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.

Cost-effectiveness of direct discharge from the emergency department of patients with simple stable injuries in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of musculoskeletal injuries are simple stable injuries (SSIs). Direct discharge (DD) from the emergency department (ED) of patients with SSIs reduces healthcare utilization, without compromising patient outcome and experience, when compared with "traditional" care with routine follow-up. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of DD compared with traditional care from a societal perspective. METHODS: Societal costs, including healthcare, work absenteeism, and travel costs, were calculated for patients with an SSI, 6 months before (pre-DD cohort) and after implementation of DD (DD cohort). The pre-DD cohort was treated according to local protocols. The DD cohort was treated using orthoses, discharge leaflet, smartphone application, and telephone helpline, without scheduling routine follow-up. Effect measures included generic health-related quality of life (HR-QoL; EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire); disease-specific HR-QoL (functional outcome, different validated questionnaires, converted to 0-100 scale); treatment satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), 1-10); and pain (VAS, 1-10). All data were assessed using a 3-month postinjury survey and electronic patient records. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: Before DD, 144 of 348 participants completed the survey versus 153 of 371 patients thereafter. There were no statistically significant differences between the pre-DD cohort and the DD cohort for generic HR-QoL (0.03; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.08), disease-specific HR-QoL (4.4; 95% CI -1.1 to 9.9), pain (0.08; 95% CI -0.37 to 0.52) and treatment satisfaction (-0.16; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.21). Total societal costs were lowest in the DD cohort (-€822; 95% CI -€1719 to -€67), including healthcare costs (-€168; 95% CI -€205 to -€131) and absenteeism costs (-€645; 95% CI -€1535 to €100). The probability of DD being cost-effective was 0.98 at a willingness-to-pay of €0 for all effect measures, remaining high with increasing willingness-to-pay for generic HR-QoL, disease-specific HR-QoL, and pain, and decreasing with increasing willingness-to-pay for treatment satisfaction. DISCUSSION: DD from the ED of patients with SSI seems cost-effective from a societal perspective. Future studies should test generalizability in other healthcare systems and strengthen findings in larger injury-specific cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Optimizing orthopedic trauma care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. A closed-loop audit of implementing a virtual fracture clinic and fast-track pathway in a Dutch level 2 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines concerning outpatient management of patients during the coronavirus pandemic required minimized face-to-face follow-up and increased remote care. In response, we established a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) review for emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal injuries, meaning patients are reviewed 'virtually' the next workday by a multidisciplinary team, instead of routine referral for face-to-face fracture clinic review. Patients wait at home and are contacted afterwards to discuss treatment. Based on VFC review, patients with minor injuries are discharged, while for other patients an extensive treatment plan is documented using injury-specific care pathways. Additionally, we established an ED orthopedic trauma fast-track to reduce waiting time. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which our workflow supported adherence to national coronavirus-related guidelines and effects on ED waiting time. METHODS: A closed-loop audit was performed during two 4-week periods using predefined standards: (1) all eligible ED orthopedic trauma patients are referred for VFC review; (2) reached afterwards; and follow-up is (3) patient initiated, or (4) performed remotely, whenever possible. Total ED waiting time, time to review, time for review, and time after review were assessed during both audit periods and compared with previous measurements. RESULTS: During both audits, the majority of eligible ED patients were referred for VFC review (1st: n=162 (88.0%); 2nd: n=302 (98.4%)), and reached afterwards (1st: 98.1%; 2nd: 99.0%). Of all referred patients, 17.9% and 13.6% were discharged 'virtually' during first and second audits, respectively, while 45.0% and 41.1% of scheduled follow-up appointments were remote. Median total ED waiting time was reduced (1st: -36 minutes (p<0.001); 2nd: -33 minutes (p<0.001)). During the second audit, median ED time to review was reduced by -13 minutes (p<0.001), as well as time for review: -10 minutes (p=0.019). DISCUSSION: In line with national guidelines, our VFC review allowed time-effective review and triage of the majority of ED orthopedic trauma patients, supporting patient-initiated and remote follow-up, whenever possible. ED waiting time was reduced after implementing the VFC review and orthopedic trauma fast-track. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Direct discharge from the emergency department of simple stable injuries: a propensity score-adjusted non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest a large proportion of musculoskeletal injuries are simple stable injuries (SSIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether direct discharge (DD) from the emergency department (ED) of SSIs is non-inferior to 'traditional care' regarding treatment satisfaction and functional outcome, and to compare other patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), patient-reported experiences (PREMs), resource utilization, and adverse outcomes before and after DD. METHODS: This trial compared outcomes for 11 SSIs 6 months before and after the implementation of DD protocols. Pre-DD, patients were treated according to local protocols. Post-DD, patients were discharged directly using removable orthoses, discharge leaflets, smartphone application, and telephone helpline. Participants received a 3-month postinjury PROM/PREM survey to assess treatment satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), pain (VAS), functional outcome (four validated questionnaires), and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL; EuroQol-5D). Resource utilization included general practitioner (GP) visit (yes/no), physiotherapist visit (yes/no), return to work/school/sports (days), work/school absenteeism to visit hospital (yes/no), number of hospital visits, and follow-up X-rays. Other outcomes included missed injuries (additionally to SSI) and adverse outcomes (delayed union, non-union). Between-group differences were assessed using propensity score-adjusted regression analyses. Non-inferiority was assessed for satisfaction and functional outcome using predefined margins. RESULTS: 348 (pre-DD) and 371 (post-DD) patients participated; 144 (41.4%) and 153 (41.2%) patients completed the survey. Satisfaction and functional outcome post-DD were non-inferior to traditional care. Mean satisfaction was 8.13 pre-DD and 7.95 post-DD (mean difference: -0.16, p=0.408). Pain, HR-QoL, GP/physiotherapist visits, and return to work/school/sports were comparable before and after DD. Work absenteeism was higher pre-DD (OR 0.110, p<0.001), as well as school absenteeism (OR 0.084, p<0.001). Post-DD, the mean number of hospital visits and X-rays reduced: -1.68 (p<0.001) and -0.26 (p<0.001). Missed injuries occurred once pre-DD versus twice post-DD. There were no adverse outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this study confirm several SSIs can be discharged directly from the ED without compromising patient outcome/experience. Future injury-specific trials are needed to conclusively assess non-inferiority of DD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

