Orthopaedic trauma patients' experiences with emergency department care and follow-up through Virtual Fracture Care review: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify factors influencing orthopaedic trauma patients' experiences and satisfaction with emergency department (ED) care and follow-up through Virtual Fracture Care (VFC) review workflow. DESIGN: This study employed an explorative, descriptive, qualitative design using individual, semistructured interviews. SETTING: An urban level 2 trauma centre and teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were Dutch-speaking or English-speaking orthopaedic trauma patients, aged 18 years or above, who visited the hospital's ED between June and September 2022, and were treated through VFC review workflow. Exclusion criteria were: reason for follow-up other than injury, eye/motor/verbal score <15 at ED admission, follow-up treatment in another hospital, treatment initiated in another hospital, acute hospital admission (<24 hours). Twenty-three patients were invited for participation, of whom 15 participated and were interviewed. RESULTS: Several influential factors contributed to seven generic themes: (1) waiting times, (2) information provision, (3) healthcare professional communication, (4) care expectations, (5) care coordination, (6) care environment and (7) patient condition. Overall, participants were satisfied with received care. Interpersonal skills of healthcare professionals, and timing and content of provided information were specifically valued. Additionally, patients stated that their needs in the ED differed from those after ED discharge, and appreciated the way the VFC review workflow addressed this. Points of improvement included more active involvement of patients in the care process and prevention of inconsistent instructions by different healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences with ED care and VFC review follow-up are influenced by factors categorised into seven themes. The VFC review workflow effectively addresses these factors, leading to positive feedback. Recommendations for healthcare professionals include anticipating evolving post-ED information needs, engaging patients early to provide clarity about the care process, involving them in treatment decisions and expanding information provision across the entire care pathway.

Health Care Professionals' Experiences With a Mobile Self-Care Solution for Low Complex Orthopedic Injuries: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: To cope with the rising number of patients with trauma in an already constrained Dutch health care system, Direct Discharge (DD) has been introduced in over 25 hospitals in the Netherlands since 2019. With DD, no routine follow-up appointments are scheduled after the emergency department (ED) visit, and patients are supported through information leaflets, a smartphone app, and a telephone helpline. DD reduces secondary health care use, with comparable patient satisfaction and primary health care use. Currently, little is known about the experiences of in-hospital health care professionals with DD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of health care professionals with the DD protocol to enhance durable adoption and improve the protocol. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study parallel to the implementation of DD in 3 hospitals. Data were collected through a preimplementation survey, a postimplementation survey, and semistructured interviews. Quantitative data were reported descriptively, and qualitative data were reported using thematic analysis. Outcomes included the Bowen feasibility parameters: implementation, acceptability, preliminary efficacy, demand, and applicability. Preimplementation expectations were compared with postimplementation experiences. Health care professionals involved in the daily clinical care of patients with low-complex, stable injuries were eligible for this study. RESULTS: Of the 217 eligible health care professionals, 128 started the primary survey, 37 completed both surveys (response rate of 17%), and 15 participated in semistructured interviews. Health care professionals expressed satisfaction with the DD protocol (median 7.8, IQR 6.8-8.9) on a 10-point scale, with 82% (30/37) of participants noting improved information quality and uniformity and 73% (27/37) of patients perceiving reduced outpatient follow-up and imaging. DD was perceived as safe by 79% (28/37) of participants in its current form, but a feedback system to reassure health care professionals that patients had recovered adequately was suggested to improve DD. The introduction of DD had varying effects on workload and job satisfaction among different occupations. Health care professionals expressed intentions to continue using DD due to increased efficiency, patient empowerment, and self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals perceive DD as an acceptable, applicable, safe, and efficacious alternative to traditional treatment. A numerical in-app feedback system (eg, in-app communication tools or recovery scores) could alleviate health care professionals' concerns about adequate recovery and further improve DD protocols. DD can reduce health care use, which is important in times of constrained resources. Nonetheless, both advantages and disadvantages should be considered while evaluating this type of treatment. In the future, clinicians and policy makers can use these insights to further optimize and implement DD in clinical practice and guidelines.

Direct discharge for children with a greenstick or torus fracture of the wrist is a non-inferior satisfactory solution to traditional treatment.

