strengthen findings in larger injury-specific cohorts.

Level of evidence

II.

Direct discharge of patients with simple stable musculoskeletal injuries as an alternative to routine follow-up: a systematic review of the current literature

PURPOSE

There is growing evidence that patients with certain simple stable musculoskeletal injuries can be discharged directly from the Emergency Department (ED), without compromising patient outcome and experience. This study aims to review the literature on the effects of direct discharge (DD) of simple stable musculoskeletal injuries, regarding healthcare utilization, costs, patient outcome and experience.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using PRISMA guidelines. Comparative and non-comparative studies on DD of simple stable musculoskeletal injuries from the ED in an adult/paediatric/mixed population were included if reporting ≥ 1 of: (1) logistic outcomes: DD rate (proportion of patients discharged directly); number of follow-up appointments; DD return rate; (2) costs; (3) patient outcomes/experiences: functional outcome; treatment satisfaction; adverse outcomes; other.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included (92% conducted in the UK). Seven studies (27%) assessed functional outcome, nine (35%) treatment satisfaction, and ten (38%) adverse outcomes. A large proportion of studies defined DD eligibility criteria as injuries being minor/simple/stable, without further detail. ED DD rate was 26.7-59.5%. Mean number of follow-up appointments was 1.00-2.08 pre-DD, vs. 0.00-0.33 post-DD. Return rate was 0.0-19.4%. Costs per patient were reduced by €69-€210 (ranging from - 38.0 to - 96.6%) post-DD. Functional outcome and treatment satisfaction levels were 'equal' or 'better' (comparative studies), and 'high' (non-comparative studies), post-DD. Adverse outcomes were low and comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review supports the idea that DD of simple stable musculoskeletal injuries from the ED provides an opportunity to reduce healthcare utilization and costs without compromising patient outcomes/experiences. To improve comparability and facilitate implementation/external validation of DD, future studies should provide detailed DD eligibility criteria, and use a standard set of outcomes. Systematic review registration number: 120779, date of first registration: 12/02/2019.

Direct discharge from the emergency department of simple stable injuries: a propensity score-adjusted non-inferiority trial

Background

Recent studies suggest a large proportion of musculoskeletal injuries are simple stable injuries (SSIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether direct discharge (DD) from the emergency department (ED) of SSIs is non-inferior to 'traditional care' regarding treatment satisfaction and functional outcome, and to compare other patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), patient-reported experiences (PREMs), resource utilization, and adverse outcomes before and after DD.

Methods

This trial compared outcomes for 11 SSIs 6 months before and after the implementation of DD protocols. Pre-DD, patients were treated according to local protocols. Post-DD, patients were discharged directly using removable orthoses, discharge leaflets, smartphone application, and telephone helpline. Participants received a 3-month postinjury PROM/PREM survey to assess treatment satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), pain (VAS), functional outcome (four validated questionnaires), and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL; EuroQol-5D). Resource utilization included general practitioner (GP) visit (yes/no), physiotherapist visit (yes/no), return to work/school/sports (days), work/school absenteeism to visit hospital (yes/no), number of hospital visits, and follow-up X-rays. Other outcomes included missed injuries (additionally to SSI) and adverse outcomes (delayed union, non-union). Between-group differences were assessed using propensity score-adjusted regression analyses. Non-inferiority was assessed for satisfaction and functional outcome using predefined margins.

Results

348 (pre-DD) and 371 (post-DD) patients participated; 144 (41.4%) and 153 (41.2%) patients completed the survey. Satisfaction and functional outcome post-DD were non-inferior to traditional care. Mean satisfaction was 8.13 pre-DD and 7.95 post-DD (mean difference: -0.16, p=0.408). Pain, HR-QoL, GP/physiotherapist visits, and return to work/school/sports were comparable before and after DD. Work absenteeism was higher pre-DD (OR 0.110, p<0.001), as well as school absenteeism (OR 0.084, p<0.001). Post-DD, the mean number of hospital visits and X-rays reduced: -1.68 (p<0.001) and -0.26 (p<0.001). Missed injuries occurred once pre-DD versus twice post-DD. There were no adverse outcomes.

Discussion

The results of this study confirm several SSIs can be discharged directly from the ED without compromising patient outcome/experience. Future injury-specific trials are needed to conclusively assess non-inferiority of DD.

Level of evidence

II.

