ABSTRACT
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic worldwide forced governments to undertake intervention measures to encourage social distancing. Meanwhile, traumatic skin lacerations require multiple hospital visits for dressing, changings, and suture removal since they are usually repaired with non-absorbable sutures. In a matter of fact, these visits can be avoided by using absorbable sutures instead. However, absorbable sutures carry the theoretical risk of wound infection. In this study, our aim was to determine whether absorbable sutures are better than non-absorbable sutures in repairing lacerations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first and second objectives were to assess the rate of infection and the number of postoperative hospital visits. Method(s): A sample of 469 patients with traumatic skin lacerations were analysed during the COVID-19 pandemic in April-July 2020. In the control group, wounds were repaired using non-absorbable sutures, while rapid-onset absorbable sutures were used in the treatment group. By conducting a phone call follow-up after 21 days, several parameters regarding infection signs and hospital visits were compared between both groups. Result(s): No statistically significant difference was observed between both groups regarding wound infection (p-value= 0.623). Using absorbable sutures resulted in fewer postoperative hospital visits than non-absorbable sutures (p-value= 0.001). This study is limited because the assessment of wound infection was subjective to the patient by a phone call follow-up. Conclusion(s): Using absorbable sutures to close traumatic skin lacerations is safe. They should be considered during a pandemic to reduce hospital visits for suture removal, which will subsequently enhance social distancing and relieve hospital load.
ABSTRACT
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic worldwide forced governments to undertake intervention measures to encourage social distancing. Meanwhile, traumatic skin lacerations require multiple hospital visits for dressing changing and suture removal since they are usually repaired with non-absorbable sutures. These visits can be avoided by using absorbable sutures instead. However, absorbable sutures carry the "potential" risk of wound infection. In the current study, our first objective was to determine the non-inferiority of absorbable sutures regarding infection rate after repairing traumatic wound lacerations in comparison to the conventional non-absorbable ones. Our second objective was to evaluate the superiority of absorbable sutures in regard to postoperative clinic visits for suture removal and wound dressing compared to the non-absorbable ones. Methods A sample of 471 patients with traumatic skin lacerations was analyzed during the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020. In the control group, wounds were repaired using non-absorbable sutures, while rapid-onset absorbable sutures were used in the treatment group. By conducting a phone/video call follow-up after 21 days, several parameters regarding infection signs and clinic visits were compared between both groups. Results A significant decrease in total trauma patients (45.4%) and those who required suturing (51.2%) was observed in April 2020 compared to the same month of the previous four years (p = 0.001 (2016), p = 0.027 (2017), p = 0.027 (2018), and p = 0.001 (2019)). Regarding wound infection, no statistically significant difference (p = 0.623) was observed between the absorbable (3.2%) and non-absorbable (4.9%) groups. Using absorbable sutures resulted in significantly (p < 0.001) fewer postoperative hospital visits compared to using non-absorbable sutures (mean: one versus three visits). Conclusion Using absorbable sutures to repair traumatic wound lacerations is safe regarding wound healing and infection rates. They also reduce postoperative hospital visits since they are not intended to be removed. Therefore, they should be considered during a pandemic to reduce hospital visits for suture removal, which will subsequently enhance social distancing and relieve hospital load.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal transitions from emergency department (ED) to ambulatory settings contribute to poor clinical outcomes and unnecessary non-urgent ED utilization. Primary care-staffed care transition clinics (CTCs) are a potential solution to reduce ED crowding by providing ED follow-up care and facilitating the bridge to longer-term primary care. This study is a preliminary evaluation of the initiation of an ED transitions clinic on 30-day ED and hospital readmissions. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included adults discharged from the ED at UC hicago Medicine referred to the transitions clinic between November 2020 and May 2021. Appointment attendance, frequency of care type provided, and percent contacted with patient advocate were computed to assess clinic utilization. 30-day ED and hospital readmissions were compared between patients who completed their CTC appointment and patients who missed their CTC appointment using a chi-square test. RESULTS: In the first 6 months of program initiation, 116 patients were referred to the CTC from the ED and around half (47%) completed their follow-up appointment. The majority of patients were of black race (90%) and on public insurance (81%). Almost a quarter of referred patients (22%) were contacted by a patient advocate for referral to longer-term care. The most common reasons for referral were wound check (top 3: cellulitis, abscess, suture removal) and clinical problem management (top 3: SOB, chest pain, covid). Wound checks were 20% more likely to be completed compared to clinical appointments (58% show rate vs 38%). Patients who completed their CTC appointment had a lower rate of ED revisits (15% vs 20%) but the effect was not statistically significant (p>0.05). No statistically significant effects were seen for CTC appointment completion on hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Transition clinics may have the potential to help reduce excess ED use for ambulatory care needs, particularly if they can help facilitate patients being connected to more permanent ambulatory care sites and clinicians. In addition to ongoing analysis of this program evaluation regarding ED and hospital utilization, additional research is needed to investigate the factors influencing follow-up completion and identifying effective interventions for increasing appointment attendance.