Outcomes of a Novel Spine Virtual Fracture Clinic in an Australian Tertiary Hospital.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of referrals diverted by the SVFC from traditional outpatient clinic management. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The consistent rise in demand for orthopaedic outpatient clinic services is creating marked challenges to the provision of quality care. Virtual fracture clinics for upper and lower limb fractures have reduced the burden on outpatient clinics through telephone-based management of these conditions. To date, no study describes the expansion of virtual care to the spine trauma population. METHODS: A study of spine fractures referred to the RMH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery was conducted comparing outcomes prior to (January to December 2021) and following (July 2022 to November 2023) implementation of a spine virtual fracture clinic (SVFC). The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a telephone-based SVFC on outpatient clinic activity, represented by the proportion of referrals discharged without requiring in-person clinic review. Secondary aims included appointment utilisation, lost to follow-up rates, duration of care, missed or mis-diagnoses, unplanned operations and complications. RESULTS: A total of 91.9% (n=666) referrals managed by the SVFC were discharged without in-person clinic attendance. Compared to outpatient clinic management (n=150 referrals), SVFC implementation was associated with reductions in the average number of consultations per referral (1.8 versus 2.4, P<0.001), appointments not attended (5% versus 13%, P<0.001), referrals lost to follow-up (0 versus 10.7%, P<0.001) and a shorter duration of care (median 48 d versus 58 d, P<0.001). A total of 65 patients (8.1%) were redirected to in-person clinics of which three underwent surgical intervention. No diagnostic errors, complications or adverse events were identified. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a SVFC is an effective and safe alternative pathway to traditional hospital-based outpatient clinics with low-risk for any adverse outcomes.

Retrospective cohort study evaluating the efficacy and safety of an orthopaedic consultant-led virtual fracture clinic in an Australian level 1 trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: In Australian health care, the consistent rise in demand for orthopaedic outpatient clinic services is creating marked challenges in the provision of quality care. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) as an alternative model of care for the management of acute injuries and musculoskeletal conditions in the Australian public hospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive emergency department (ED) referrals to the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery was conducted comparing outcomes prior to (November 2015-February 2017) and after (March 2017-June 2018) implementation of a VFC. The primary outcome measures assessed were the proportion of referrals virtually discharged and unplanned 30-day ED re-attendance rates. RESULTS: A total of 737 (36.4%) referrals managed by the VFC were discharged without requiring orthopaedic outpatient clinic attendance. The rate of unplanned ED re-attendances was 5.2% post-VFC implementation compared to 6.5% at baseline (P = 0.01). VFC implementation was also associated with reductions in the average number of orthopaedic outpatient clinic attendances per referral (1.1 versus 1.7, P < 0.01) and the number of referrals lost to follow-up (7.2% versus 14.7%, P < 0.01). In addition, patient wait times for first contact by the orthopaedic team were significantly reduced from a median of 7 (IQR 5, 9) days to 2 (IQR 1, 3) days post-intervention (P < 0.01). No complications or adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a VFC is applicable to the Australian healthcare system, and can lead to effective and safe provision of orthopaedic outpatient care.

Preferences for Disease-Related Education and Support Among Younger People With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the usefulness and accessibility of different delivery modes of disease-related education and support, as perceived by younger people with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: People ages 20-55 years with hip or knee OA were recruited from 3 major Australian public hospitals and the community (n = 147). Data were collected on use of disease-related education and support services, as well as perceived usefulness and accessibility of delivery modes including group-based programs, online resources, telephone helplines, mailed information, social media, and mobile applications (rated on visual analog scales from 1-10; higher scores indicate greater usefulness or accessibility). RESULTS: Very few participants had used social media (5%), group self-management programs (3%), or telephone helplines (2%) to obtain OA information. Mailed information packs and online education programs were considered the most useful (median usefulness scores 8.0 and 7.0, respectively) and accessible methods (median accessibility scores 10.0 and 9.0, respectively) for providing OA education and support. Social media was perceived as least useful (median usefulness score 2.0) and least accessible; 45% of participants considered it "not at all useful," while 35% reported it would be "very difficult" to access OA education and support by this means. Less educational attainment was associated with greater perceived difficulty in accessing online/electronic delivery modes, while people in paid work perceived easier access. CONCLUSION: These data highlight the value of mailed information and online education to younger people with OA and can be used to develop targeted resources for individuals of working age. Social media was not a highly valued source of disease-related education and support.

The feasibility of implementing the ICHOM Standard Set for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: a mixed-methods evaluation in public and private hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: There is growing international momentum for standardising patient outcome assessment and using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to capture outcomes that matter to patients. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Standard Sets were developed to capture the outcomes of care for costly conditions including osteoarthritis. This study evaluated the feasibility of implementing the ICHOM Standard Set for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in 'real world' public and private hospital settings. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used to capture comprehensive data on patient outcomes, implementation costs, and the implementation experiences of patients, clinicians and administrative staff. The ICHOM Standard Set was implemented at two hospital sites (1 public, 1 private) in May 2016. Patients undergoing primary hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis were recruited from pre-admission clinics and a private orthopaedic clinic. Baseline Standard Set data were collected before surgery and at pre-determined post-operative timepoints. Data on the costs of Standard Set implementation were also collected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (n = 15) to evaluate the ease of implementation, and explore barriers and enablers to implementation and sustainability. RESULTS: The cost of Standard Set implementation and ongoing data collection for 17 months totalled $AUD94,955. Preference data (collected prior to completing the Standard Set) revealed that most participants preferred paper-based (83%) or web-based questionnaire completion (14%), with only a small proportion preferring iPad-based completion (3%). Several PROMs within the Standard Set were responsive to change (effect size range 0.19-0.85), with significant improvements in important health outcomes identified 6 weeks after surgery. Patient interviews showed a variable understanding of why patient-reported data collection is undertaken; however, patients perceived that PROMs provided relevant information to treating clinicians, and that the burden of questionnaire completion was minimal. Staff interviews revealed that PROMs are considered valuable, dedicated personnel are required to support data collection, gaps in information technology resources must be addressed, and that the Standard Set offers benefits beyond what currently-used measures provide. CONCLUSION: The Standard Set can be feasibly implemented in hospital settings, but with important caveats around staffing and technical support, consideration of patient preferences, and promotion of active clinician engagement.