Cost comparison of orthopaedic fracture pathways using discrete event simulation in a Glasgow hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare faces the continual challenge of improving outcome while aiming to reduce cost. The aim of this study was to determine the micro cost differences of the Glasgow non-operative trauma virtual pathway in comparison to a traditional pathway. DESIGN: Discrete event simulation was used to model and analyse cost and resource utilisation with an activity-based costing approach. Data for a full comparison before the process change was unavailable so we used a modelling approach, comparing a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) with a simulated traditional fracture clinic (TFC). SETTING: The orthopaedic unit VFC pathway pioneered at Glasgow Royal Infirmary has attracted significant attention and interest and is the focus of this cost study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our study focused exclusively on patients with non-operative trauma attending emergency department or the minor injuries unit and the subsequent step in the patient pathway. Retrospective studies of patient outcomes as a result of the protocol introductions for specific injuries are presented in association with activity costs from the models. RESULTS: Patients are satisfied with the new pathway, the information provided and the outcome of their injuries (Evidence Level IV). There was a 65% reduction in the number of first outpatient face-to-face (f2f) attendances in orthopaedics. In the VFC pathway, the resources required per day were significantly lower for all staff groups (p≤0.001). The overall cost per patient of the VFC pathway was £22.84 (95% CI 21.74 to 23.92) per patient compared with £36.81 (95% CI 35.65 to 37.97) for the TFC pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Our results give a clearer picture of the cost comparison of the virtual pathway over a wholly traditional f2f clinic system. The use of simulation-based stochastic costings in healthcare economic analysis has been limited to date, but this study provides evidence for adoption of this method as a basis for its application in other healthcare settings.

Satisfaction and functional outcome with "self-care" for the management of fifth metacarpal fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fifth metacarpal fractures are common and comprise a significant proportion of traditional orthopaedic fracture clinic workload. We reviewed the functional outcome and the satisfaction of patients managed with a new protocol that promoted "self-care" and resulted in the discharge of most of these patients from the emergency department with no further follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of patients discharged with a fifth metacarpal fracture between April 2012 to October 2012. A postal questionnaire was sent to each patient, followed by a telephone call. Patient-reported outcome measures (EQ-5D, QuickDASH) and patient satisfaction were assessed. Of the 167 patients eligible for the study, 5 were excluded. Of the remaining 162, 64 were uncontactable or declined to participate. The mean follow-up time was 21.6 months (SD 1.9, range 18.1 to 24.7). RESULTS: The median EQ-5D health index score was 0.87 (IQR 0.74 to 1.00), and the median QuickDASH score was 2.3 (IQR 0 to 6.8). Seventy-nine (80.6 %) patients were satisfied with the outcome of their injury, while 83 (84.9 %) reported being satisfied with the process. There was no difference between those with a fracture or those without a fracture in EQ-5D (p = 0.307) or QuickDASH (p = 0.820). CONCLUSION: Fifth metacarpal fractures can be managed effectively through an Emergency Department protocol without any formal orthopaedic follow-up. This pathway lead to excellent patient-reported outcome measures and patient satisfaction. This protocol has reduced unnecessary hospital attendances for patients and increased the time available for clinicians to deal with more challenging injuries.

Functional outcome and satisfaction with a "self-care" protocol for the management of mallet finger injuries: a case-series.

BACKGROUND: Mallet finger injuries are usually successfully treated non-operatively with a splint. Most patients are reviewed at least twice in a clinic after the initial presentation in A&E. A new protocol promoting "self-care" was introduced at our institution. Patients were provided with structured verbal and written information, and given access to a telephone helpline. METHODS: A prospective electronic patient record was used to identify all patients who presented to the emergency department with a mallet finger with a minimum six month follow-up. A satisfaction and patient reported outcome measure was administered via a postal questionnaire. The response rate was 36/47 (77%). RESULTS: The median QuickDASH score was 2.3 (IQR 0 to 4.6). All patients were satisfied with the treatment plan provided. Nine used the helpline and all were satisfied with information given. Although 13 patients reported some extensor lag, or bump, they had no functional limitation. Seven patients were reviewed by the general practitioner or other clinicians during their treatment period for issues such a skin care, splint size changes or sickness certification. Five were subsequently reviewed at the end of their treatment period in a clinic at their request, or their general practitioner, but did not require further surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Self-care for mallet finger injuries, with adequate patient information and telephone back-up, leads to acceptable functional results and satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.