ABSTRACT
La pandemia COVID ha hecho de las consultas telemáticas una herramienta básica en la práctica diaria. El objetivo principal del estudio es valorar los resultados de la aplicación de consultas telemáticas para limitar la movilidad de los pacientes. Son objetivos operativos: proponer un plan de consultas, conocer cómo limita la asistencia a las consultas, definir qué patologías se benefician más con este plan. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se propone un esquema con la creación de consultas previas a las agendadas para valorar idoneidad y posibilidad de realizarla en acto único no presencial. RESULTADOS: Se han realizado 5.619 consultas con una falta de respuesta telefónica del 19%. El 74% de los pacientes fueron resueltos de forma virtual. Existe diferencia entre unidades, siendo más probable la respuesta telefónica para las consultas de unidad, OR = 0,60 o de traumatología general, OR = 0,67 y menos para los derivados desde urgencias. El 20% de las consultas no se acompañaban de pruebas complementarias. Las consultas de traumatología general, OR = 0,34, control postoperatorio, OR = 0,49, y unidades, OR = 0,40, cumplieron mejor este requisito. De los pacientes restantes, las consultas de traumatología general, OR = 0,50, y las derivadas a unidades, OR = 0,54 fueron las que más se resolvieron sin acudir presencialmente. CONCLUSIONES: Se han resuelto de forma no presencial el 74% de los pacientes que atendieron a la llamada telefónica. El 20% de los pacientes acuden a la visita sin pruebas complementarias. Las consultas de seguimiento de osteosíntesis y postoperatorio de cirugía artroscópica son las que más precisan de ser realizadas de forma presencial
The COVID pandemic has made telematic consultations a basic tool in daily practice. AIMS: The main objective of the study is to assess the results of the application of telematic consultations to limit the mobility of patients. The operational objectives are; to propose a consultation plan, to know how attendance limits consultations and to define which pathologies benefit the most from this plan. METHODS: A scheme is proposed with the creation of pre-scheduled clinic to assess suitability and the possibility of carrying them out in a single non face-to-face act. RESULTS: Phone call to 5,619 patients were made with a lack of response of 19%. The cases of 74% of the patients that answered were resolved virtually. There is a difference between units, obtaining a higher answering rate from patients appointed to specific clinic units, OR = 0.60, or to general trauma ones, OR = 0.67. The lowest answering rate was obtained from those derived from the emergency department. Twenty per cent of the consultations were not accompanied by complementary tests that would have favored the resolution in a single act. The general trauma consultations, OR = 0.34, postoperative control, OR = 0.49, and specific unit ones, OR = 0.40, were the ones that better met this requirement. Out of the remaining patients, the general trauma consultations, OR = 0.50, and those referred to units, OR = 0.54, were the ones that had a higher resolution rate without in- person consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The cases of 74% of the patients who answered the phone call were resolved virtually. Cases of 20% of the patients cannot be solved in a single act because they are derived without complementary tests. Osteosynthesis and postoperative arthroscopic follow-up consultations are the ones that need to be carried out in person the most
Subject(s)
Humans , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pandemics , Effective Access to Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Remote Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Orthopedics/statistics & numerical data , Orthopedic Procedures , Trauma Centers , LaparoscopyABSTRACT
The COVID pandemic has made telematic consultations a basic tool in daily practice. AIMS: The main objective of the study is to assess the results of the application of telematic consultations to limit the mobility of patients. The operational objectives are; to propose a consultation plan, to know how attendance limits consultations and to define which pathologies benefit the most from this plan. METHODS: A scheme is proposed with the creation of pre-scheduled clinic to assess suitability and the possibility of carrying them out in a single non face-to-face act. RESULTS: Phone call to 5,619 patients were made with a lack of response of 19%. The cases of 74% of the patients that answered were resolved virtually. There is a difference between units, obtaining a higher answering rate from patients appointed to specific clinic units, OR = 0.60, or to general trauma ones, OR = 0.67. The lowest answering rate was obtained from those derived from the emergency department. Twenty per cent of the consultations were not accompanied by complementary tests that would have favored the resolution in a single act. The general trauma consultations, OR = 0.34, postoperative control, OR = 0.49, and specific unit ones, OR = 0.40, were the ones that better met this requirement. Out of the remaining patients, the general trauma consultations, OR = 0.50, and those referred to units, OR = 0.54, were the ones that had a higher resolution rate without in- person consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The cases of 74% of the patients who answered the phone call were resolved virtually. Cases of 20% of the patients cannot be solved in a single act because they are derived without complementary tests. Osteosynthesis and postoperative arthroscopic follow-up consultations are the ones that need to be carried out in person the most.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Orthopedic Procedures , Orthopedics/methods , Remote Consultation/organization & administration , Traumatology/methods , Humans , Laparoscopy , SpainABSTRACT
There is an error in the name of one of the author in the original publication. The correct name is I Rodríguez-Delourme and not Delourne.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This work seeks to verify the utility of the KLIC score as a predictor of treatment success or failure in patients with knee and hip acute prosthetic joint infections (APJI). These patients were treated in our centre, which is not a prosthetic joint infection reference centre. The KLIC score assesses factors such as chronic kidney failure (2 points) (Kidney), liver disease (1.5 points) (Liver), revision surgery or femoral neck fracture (1.5 points)and cemented prosthesis (2 points) (Index surgery) and a C-reactive protein level (CRP) greater than 11.5 mg/dL (2.5 points), as a predictor of treatment success or failure in patients with knee and hip acute prosthetic joint infections (APJI). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 30 patients with APJI who were treated using debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention (DAIR) treatment between January 2007 and December 2016. Patients' KLIC scores were calculated. The main outcome was success or failure of DAIR treatment of APJI. RESULTS: DAIR treatment succeeded in 21 cases and failed in nine cases. Differences in outcome were found according to the KLIC score. For KLIC scores >2 and ≤4, there were three successes and zero failures; for scores 4-5, there were nine successes and two failures; for scores >5 and ≤7,there were nine successes and four failures; and for scores >7, there were zero successes and three failures (p = 0.025). We found a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 33% and 100% for scores ≤4 (score for calculations: 3.5), 43% and 84% for scores 4-5 (4.5), 50% and 68% for scores >5 and ≤7 (5.5), and 100% and 76% for scores >7 (7.5), respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.762 (95% confidence interval, 0.569-0.955). CONCLUSIONS: The KLIC score was useful in predicting success or failure of DAIR treatment of APJI. This supports the conclusion that with a score < 3.5, treatment is likely to succeed and with a score of >6, it is likely to fail.