The impact of digitisation of a virtual fracture clinic on referral quality, outcomes and assessment times

BACKGROUND

Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become widely adopted, aiming to improve efficiency, standardise patient care and reduce clinic appointments for injuries that can be managed conservatively. A variety of means exist to manage VFC referrals and assessment, including paper-based and digital methods. This study assesses VFC referral quality and outcomes before and after implementation of a digital VFC referral and management system.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of all VFC referrals and assessments from July 2017-March 2020 in a large UK district general hospital. All referrals and assessments were analysed for quality and completeness of referral information, grade of assessor, outcome of assessment, referral-to-assessment time, and assessment-to-surgery time (for those requiring operative management).

RESULTS

3038 paper and 9,228 digital referrals were analysed by 2 separate reviewers. Quality and completeness of referral information showed significant improvement in 11 predetermined key data points with the digital referral system (p < 0.001). Date and mechanism of injury were the most commonly missing data criteria (67.5% and 68.2%, respectively) with paper referrals. Significant improvements were noted in the proportion of Consultant delivered VFC assessments (84.2% vs 71.0%; p < 0.001), VFC discharge rate (20.8% vs 13.1%; p < 0.001) and patients recalled for urgent review (6.2% vs 0.8%; p < 0.001) with digital referrals. Mean referral-to-assessment (31.2 vs 49.9 h; p < 0.001) and assessment-to-surgery (9.2 vs 13.0 days; p = 0.01) times also reduced significantly with referral digitisation.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in virtual referral quality and completeness directly lead to facilitation of more thorough, detailed and appropriate virtual assessments; improving timely decision-making, reducing unnecessary appointments, and permitting better prioritisation of workload and earlier surgery for patients requiring operative treatment. Purpose-built digital solutions are an excellent means of achieving these aims.

Virtual Fracture Clinics in Orthopaedic Surgery - A Systematic Review of Current Evidence

AIMS

Approximately 75% of fractures are simple, stable injuries which are often unnecessarily immobilised with subsequent repeated radiographs at numerous fracture clinic visits. In 2014, the Glasgow Fracture Pathway offered an alternative virtual fracture clinic (VFC) pathway with the potential to reduce traditional fracture clinic visits, waiting times and overall costs. Many units have implemented this style of pathway in the non-operative management of simple, undisplaced fractures. This study aims to systematically review the clinical outcomes, patient reported outcomes and cost analyses for VFCs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE Library databases. Studies reporting outcomes following the use of VFC were included. Outcomes analysed were: 1) clinical outcomes, 2) patient reported outcomes, and 3) cost analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 studies involving 11,921 patients with a mean age of 41.1 years and mean follow-up of 12.6 months were included. In total, 65.7% of patients were directly virtually discharged with protocol derived conservative management, with 9.1% using the Helpline and 15.6% contacting their general practitioner for advice or reassurance. A total of 1.2% of patients experienced fracture non-unions and 0.4% required surgical intervention. The overall patient satisfaction rate was 81.0%, with only 1.3% experiencing residual pain at the fracture site. Additionally, the mean cost per patient for VFC was £71, with a mean saving of £53 when compared to traditional clinic models. Subgroup analysis found that for undisplaced fifth metatarsal or radial head/neck fractures, the rates of discharge from VFC to physiotherapy or general practitioners were 81.2% and 93.7% respectively.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study established that there is excellent evidence to support virtual fracture clinic for non-operative management of fifth metatarsal fractures, with moderate evidence for radial head and neck fractures. However, the routine use of virtual fracture clinics is presently not validated for all stable, undisplaced fracture patterns.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; Systematic Review of all Levels of Evidence.

Design and implementation of an acute Trauma and Orthopaedic ePlatform (TOP) referral system utilising existing secure technology during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are being increasingly used to offer safe and efficient orthopaedic review without the requirement for face-to-face contact. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to develop an online referral pathway that would allow us to provide definitive orthopaedic management plans and reduce face-to-face contact at the fracture clinics.

Methods

All patients presenting to the emergency department from 21March 2020 with a musculoskeletal injury or potential musculoskeletal infection deemed to require orthopaedic input were discussed using a secure messaging app. A definitive management plan was communicated by an on-call senior orthopaedic decision-maker. We analyzed the time to decision, if further information was needed, and the referral outcome. An analysis of the orthopaedic referrals for the same period in 2019 was also performed as a comparison.

