ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
The effects of a Virtual Fracture Care review protocol on secondary healthcare utilization in trauma patients requiring semi-acute surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancements in smart healthcare in emergency trauma care: from intelligent triage to prognostic prediction.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
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
Purpose: The demand for trauma care in the Netherlands is increasing due to a rising incidence of injuries. To provide adequate trauma care amidst this increasing pressure, a Virtual Fracture Care (VFC) review protocol was introduced for treatment of musculoskeletal injuries to the extremities (MIE). This study aimed to assess the influence of the Dutch VFC review protocol on secondary healthcare utilization (i.e., follow-up appointments and imaging) in adult trauma patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent semi-acute surgery (2-14 days after initial presentation) for MIE, compared to traditional workflows. We hypothesized utilization of VFC review would lead to reduced secondary healthcare utilization. Methods: This retrospective cohort study assessed the influence of VFC review on secondary healthcare utilization in adult trauma patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent semi-acute surgery for a MIE. Patients treated before VFC review and the COVID-19 pandemic, from 1st of July 2018 to 31st of December 2019, formed a pre-VFC group. Patients treated after VFC review implementation from January 1st 2021 to June 30th 2022, partially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (including distancing measures), formed a VFC group. Outcomes were follow-up appointments, radiographic imaging, time to surgery, emergency department reattendances, and complications. The study was approved by the local ethical research committee approved this study (WO 23.073). Results: In total, 2,682 patients were included, consisting of 1,277 pre-VFC patients, and 1,405 VFC patients. Following VFC review, the total number of follow-up appointments reduced by 21% and a shift from face-to-face towards telephone consultations occurred with 19% of follow-up appointments performed by telephone in the VFC group vs. 4% in the pre-VFC group. Additionally, VFC review resulted in a 7% reduction of radiographs, improved time scheduling of surgery, and a 56% reduction of emergency department reattendances. Registered complication rates remained similar. Conclusion: The utilization of VFC review for management of adult patients with a MIE requiring semi-acute surgery improves efficiency compared to traditional workflows. It results in a 21% follow-up appointment reduction, a shift from face-to-face to remote delivery of care, fewer radiographs, improved time scheduling of surgery, and reduces emergency department reattendances by 56%.
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.