Determining the appropriate use of Technology Enabled Care Services (TECS) to manage upper-limb trauma injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentre retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique opportunity to explore the use of Technology Enabled Care Services (TECS), which remains novel for many service providers. This study assesses the factors that affect adaptation to remote monitoring of patients after upper-limb trauma injury. A standardised risk-stratified screening tool is further developed here to support clinical staff in both the determination of appropriate use of TECS and the optimisation of patient care. OBJECTIVES: 1: To explore the patient and injury factors that determine the appropriate use of TECS for patients with upper-limb injury. 2: To use these findings to refine a standardised screening tool for the appropriate choice of follow-up format. METHODS: A retrospective review of patient management was undertaken across three NHS upper-limb trauma units during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown. Data were collected, and themes were analysed across a number of predetermined categories. This was underpinned by a review of contemporary policy guidance and literature. RESULTS: A total of 85% of patients were offered an appropriate format of follow-up; this was defined by the ability to achieve desired patient-clinician goals and lack of complications. Key factors in determining appropriate follow-up included extent of injury, mental health considerations, and the need for face-to-face (F2F) assessment and treatment. CONCLUSION: Study findings demonstrate consistency between units in the factors determining the appropriate use of TECS. The refined screening tool provides a risk-stratified, standardised approach to the choice of follow-up format, F2F or TECS. It is hoped that this will support future clinical decision-making processes to ensure optimal patient care.

Upskilling the surgical workforce for vascular access provision during the COVID-19 pandemic - The Salisbury experience.

A vascular access device is defined as a catheter inserted into veins allowing fluids and medicines to be delivered intravenously1. The need for such devices in acutely unwell patients has remained steady throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe here our experience of up-skilling the resident plastic surgery and maxillofacial surgical registrars to provide a vascular access service to reduce the workload on our intensive care colleagues. We hope that our practice and an 'all hands on deck' approach to the utilisation of baseline skills within the existing workforce will inform other departments to help ease the burden on critical care departments as we progress through the next stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defining clinical decision making in the provision of audio-visual outpatient care for acute upper limb trauma services: A review of practice.

The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the widespread adoption of technology-enabled care in the NHS.1 Moving into phase two of the response, the continuing use of audio-visual technology is expected, where appropriate, to be integral in the provision of safe, quality patient care.2 A clinical need therefore exists to identify when care can be safely delivered remotely using audio-visual technology and when there is a need for in-person contact.  At Salisbury Foundation Trust (SFT), during phase one of the NHS response to Covid-19, the decision to treat upper limb trauma patients in-person or remotely was made using clinical screening criteria. For many patients, audio-visual appointments offered a practical, time efficient way of accessing their reconstructive team for assessment, advice and post-operative care. However, a subset of patients was identified by the team as requiring at least one in-person consultation to minimize perceived clinical risk and to optimize quality outcomes.  In order to understand more fully the challenges and successes of technology-enabled care to date, a national survey of practice across hand units in the UK was conducted. We present here some of our key findings and propose the need to develop nationally agreed screening criteria to determine how and when technology enabled outpatient care can be used in the management of acute upper limb trauma. The results of this survey forms part of a series of projects currently underway looking at the efficacy of audio-visual care in upper limb trauma, including a multicentre observational study.

Reducing implant loss rates in immediate breast reconstructions.

UK best practice guidelines for oncoplastic breast reconstruction were published in 2012. Implant-based reconstruction quality indicator (QI) targets for readmission, return to theatre and implant loss rates were set at 5% by 3 months, along with guidance to achieve these targets. The aims of this study were to quantify complication rates following implant-based reconstruction before and after the implementation of the guidelines. A retrospective audit of 86 patients with 106 implants in the 12 months to June 2013 was performed, C1. Following institutional changes including reducing antibiotic usage, a prospective audit was performed on 89 patients with 105 implants to June 2014, C2. Extended follow-up of salvaged implants was also performed. Demographics were not significantly different between the two cohorts apart from smoking. Implant loss rates fell from 7.5%(C1) to 1.9%(C2), p = 0.054 but at the cost of an increase in the return to theatre rate (14.2%-18%, p > 0.05). The implant salvage rate increased from 47% in C1 to 89.5% in C2, however, 3 of the implants that were salvaged were lost in the long term giving an overall salvage rate of 82.4% in C2. While an implant loss rate of <5% at 3 months appears achievable with less antibiotic use, this was made possible by the institution of an aggressive readmission and salvage policy. We would question the QI standards for readmission and return to theatre for immediate implant-based breast reconstruction, given that our implant loss rate of 1.9% was achieved with a return to theatre rate of 18%.