Results

During the study period, 295 patients with mean age of 7.93 years (standard error (SE) 0.24) were reviewed. Of these, 25 (9.8%) were admitted, 17 (5.8%) were advised to return for planned surgical intervention, 105 (35.6%) were referred to a face-to-face fracture clinic, 137 (46.4%) were discharged with no follow-up, and seven (2.4%) were referred to other services. The mean time to decision was 20.14 minutes (SE 1.73). There was a significant difference in the time to decision between patients referred to fracture clinic and patients discharged (mean 25.25 minutes (SE 3.18) vs mean 2.63 (SE 1.42); p < 0.005). There were a total of 295 referrals to the fracture clinic for the same period in 2019 with a further 44 emergency admissions. There was a statistically significant difference in the weekly referrals after being triaged by the VFC (mean 59 (SE 5.15) vs mean 21 (SE 2.17); p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The use of an electronic referral pathway to deliver a point of care virtual fracture clinic allowed for efficient use of scarce resources and definitive management plan delivery in a safe manner.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:293–301.

Challenges faced by orthopaedic trainees during the Covid-19 pandemic - An Irish perspective

Background

The recent SARS-CoV2/COVID-19 pandemic has caused a change in most aspects of our daily lives. Our health systems have had to adjust at an unprecedented rate to accommodate care for patients affected by the virus. As a result there has been widespread disruption to trauma and elective services throughout the Orthopaedic community Worldwide. We discuss the changes facing orthopaedic residents in training and the adaptations that have been made.

Methods

We discuss the challenges posed from a reduction in caseload to surgeons in training, teaching activities, patient interaction, workforce reinforcement and support networks in Ireland.

Results

A structured deployment of residents has taken place ensuring maximum exposure to operative cases to maintain competency. Teaching activities have been virtualised into a new curriculum that provides trainees with convenient access to a wide range of specialists at defined time periods during the week. Strategies have been employed to reinforce the workforce in anticipation of an acute reduction in staff due to the Covid-19 virus.

Conclusions

The changes have been rapid and despite many of these adjustments being borne out of necessity, the innovation displayed will almost certainly alter how training is ultimately delivered long after the crisis has ceased.

Are Virtual Fracture Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic a Potential Alternative for Delivering Fracture Care? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Virtual fracture clinics are an alternative to the traditional model of fracture care. Since their introduction in 2011, they have become increasingly used in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health crisis has driven institutions to examine such innovative solutions to manage patient care. The current controversies include quantifying safety outcomes, such as potential delayed or missed injuries, inadequate treatment, and medicolegal claims. Questions also exist regarding the potential for cost reductions and efficiencies that may be achieved. Physical distancing has limited the number of face-to-face consultations, so this review was conducted to determine if virtual fracture clinics can provide an acceptable alternative in these challenging times.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aim of this systematic review was to describe (1) adverse outcomes, (2) cost reductions, and (3) efficiencies associated with the virtual fracture clinic model.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to March 2020. The keywords "virtual" or "telemedicine" or "telehealth" or "remote" or "electronic" AND "fracture" or "trauma" or "triage" AND "clinic" or "consultation" were entered, using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria included adults and children treated for injuries by a virtual clinic model at the initial review. Eligible injuries included injuries deemed to not need surgical intervention, and those able to be treated remotely using defined protocols. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients reviewed by telemedicine using video links or in person at the initial review. Initially, 1065 articles were identified, with 665 excluded as they did not relate to virtual fracture clinics. In all, 400 articles were screened for eligibility, and 27 full-text reviews were conducted on 18 studies (30,512 virtual fracture clinic encounters). Three subdomains focusing on adverse outcomes, cost reductions, and efficiencies were recorded. The term adverse outcomes was used to describe any complications, further surgeries, re-referrals back to the clinic, or deviations from the protocols. Efficiency described the number of patients reviewed and discharged using the model, savings in clinic slots, reduced waiting times, or a reduction in consumption of resources such as radiographs. All studies were observational and the quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa tool, which demonstrated a median score of 6 ± 1.8, indicating moderate quality.

RESULTS

Six studies reported adverse outcomes in detail, with events ranging from inappropriate splinting, deviations from protocols, and one patient underwent an osteotomy for a malunion. Efficiency varied from direct discharge proportions of 18% in early studies to 100% once the virtual fracture clinic model was more established. Cost reductions compared with estimates derived from conventional fracture clinics varied from USD 53 to USD 297 and USD 39,125 to USD 305876 compared with traditional fracture clinic visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual fracture clinics may provide a means to treat patients remotely, using agreed-upon protocols. They have an important role in the current COVID-19 pandemic, due to the possibility to provide ongoing care in an otherwise challenging setting. More robust studies looking at this model of care will be needed to assess its long-term effects on patients, institutions, and health care systems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

How useful are virtual fracture clinics?: a systematic review

Background

Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of all papers pertaining to VFCs, using the search engines PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were carried out and screened by two authors, with final study eligibility confirmed by the senior author.

