The effects of a Virtual Fracture Care review protocol on secondary healthcare utilization in trauma patients requiring semi-acute surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2024-06-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1362503
G J A Willinge, J F Spierings, T H Geerdink, B A Twigt, J C Goslings, R N van Veen
{"title":"The effects of a Virtual Fracture Care review protocol on secondary healthcare utilization in trauma patients requiring semi-acute surgery: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"G J A Willinge, J F Spierings, T H Geerdink, B A Twigt, J C Goslings, R N van Veen","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2024.1362503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The demand for trauma care in the Netherlands is increasing due to a rising incidence of injuries. To provide adequate trauma care amidst this increasing pressure, a Virtual Fracture Care (VFC) review protocol was introduced for treatment of musculoskeletal injuries to the extremities (MIE). This study aimed to assess the influence of the Dutch VFC review protocol on secondary healthcare utilization (i.e., follow-up appointments and imaging) in adult trauma patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent semi-acute surgery (2-14 days after initial presentation) for MIE, compared to traditional workflows. We hypothesized utilization of VFC review would lead to reduced secondary healthcare utilization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study assessed the influence of VFC review on secondary healthcare utilization in adult trauma patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent semi-acute surgery for a MIE. Patients treated before VFC review and the COVID-19 pandemic, from 1st of July 2018 to 31st of December 2019, formed a pre-VFC group. Patients treated after VFC review implementation from January 1st 2021 to June 30th 2022, partially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (including distancing measures), formed a VFC group. Outcomes were follow-up appointments, radiographic imaging, time to surgery, emergency department reattendances, and complications. The study was approved by the local ethical research committee approved this study (WO 23.073).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 2,682 patients were included, consisting of 1,277 pre-VFC patients, and 1,405 VFC patients. Following VFC review, the total number of follow-up appointments reduced by 21% and a shift from face-to-face towards telephone consultations occurred with 19% of follow-up appointments performed by telephone in the VFC group vs. 4% in the pre-VFC group. Additionally, VFC review resulted in a 7% reduction of radiographs, improved time scheduling of surgery, and a 56% reduction of emergency department reattendances. Registered complication rates remained similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The utilization of VFC review for management of adult patients with a MIE requiring semi-acute surgery improves efficiency compared to traditional workflows. It results in a 21% follow-up appointment reduction, a shift from face-to-face to remote delivery of care, fewer radiographs, improved time scheduling of surgery, and reduces emergency department reattendances by 56%.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11215198/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1362503","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The demand for trauma care in the Netherlands is increasing due to a rising incidence of injuries. To provide adequate trauma care amidst this increasing pressure, a Virtual Fracture Care (VFC) review protocol was introduced for treatment of musculoskeletal injuries to the extremities (MIE). This study aimed to assess the influence of the Dutch VFC review protocol on secondary healthcare utilization (i.e., follow-up appointments and imaging) in adult trauma patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent semi-acute surgery (2-14 days after initial presentation) for MIE, compared to traditional workflows. We hypothesized utilization of VFC review would lead to reduced secondary healthcare utilization.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study assessed the influence of VFC review on secondary healthcare utilization in adult trauma patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent semi-acute surgery for a MIE. Patients treated before VFC review and the COVID-19 pandemic, from 1st of July 2018 to 31st of December 2019, formed a pre-VFC group. Patients treated after VFC review implementation from January 1st 2021 to June 30th 2022, partially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (including distancing measures), formed a VFC group. Outcomes were follow-up appointments, radiographic imaging, time to surgery, emergency department reattendances, and complications. The study was approved by the local ethical research committee approved this study (WO 23.073).

Results: In total, 2,682 patients were included, consisting of 1,277 pre-VFC patients, and 1,405 VFC patients. Following VFC review, the total number of follow-up appointments reduced by 21% and a shift from face-to-face towards telephone consultations occurred with 19% of follow-up appointments performed by telephone in the VFC group vs. 4% in the pre-VFC group. Additionally, VFC review resulted in a 7% reduction of radiographs, improved time scheduling of surgery, and a 56% reduction of emergency department reattendances. Registered complication rates remained similar.

Conclusion: The utilization of VFC review for management of adult patients with a MIE requiring semi-acute surgery improves efficiency compared to traditional workflows. It results in a 21% follow-up appointment reduction, a shift from face-to-face to remote delivery of care, fewer radiographs, improved time scheduling of surgery, and reduces emergency department reattendances by 56%.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虚拟骨折护理审查协议对需要进行半急性期手术的创伤患者二次医疗利用率的影响:一项回顾性队列研究。
目的:由于受伤发生率不断上升,荷兰对创伤护理的需求也在不断增加。为了在压力不断增加的情况下提供适当的创伤护理,荷兰针对四肢肌肉骨骼损伤(MIE)的治疗引入了虚拟骨折护理(VFC)审查协议。本研究旨在评估与传统工作流程相比,荷兰 VFC 审查协议对因四肢肌肉骨骼损伤而接受半急性手术(初次就诊后 2-14 天)的成年创伤患者(年龄≥18 岁)的二次医疗保健利用率(即复诊和成像)的影响。我们假设使用 VFC 审查可减少二次医疗使用:这项回顾性队列研究评估了VFC审查对因MIE接受半急性手术的成年创伤患者(年龄≥18岁)二次医疗利用率的影响。在VFC审查和COVID-19大流行之前(2018年7月1日至2019年12月31日)接受治疗的患者组成VFC审查前组。在VFC审查实施后(2021年1月1日至2022年6月30日),部分在COVID-19大流行期间和之后接受治疗的患者组成VFC组。研究结果包括随访预约、放射成像、手术时间、急诊科复诊率和并发症。该研究获得了当地伦理研究委员会的批准(WO 23.073):共纳入 2,682 例患者,其中 1,277 例为 VFC 前患者,1,405 例为 VFC 患者。VFC 复查后,复查预约的总次数减少了 21%,复查预约从面对面转为电话咨询,VFC 组有 19% 的复查预约是通过电话进行的,而 VFC 前组只有 4%。此外,VFC 复查还减少了 7% 的放射线检查,改善了手术时间安排,并将急诊科复诊率降低了 56%。登记的并发症发生率保持相似:结论:与传统工作流程相比,在管理需要进行半急诊手术的成人 MIE 患者时使用 VFC 复查提高了效率。它使复诊预约减少了 21%,医疗服务从面对面转变为远程提供,减少了拍片次数,改善了手术时间安排,并使急诊科的复诊率降低了 56%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
A machine learning approach towards assessing consistency and reproducibility: an application to graft survival across three kidney transplantation eras. Attitudes and perceptions of Chinese oncologists towards artificial intelligence in healthcare: a cross-sectional survey. Smartphone-based drug testing in the hands of patients with substance-use disorder-a usability study. Imaging biobanks: operational limits, medical-legal and ethical reflections. Developing and testing a community based, online vs. face-to-face peer led intervention to improve mental well-being in Cambodian adults with physical disabilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1