PURPOSE: Direct Discharge protocols (DD) can alleviate strain on healthcare systems by reducing routine outpatient follow-up. These protocols include low-complex musculoskeletal injuries, such as isolated greenstick fractures or torus fractures of the wrist in children. While there is consensus on the effectiveness of DD, there is a lack of injury-specific powered studies. This study compares treatment satisfaction between DD and traditional treatment in children with a greenstick fracture or torus fractures of the wrist. METHODS: Children with isolated torus or greenstick fractures of the distal radius or ulna were eligible for inclusion before (pre-DD cohort) and after (DD cohort) the implementation of DD in four hospitals. Traditionally, patients receive a (soft) cast and minimally one routine outpatient follow-up appointment. With DD, patients are discharged directly from the ED after receiving a brace and information, summarized in a smartphone app and a helpline for questions during recovery. The primary outcome was patient or proxy treatment satisfaction (0 to 10), and a power analysis was performed to assess non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes included complications, functional outcomes measured in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE), primary healthcare utilisation, and secondary healthcare utilisation (follow-up appointments and imaging). RESULTS: In total, 274 consecutive children were included to analyse the primary endpoint. Of these, 160 (58%) were male with a median age of 11 years (IQR 8 to 12). Pre-DD and DD treatment satisfaction did not vary statistically significantly for greenstick fractures (p = 0.09) and torus fractures (p = 0.93). No complications were observed. PROMIS UE showed no statistically significant differences before and after implementation of direct discharge protocol for torus (p = 0.99) or greenstick (p = 0.45) fractures. Secondary healthcare utilisation regarding follow-up was significantly lower in the DD-torus cohort compared to the pre-DD torus cohort, with a mean difference (MD) of - 1.00 follow-up appointments (95% Confidence Interval (CI) - 0.92 to - 1.13). Similar results were found in the pre DD-greenstick cohort compared to the pre-DD-greenstick cohort (MD): - 1.17 follow-up appointments, 95% CI - 1.09 to - 1.26). CONCLUSION: Direct Discharge is non-inferior to traditional treatment in terms of treatment satisfaction for paediatric patients with greenstick or torus fractures of the wrist compared to children treated with rigid immobilisation and routine follow-up. Furthermore, the results demonstrate no complications, comparable functional outcomes, and a statistically significant reduction of secondary healthcare utilisation, making DD a good solution to cope with strained resources for children with an isolated greenstick fracture or torus fracture of the wrist.

Efficiency of a virtual fracture care protocol in non-operative treatment of adult patients with a distal radial fracture.

This study aimed to determine the effects of virtual fracture care (VFC) on secondary healthcare utilization in non-operative treatment of adult patients with a distal radial fracture. A retrospective cohort study was performed, including those who received non-operative treatment without VFC (pre-VFC) and with VFC (VFC). Outcomes included secondary healthcare utilization, calculated treatment costs, emergency department (ED) reattendances and complication rates. In total, 88 pre-VFC and 99 VFC patients were included. Pre-VFC patients had more follow-up appointments, with a median of 4 (IQR: 3) versus a median of 4 (IQR: 1) in VFC patients. In addition, 3% of follow-up appointments for pre-VFC patients were performed remotely compared to 18% for VFC patients. Complications and ED reattendances were comparable between groups. In this study, non-operative treatment of adult patients with a distal radial fracture through VFC reduced secondary healthcare utilization, with similar reported complication and ED reattendance rates compared with treatment without VFC.Level of evidence: III.

Cast versus removable orthosis for the management of stable type B ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: There is currently no consensus on nonoperative management in adult patients after a stable type B ankle fracture. The aim of this review is to compare a removable orthosis versus a cast regarding safety and functional outcome in the NOM of stable type B ankle fractures. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using randomized clinical trials and observational studies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the methodological index for non-randomized studies instrument. Nonoperative management was compared using the number of complications and functional outcome measured using the Olerud and Molander Score (OMAS) or the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Ankle Score. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Two were randomized clinical trials, and three were observational studies, including a total of 516 patients. A meta-analysis showed statistically significant higher odds of developing complications in the cast group [odds ratio (OR), 4.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52-14.35)]. Functional outcome in OMAS did not vary significantly at 6 weeks, mean difference (MD) - 6.64 (95% CI - 13.72 to + 0.45), and at 12 weeks, MD - 6.91 (95% CI - 18.73 to + 4.91). The mean difference of functional outcome in OMAS at 26 weeks or longer was significantly better in the removable orthosis group; MD - 2.63 (95% CI - 5.01 to - 0.25). CONCLUSION: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that a removable orthosis is a safe alternative type of NOM, as complication numbers are significantly lower in the orthosis group. In addition, no statistically significant differences were found in terms of functional outcome between a removable orthosis and a cast at 6 and 12 weeks. The 6-week and the 26-week OMAS results show that in patients with stable type B ankle fractures, a removable orthosis is non-inferior to a cast in terms of functional outcome.

