Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32439740›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2020

Rapid implementation of virtual clinics due to COVID-19: report and early evaluation of a quality improvement initiative.

Anthony William Gilbert, Joe C T Billany, Ruth Adam, Luke Martin, Rebecca Tobin, Shiv Bagdai, Noreen Galvin, Ian Farr, Adam Allain, Lucy Davies and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

124 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Anthony William GilbertTherapies Department, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK anthony.gilbert@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0003-2526-8057
Joe C T BillanyOperational Management, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Ruth AdamImprovement Team, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Luke MartinOperational Management, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Rebecca TobinOperational Management, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Shiv BagdaiOperational Management, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Noreen GalvinImprovement Team, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Ian FarrImprovement Team, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Adam AllainOperational Management, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Lucy DaviesOperational Management, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
John BatesonImprovement Team, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak has placed the National Health Service under significant strain. Social distancing measures were introduced in the UK in March 2020 and virtual consultations (via telephone or video call) were identified as a potential alternative to face-to-face consultations at this time. LOCAL PROBLEM: The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH) sees on average 11 200 face-to-face consultations a month. On average 7% of these are delivered virtually via telephone. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, the RNOH set a target of reducing face-to-face consultations to 20% of all outpatient attendances. This report outlines a quality improvement initiative to rapidly implement virtual consultations at the RNOH.

methodsThe COVID-19 Action Team, a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, was assembled to support the implementation of virtual clinics. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement approach to quality improvement was followed using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. A process of enablement, process redesign, delivery support and evaluation were carried out, underpinned by Improvement principles.

resultsFollowing the target of 80% virtual consultations being set, 87% of consultations were delivered virtually during the first 6 weeks. Satisfaction scores were high for virtual consultations (90/100 for patients and 78/100 for clinicians); however, outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, video consultations would be preferred less than 50% of the time. Information to support the future redesign of outpatient services was collected.

conclusionsThis report demonstrates that virtual consultations can be rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19 and that they are largely acceptable. Further initiatives are required to support clinically appropriate and acceptable virtual consultations beyond COVID-19. REGISTRATION: This project was submitted to the RNOH's Project Evaluation Panel and was classified as a service evaluation on 12 March 2020 (ref: SE20.09).

Indexed as

Coronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Hospitals, SpecialHumansOrthopedicsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralQuality ImprovementState MedicineTelemedicineUnited KingdomPDSAquality improvementtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32439740
PMCPMC7247397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.