Trauma Assessment Clinic: A virtual fracture clinic model that delivers on its PROMise!

Abstract

Background

The use of virtual fracture clinics across the United Kingdom and Ireland is growing and have been shown in an increasing number of studies to be safe, cost-effective and associated with good functional outcomes and patient satisfaction rates for certain fracture types. Initially pioneered at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, many centres have adopted similar templates, or variations of, and the overall aim of this study was to assess functional outcomes and injury recovery satisfaction rates of patients discharged directly following review in a specific virtual fracture clinic model known as the Trauma Assessment Clinic (TAC).

Methods

A prospective observational study was carried out of paediatric (aged <17 years) and adult (aged >17 years) patients, with the five most commonly observed fracture types, who were discharged directly following review at the TAC in a single hospital centre over a 12 month period from January to December 2018. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed via telephone administered questionnaires and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Results

A total of 198 patients were included in the study (n = 98 paediatric and n = 100 adult). Overall, 192 (97%) patients or parents/guardians of patients stated that they either strongly agreed (n = 148, 74.9%) or agreed (n = 44, 22.1%) that they were satisfied with their own or their child's recovery from their injury at a median follow-up of 9 months post direct discharge from the TAC. Adult patients had an EQ-5D-5L index median value of 1 (range 0-1), an EQ-VAS median of 87 (range 0-100), a QuickDASH median score of 0 (range 0-100) and a median LEFS of 80 (range 0–80).

Conclusion

The virtual management of trauma patients via the TAC model is a safe and patient-centred approach to treating certain injuries and fracture patterns. This study reports excellent patient reported outcome measures and patient injury recovery satisfaction rates. The use of current available technology in tandem with up-to-date best clinical practice and guidelines play a central role in this novel care pathway.

Keywords

Telehealth trauma remote consultation teleconsulting self care virtual assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brogan

Bellringer

Akehurst

, et al. Virtual fracture clinic management of fifth metatarsal, including Jones’, fractures is safe and cost-effective. Injury 2017; 48: 966–970.

Mackenzie

Carter

Jefferies

, et al. Infographic: trauma triage clinic reduces unnecessary fracture clinic attendances and costs with comparable clinical outcomes. Bone Joint J 2018; 100. –B: 957–958.

Bellringer

Brogan

Cassidy

, et al. Standardised virtual fracture clinic management of radiographically stable weber B ankle fractures is safe, cost effective and reproducible. Injury 2017; 48: 1670–1673.

Bhattacharyya

Jayaram

Holliday

, et al. The virtual fracture clinic: reducing unnecessary review of clavicle fractures. Injury 2017; 48: 720–723.

Jayaram

Bhattacharyya

Jenkins

, et al. A new “virtual” patient pathway for the management of radial head and neck fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 297–301.

Robinson

Sim

Latimer

, et al. Paediatric fracture clinic re-design: incorporating a virtual fracture clinic. Injury 2017; 48: 2101–2105.

Reilly M

O’

Breathnach

Conlon

, et al. Trauma assessment clinic: virtually a safe and smarter way of managing trauma care in Ireland. Injury 2019; 50(4): 898–902.

Network E. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/2018, accessed 10 March 2019.

Group

. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.

10.

Herdman

M GC

Lloyd

Janssen

, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011; 20(10): 1727–1736

11.

Devlin

Krabbe

. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ 2013; 14: S1–S3.

12.

Beaton

Wright

Katz

. Upper extremity collaborative G. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 1038–1046.

13.

Jill

PWS

Lott

. Daniel L riddle The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther 1999; 79: 371–383.

14.

Gamble

Jenkins

Edge

, et al. Satisfaction and functional outcome with “self-care” for the management of fifth metacarpal fractures. Hand (N Y 2015; 10: 607–612.

15.

Ferguson

McGlynn

Jenkins

, et al.

Fifth metatarsal fractures - Is routine follow-up necessary?

Injury 2015; 46: 1664–1668.

16.

Aasheim

Finsen

. The DASH and the QuickDASH instruments. Normative values in the general population in Norway. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2014; 39: 140–144.

17.

Dingemans

Kleipool

Mulders

MAM

, et al. Normative data for the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS). Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 422–426.

18.

Szende

Janssen

Cabases

, eds. Self-Reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht: Textbook Springer, 2014.

19.

Holm

Luras

Randsborg

. The economic burden of outpatient appointments following paediatric fractures. Injury 2016; 47: 1410–1413.

20.

Morris

Bell

. The socio-economical impact of paediatric fracture clinic appointments. Injury 2006; 37: 395–397.

21.

De Bleser

Depreitere

De Waele

, et al. Defining pathways. J Nurs Manag 2006; 14: 553–563.

22.

Porter

. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2477–2481.

23.

Koenig

Bozic

. Orthopaedic healthcare worldwide: the role of standardization in improving outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 3360–3363.

24.

Farias

Jenkins

Lock

, et al. Standardized clinical assessment And management plans (SCAMPs) provide a better alternative to clinical practice guidelines. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32: 911–920.

25.

Ansari

Adie

Harris

, et al. Practice variation in common fracture presentations: a survey of orthopaedic surgeons. Injury 2011; 42: 403–407.

26.

Mahmoud

Moideen

Kotwal

, et al. Management of mason type 1 radial head fractures: a regional survey and a review of literature. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014; 24: 1133–1137.

27.

Association

. Fracture clinic services. BOAST 7, British Orthopaedic Association; 2013.

28.

Holgate

Kirmani

Anand

. Virtual fracture clinic delivers British orthopaedic association compliance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2017; 99: 51–54.

29.

Surgery IIoTaO. Safe clinic guidelines. www.iitos.ie: Irish Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery; 2011.

30.

Stott

. Teaching specialist trainees in the out-patient clinic. Clin Teach 2007; 4: 21–24.

31.

Murray

Christen

Marsh

, et al. Fracture clinic redesign: improving standards in patient care and interprofessional education. Swiss Med Wkly 2012; 142: w13630.

32.

Jenkins

PJ GA

Murray

Anthony

, et al. The glasgow fracture pathway: a virtual clinic. BJJ News 2014.

33.

McAuliffe

Lami

. The impact of virtual fracture clinics on medical education - a medical student perspective. Med Educ Online 2016; 21.

34.

Vardy

Jenkins

Clark

, et al. Effect of a redesigned fracture management pathway and ‘virtual’ fracture clinic on ED performance. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e005282.

35.

Merghani K

MFOR

Sheehan

. Virtualised care and COVID-19. Ir J Med Sci 2020; 190(1): 39–40.

36.

Murphy

Fenelon

Murphy

, et al. Are virtual fracture clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic a potential alternative for delivering fracture care? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478: 2610–2621.

37.

Campbell M

Daly

Hanahoe

, et al. Orthopaedic social distancing and manpower management throughout COVID-19. The transient journal of trauma. Orthopaedics and the Coronavirus 2020.

38.

Rhind

Ramhamadany

Collins

, et al. An analysis of virtual fracture clinics in orthopaedic trauma in the UK during the coronavirus crisis. EFORT Open Rev 2020; 5: 442–448.