[Direct discharge from the ED for patients with simple stable injuries: a Dutch pilot study]. / Direct ontslag vanaf de SEH voor patiënten met simpele en stabiele letsels.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and study (a) the implementation of direct discharge from a Dutch Emergency Department (ED) for patients with relatively simple stable injuries (SSIs), (b) preliminary logistical and financial effects, and (c) patients' experiences. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHOD: Following the example of a healthcare reorganisation in the United Kingdom, in May 2019 we changed the treatment protocols of eleven SSIs. Since that time, no standard follow-up appointment has been scheduled for these patients. Patients are given information about treatment and the recovery period, and a form of immobilization is applied which can easily be removed at home. This information is summarised in a discharge leaflet and a smartphone application. A telephone helpline is available for any concerns or questions. During the implementation phase we determined compliance with, and deviation from, the protocol daily for 3 months. To determine the logistical and financial effects we compared the healthcare utilization of all patients with SSIs three months before and after implementation. Patient satisfaction and the shift in treatment towards primary care were determined by means of questionnaires. RESULTS: In the three months before implementation 275 patients with an SSI presented to our ED, compared with 318 in the same period after implementation; 304 of the 318 patients were directly discharged (protocol compliance 95.6%). We found a significant reduction in follow-up appointments (-91%), radiological imaging (-72%), and costs. Patient satisfaction was comparable. There was no shift towards primary care in healthcare utilisation. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, direct discharge from the ED seems to be an effective and safe alternative to traditional treatment with outpatient follow-up. Further studies on patient-reported outcomes should determine if this process is in concordance with the principle of Value Based Health Care.

Mandatory imaging in the work-up of children suspected of having appendicitis reduces the rate of unnecessary surgeries.

OBJECTIVE: In children, the diagnosis "acute appendicitis" is difficult. In 2010, a new Dutch appendicitis guideline was published with the goal to reduce the negative appendectomy rate. The guideline recommended mandatory imaging (ultrasound first and CT or MRI when inconclusive) before surgery. This study examines whether the negative appendectomy rate in children has declined after the implementation of the guideline and if the number of ionising imaging procedures increased. METHODS: In this cohort study, all consecutive patients aged 17 or younger, with the suspicion of appendicitis were included. Patients were divided into two groups. Those who presented between 2006 and 2010 (before the implementation) and those between 2011 and 2016 (after implementation). RESULTS: In total, 748 children were enrolled, of which 363 children were seen before and 385 children after implementation of the guideline. Before implementation, 46% of the children with acute appendicitis underwent preoperative ultrasound compared with 95% in the post implementation group, p < 0.001. Any imaging was performed in 51% and 100%, respectively, p < 0.001. The percentage of negative appendectomy before implementation was 13% and 2.7% after implementation, p < 0.001. There was no significant increase in the number of CT scans before and after the implementation of the guideline, 3.6% versus 6.0%, respectively, p = 0.126. There was no increase in direct medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory preoperative imaging in children with the suspicion of acute appendicitis results in a significant decrease in negative appendectomies with no increase in the number of CT scans and without a substantial increase in costs.