ArticleCureus2022
Impact of the Harm Review Service for Patients Awaiting Elective Hip and Knee Surgeries for More Than 52 Weeks.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected medical practice worldwide. In the UK, elective operative lists had to be postponed to accommodate the increase in hospital admissions. Within our local trauma and orthopaedic department, a harm review clinic was developed for these postponed elective cases. The purpose of this clinic was to evaluate the impact and outcomes of the delay in elective hip and knee procedures. Methodology The elective list database of William Harvey Hospital, Kent, from April to December 2020 was retrospectively analysed. Inclusion criteria included all lower limb primary arthroplasty, elective lower limb revision surgery, and other hip and knee procedure patients waiting more than 52 weeks for surgery. All patients had telephone consultations averaging 10 minutes. Data included patients' symptoms, fresh investigations, changes in treatment plans, mental health status, and value of consultation were assessed and recorded. Results A total of 242 patients from eight lower limb consultants were analysed. Patients with hip pathology accounted for 39.2% (95 patients) versus knee pathology accounting for 60.7% (147 patients). In total, 13 (5.37%) patients reported improvement in their physical symptoms, whereas 46 (19%) felt their symptoms worsen. Overall, 26 (10.7%) patients had a change in their treatment plan following the consultation. In total, 18 (7.4%) patients required further face-to-face follow-up following the telephone consultation There were no patients who had significant physical or mental harm. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has brought changes in how we practice medicine. The harm review service has been a valuable service to both patients and the orthopaedic department. This harms review clinic was able to identify changes in treatment plans for patients. A small percentage of patients required face-to-face appointments. We suggest telephone assessment should be the first mode of communication with patients. Further studies should be conducted in other specialities to determine if there are similar outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.