Setting up an arthroplasty care practitioner-led virtual clinic for follow-up of orthopaedic patients

Virtual clinics versus face-to-face review: is the benefit the same for new orthopaedic patients?

Background

COVID-19 shocked global healthcare systems, particularly the surgical services, resulting in a significant backlog of patients with waiting times not expected to return to pre-pandemic levels until 2025. The Royal College of Surgeons has recommended a wider use of virtual clinics to meet the increased demand. The efficacy of virtual follow up is well documented in the literature; however, there is very little evidence of the role of virtual clinics in the assessment of new elective patients.

Methods

Observational study comparing clinical outcomes of new patients electively referred to orthopaedic virtual clinics between January and February 2021 with face-to-face clinics in January and February 2020.

Results

Over the equivalent time frame, more patients were reviewed in virtual clinics compared to traditional face-to-face (821 vs 499). However, virtual clinics lead to significantly more patients being brought back for follow up (78.3% vs 37.3%) and fewer patients received outcomes that progressed their journey towards a definitive intervention or discharge.

Conclusion

The overall benefit of virtual clinic appointments in the context of reviewing new patients remains to be proven. Despite increasing use of virtual clinics in the National Health Service, we have shown a potential delay to patients’ clinical progression, ultimately delaying healthcare delivery. Potential methods to improve the benefit of virtual clinics are proposed.

Virtual phone clinics in orthopaedics: evaluation of clinical application and sustainability

AIMS

Adoption of virtual clinics has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and they will continue to form an integral part of healthcare delivery. Our objective was to evaluate virtual clinics in orthopaedic practice and determine how to use them effectively and sustainably.

METHODS

We surveyed 100 consecutive patients participating in orthopaedic virtual phone clinic (VPC) at an academic hospital to evaluate patient satisfaction against face-to-face (F2F) consultations and obtain suggestions for improving patient experience, and we surveyed 23 clinicians who conducted orthopaedic VPCs in 2020. Data were correlated with clinic outcomes, reason for consultation, diagnosis, patient age and clinician grade. Consultation duration, clinician-associated costs and reimbursement were analysed. Significance was tested using two-tailed Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction (out of 5) for VPC was significantly lower than F2F (4.1 vs 4.5, p=0.0003), and a larger proportion of VPC scored <3 compared with F2F (11% vs 2%). Higher VPC scores were associated with appointments for delivering results and where patients felt clinical examination was not needed. Patients suggested introducing video capability, adhering to appointment time and offering the choice of VPC or F2F. Mean clinician satisfaction scores for VPC were 4.3/5 and suggested indications for VPC included: routine surveillance, communication of results, discussing/consenting for surgery and vulnerable patients. Integrating video, providing private rooms and offering patients time intervals for VPC were recommended. Current National Health Service VPC structures uses greater clinician resources and generates lower reimbursement than F2F consultations, resulting in 11.5% reduction in reimbursement.

CONCLUSION

VPC plays a valuable role when clinical evaluation has been performed or considered not necessary. Offering the choice of VPC or F2F, adding video capability and providing a time interval for VPC may reduce resource use and increase satisfaction. We recommend renegotiating VPC tariffs and cost-neutral modifications of clinic structure.

Virtual clinics in foot and ankle surgery: patient and clinician perceptions

BACKGROUND

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has led to the popularisation of 'virtual' clinics. In orthopaedics, little is known about the use of virtual clinics within foot and ankle surgery, specifically.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observation study of patients and clinicians in response to virtual clinics in foot and ankle surgery. Patients seen in a virtual clinic were contacted by telephone from two weeks after their consultation and asked to complete a 12-point questionnaire. Demographic information was also collected. Clinicians in foot and ankle completed a 10-point questionnaire.

RESULTS

One hundred patient responses were collected. Patient satisfaction with virtual clinics was positive, with 65% of respondents reporting they were very happy (Likert scale rating 5). More than 90% of patients felt they received enough information, felt involved, felt the virtual clinic was helpful and knew who to contact if there was a problem. However, 79% would still prefer a face-to-face consultation, and 22% would have preferred a video consultation. Clinician responses were more cautious, with 60% stating they were neither happy nor unhappy (Likert scale rating 3). Virtual clinics may be faster for the clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual clinics may be more convenient for patients, with high satisfaction levels reported, but represent significant clinical challenges for foot and ankle surgeons. Elements of virtual clinics may persist post pandemic, particularly in routine follow-up. Virtual clinics are not appropriate for new patient referrals.

Cost analysis on virtual clinic follow-up after primary joint arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

As previously reported, a virtual clinic (VC) effectively manages the increasing need to review and monitor patients after primary joint replacement. Such procedure is increasing steadily in number, with more than 200,000 procedures performed annually in the UK. Considering that face-to-face review following routine uncomplicated primary joint arthroplasty is costly and time consuming, guidelines suggest reviewing patients at regular intervals through radiographs and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

We reviewed our VC experience in a large teaching hospital. A single surgeon established the VC, and all primary hip and knee replacements over an 18-month period (January 2016 to July 2017) were included in the study. We evaluated all clinical records, PROMs, patient satisfaction, and outcome of VC at one-year follow-up. Additionally, we conducted a safety and cost analysis.

RESULTS

This study included 154 primary joints (70 total knee replacements and 84 total hip replacements) in 148 patients (89 females, 59 males). The mean age at surgery was 65.3 years. Of the patients, 93% completed the postoperative PROMs, whereas <40% completed the PROM during regular clinical follow-up. All the patients had follow-up radiographs. After VC assessment, which included radiographies and PROMs, 59% of the patients were directly discharged. Of the remaining 41% patients who had face-to-face review, one-third were examined for the same arthroplasty issue, and two-thirds were examined for unrelated or other joint problems. Although the postoperative PROM was below the national average, the improvement in PROM (from pre-operative to post-operative scores) was higher than the national average. The cost analysis demonstrated an average cost savings of £10.449 per year and consultant.

CONCLUSIONS

VC follow-up after primary joint replacement is a safe and cost-effective option to manage postoperative follow-up visits and identify those patients who require additional face-to-face reviews and who can be safely discharged. The discharge criteria included satisfactory improvement in PROM scores, review of follow-up radiographs, and no concerns raised by patients. Considering the increasing number of primary joint arthroplasty and the financial pressure on the National Health Service, VC offers an excellent alternative to conventional clinics.

Transformation from a traditional model to a virtual model of care in orthopaedic surgery: COVID-19 experience and beyond

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.

Transformation from a traditional model to a virtual model of care in orthopaedic surgery

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.