ArticleBMJ open2024
Orthopaedic trauma patients' experiences with emergency department care and follow-up through Virtual Fracture Care review: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychological care in acute and emergency medicine: a scoping review of support interventions by healthcare professionals.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Qualitative study exploring stakeholder perspectives on the use of early MRI in wrist injury pathways in the UK NHS.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Patients' experiences of a Virtual Fracture Assessment Clinic Pathway: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to identify factors influencing orthopaedic trauma patients' experiences and satisfaction with emergency department (ED) care and follow-up through Virtual Fracture Care (VFC) review workflow.
designThis study employed an explorative, descriptive, qualitative design using individual, semistructured interviews.
settingAn urban level 2 trauma centre and teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
participantsEligible patients were Dutch-speaking or English-speaking orthopaedic trauma patients, aged 18 years or above, who visited the hospital's ED between June and September 2022, and were treated through VFC review workflow. Exclusion criteria were: reason for follow-up other than injury, eye/motor/verbal score <15 at ED admission, follow-up treatment in another hospital, treatment initiated in another hospital, acute hospital admission (<24 hours). Twenty-three patients were invited for participation, of whom 15 participated and were interviewed.
resultsSeveral influential factors contributed to seven generic themes: (1) waiting times, (2) information provision, (3) healthcare professional communication, (4) care expectations, (5) care coordination, (6) care environment and (7) patient condition. Overall, participants were satisfied with received care. Interpersonal skills of healthcare professionals, and timing and content of provided information were specifically valued. Additionally, patients stated that their needs in the ED differed from those after ED discharge, and appreciated the way the VFC review workflow addressed this. Points of improvement included more active involvement of patients in the care process and prevention of inconsistent instructions by different healthcare professionals.
conclusionsPatient experiences with ED care and VFC review follow-up are influenced by factors categorised into seven themes. The VFC review workflow effectively addresses these factors, leading to positive feedback. Recommendations for healthcare professionals include anticipating evolving post-ED information needs, engaging patients early to provide clarity about the care process, involving them in treatment decisions and expanding information provision across the entire care pathway.
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.