Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34645613›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2021

Virtual phone clinics in orthopaedics: evaluation of clinical application and sustainability.

Raj Pradhan, Wouter Peeters, Sara Boutong, Chris Mitchell, Rahul Patel, Rad Faroug, Mark Roussot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors.

Raj PradhanDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Wouter PeetersDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7783-1425
Sara BoutongDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Chris MitchellDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rahul PatelDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rad FarougDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mark RoussotDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK mark.roussot@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0001-8506-0990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAdoption of virtual clinics has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and they will continue to form an integral part of healthcare delivery. Our objective was to evaluate virtual clinics in orthopaedic practice and determine how to use them effectively and sustainably.

methodsWe surveyed 100 consecutive patients participating in orthopaedic virtual phone clinic (VPC) at an academic hospital to evaluate patient satisfaction against face-to-face (F2F) consultations and obtain suggestions for improving patient experience, and we surveyed 23 clinicians who conducted orthopaedic VPCs in 2020. Data were correlated with clinic outcomes, reason for consultation, diagnosis, patient age and clinician grade. Consultation duration, clinician-associated costs and reimbursement were analysed. Significance was tested using two-tailed Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test.

resultsPatient satisfaction (out of 5) for VPC was significantly lower than F2F (4.1 vs 4.5, p=0.0003), and a larger proportion of VPC scored <3 compared with F2F (11% vs 2%). Higher VPC scores were associated with appointments for delivering results and where patients felt clinical examination was not needed. Patients suggested introducing video capability, adhering to appointment time and offering the choice of VPC or F2F. Mean clinician satisfaction scores for VPC were 4.3/5 and suggested indications for VPC included: routine surveillance, communication of results, discussing/consenting for surgery and vulnerable patients. Integrating video, providing private rooms and offering patients time intervals for VPC were recommended. Current National Health Service VPC structures uses greater clinician resources and generates lower reimbursement than F2F consultations, resulting in 11.5% reduction in reimbursement.

conclusionVPC plays a valuable role when clinical evaluation has been performed or considered not necessary. Offering the choice of VPC or F2F, adding video capability and providing a time interval for VPC may reduce resource use and increase satisfaction. We recommend renegotiating VPC tariffs and cost-neutral modifications of clinic structure.

Indexed as

COVID-19OrthopedicsHumansPandemicsPatient SatisfactionSARS-CoV-2State Medicinecost-effectivenessCOVID-19quality improvementtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34645613
PMCPMC8515471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.