Proxy-reported experiences of palliative, non-operative management of geriatric patients after a hip fracture: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the experiences from the period after the choice was made for palliative, non-operative management for geriatric patients with a hip fracture, to the most important factors in the process, as reported by a proxy. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted between 1 August 2020 and 1 April 2021 to investigate by-proxy reported patient experiences of non-operative management after hip fracture. Interviews followed a topic guide, recorded and transcribed per word. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes in the data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients were retrospectively identified from the electronic patient record. Relatives (proxies) of the patients who underwent palliative, non-operative management were contacted and were asked to participate in a semistructured interview and were named participants. The participants were proxies of the patients since patients were expected to be deceased during the timing of the interview. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in this study. The median age of the patients was 88 years (IQR 83-94). The 90-day mortality rate was 92.3%, with a median palliative care period of 11 days (IQR 4-26). A total of 19 participants were subjected to the interview. After thematic analysis, four recurring themes were identified: (1) the decision-making process, (2) pain experience, (3) patient-relative interaction and (4) the active dying. CONCLUSIONS: With the introduction of shared decision-making in an acute setting for geriatric patients with hip fracture, proxies reported palliative, non-operative management as an acceptable and adequate option for patients with high risk of adverse outcomes after surgery. The emerged themes in palliative care for patients with hip fracture show great similarity with severe end-stage disease palliative care, with pain identified as the most important factor influencing comfort of the patient and their environment after hip fracture. Future research should focus on further improving targeted analgesia for these patients focusing on acute pain caused by the fracture.

Healthcare utilization and satisfaction with treatment before and after direct discharge from the Emergency Department of simple stable musculoskeletal injuries in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate healthcare utilization and satisfaction with treatment before and after implementing direct discharge (DD) from the Emergency Department (ED) of patients with simple, stable musculoskeletal injuries. METHODS: Patients with simple, stable musculoskeletal injuries were included in two Dutch hospitals, both level-2 trauma centers: OLVG and Sint Antonius (SA), before (pre-DD-cohort) and after implementing DD (DD-cohort). With DD, no routine follow-up appointments are scheduled after the ED visit, supported by information leaflets, a smartphone application and a telephone helpline. Outcomes included: secondary healthcare utilization (follow-up appointments and X-ray/CT/MRI); satisfaction with treatment (scale 1-10); primary healthcare utilization (general practitioner (GP) or physiotherapist visited, yes/no). Linear regression was used to compare secondary healthcare utilization for all patients and per injury subgroup. Satisfaction and primary healthcare utilization were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 2033 (OLVG = 1686; SA = 347) and 1616 (OLVG = 1396; SA = 220) patients were included in the pre-DD-cohort and DD-cohort, respectively. After DD, the mean number of follow-up appointments per patient reduced by 1.06 (1.13-0.99; p < 0.001) in OLVG and 1.07 (1.02-0.93; p < 0.001) in SA. Follow-up appointments reduced significantly for all injury subgroups. Mean number of follow-up X-rays per patient reduced by 0.17 in OLVG (p < 0.001) and 0.18 in SA (p < 0.001). Numbers of CT/MRI scans were low and comparable. In OLVG, mean satisfaction with treatment was 8.1 (pre-DD-cohort) versus 7.95 (DD-cohort), versus 7.75 in SA (DD-cohort only). In OLVG, 23.6% of pre-DD-cohort patients visited their GP, versus 26.1% in the DD-cohort, versus 13.3% in SA (DD-cohort only). Physiotherapist use was comparable. CONCLUSION: This study performed in a large population and additional hospital confirms earlier pilot results, i.e., that DD has the potential to effectively reduce healthcare utilization, while maintaining high levels of satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.