Results

In total, 21 records were relevant to our research question. Six orthopaedic injuries were identified as suitable for VFC review, with a further four discussed in detail. A reduction of face to face appointments of up to 50% was reported with greater compliance to BOAST guidelines (46.4%) and cost saving (up to £212,000).

Conclusions

This systematic review demonstrates that the VFC model can help deliver a safe, more cost-effective, and more efficient arm of the trauma service to patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:683–690.

A Service Evaluation after 4 year's use of the Virtual Fracture Clinic model by a District General Hospital in the South West of England

INTRODUCTION

A Virtual fracture clinic (VFC) was set up in 2015. An initial patient satisfaction survey demonstrated satisfaction with the service. The purpose of this service evaluation was to re-evaluate the VFC by reporting on patient satisfaction. A small audit was undertaken alongside to examine the time taken from ED presentation to VFC review against the British Orthopaedic Association Society for Trauma (BOAST) guidelines of 72 h.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients discharged from VFC in August 2019 were eligible to take part in the patient satisfaction survey. The Electronic Patients Records System (EPRS) was used to generate data regarding time of review and patient return for follow up appointments.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated that 88% of patients would recommend the service to friends. More than 80% of patients were satisfied with various elements of the service and 80% of patients are seen within the target time of 72 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients continue to be satisfied with the VFC. There seems to be a greater acceptance of not being reviewed by a doctor. In general, patients were seen within 72 h of ED presentation but more work is needed to streamline the process of tertiary referrals.

An analysis of virtual fracture clinics in orthopaedic trauma in the UK during the coronavirus crisis

Virtual fracture clinics (VFC) are advocated by new orthopaedic (British Orthopaedic Association) and National Health Service (NHS) guidelines in the United Kingdom. We discuss benefits and limitations, reviewing the literature, as well as recommendations on introducing a VFC service during the coronavirus pandemic and into the future.A narrative review identifying current literature on virtual fracture clinic outcomes when compared to traditional model fracture clinics in the UK. We identify nine relevant publications related to VFC.The Glasgow model, initiated in 2011, has become the benchmark. Clinical efficiency can be improved, reducing the number of emergency department (ED) referrals seen in VFC by 15-28% and face-to-face consultations by 65%. After review in the VFC, 33-60% of patients may be discharged. Some studies have shown no negative impact on the ED; the time to discharge was not increased. Patient satisfaction ranges from 91-97% using a VFC service, and there may be cost-saving benefits annually of £67,385 to £212,705. Non-attendance may be reduced by 75% and there are educational opportunities for trainees. However, evidence is limited; 28% of patients prefer face-to-face consultations and not all have access to internet or email (72%).We propose a pathway integrating the VFC model, whilst having senior orthopaedic decision makers available in the ED, during normal working hours, to cope with the pandemic. Beyond the pandemic, evidence suggests the Glasgow model is viable for day-to-day practice. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:442-448. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200041.

Design and implementation of an acute Trauma and Orthopaedic ePlatform (TOP) referral system utilising existing secure technology during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) are being increasingly used to offer safe and efficient orthopaedic review without the requirement for face-to-face contact. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to develop an online referral pathway that would allow us to provide definitive orthopaedic management plans and reduce face-to-face contact at the fracture clinics.

Methods

All patients presenting to the emergency department from 21March 2020 with a musculoskeletal injury or potential musculoskeletal infection deemed to require orthopaedic input were discussed using a secure messaging app. A definitive management plan was communicated by an on-call senior orthopaedic decision-maker. We analyzed the time to decision, if further information was needed, and the referral outcome. An analysis of the orthopaedic referrals for the same period in 2019 was also performed as a comparison.

Results

During the study period, 295 patients with mean age of 7.93 years (standard error (SE) 0.24) were reviewed. Of these, 25 (9.8%) were admitted, 17 (5.8%) were advised to return for planned surgical intervention, 105 (35.6%) were referred to a face-to-face fracture clinic, 137 (46.4%) were discharged with no follow-up, and seven (2.4%) were referred to other services. The mean time to decision was 20.14 minutes (SE 1.73). There was a significant difference in the time to decision between patients referred to fracture clinic and patients discharged (mean 25.25 minutes (SE 3.18) vs mean 2.63 (SE 1.42); p < 0.005). There were a total of 295 referrals to the fracture clinic for the same period in 2019 with a further 44 emergency admissions. There was a statistically significant difference in the weekly referrals after being triaged by the VFC (mean 59 (SE 5.15) vs mean 21 (SE 2.17); p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The use of an electronic referral pathway to deliver a point of care virtual fracture clinic allowed for efficient use of scarce resources and definitive management plan delivery in a safe manner. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:293–301.