Determining the appropriate use of Technology Enabled Care Services (TECS) to manage upper-limb trauma injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentre retrospective observational study.
Audiovisual
Remote
TECS
Technology
Upper-limb trauma
Journal
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS
ISSN: 1878-0539
Titre abrégé: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101264239
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
18
05
2021
accepted:
14
02
2022
pubmed:
4
4
2022
medline:
14
7
2022
entrez:
3
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique opportunity to explore the use of Technology Enabled Care Services (TECS), which remains novel for many service providers. This study assesses the factors that affect adaptation to remote monitoring of patients after upper-limb trauma injury. A standardised risk-stratified screening tool is further developed here to support clinical staff in both the determination of appropriate use of TECS and the optimisation of patient care. 1: To explore the patient and injury factors that determine the appropriate use of TECS for patients with upper-limb injury. 2: To use these findings to refine a standardised screening tool for the appropriate choice of follow-up format. A retrospective review of patient management was undertaken across three NHS upper-limb trauma units during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown. Data were collected, and themes were analysed across a number of predetermined categories. This was underpinned by a review of contemporary policy guidance and literature. A total of 85% of patients were offered an appropriate format of follow-up; this was defined by the ability to achieve desired patient-clinician goals and lack of complications. Key factors in determining appropriate follow-up included extent of injury, mental health considerations, and the need for face-to-face (F2F) assessment and treatment. Study findings demonstrate consistency between units in the factors determining the appropriate use of TECS. The refined screening tool provides a risk-stratified, standardised approach to the choice of follow-up format, F2F or TECS. It is hoped that this will support future clinical decision-making processes to ensure optimal patient care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique opportunity to explore the use of Technology Enabled Care Services (TECS), which remains novel for many service providers. This study assesses the factors that affect adaptation to remote monitoring of patients after upper-limb trauma injury. A standardised risk-stratified screening tool is further developed here to support clinical staff in both the determination of appropriate use of TECS and the optimisation of patient care.
OBJECTIVES
1: To explore the patient and injury factors that determine the appropriate use of TECS for patients with upper-limb injury. 2: To use these findings to refine a standardised screening tool for the appropriate choice of follow-up format.
METHODS
A retrospective review of patient management was undertaken across three NHS upper-limb trauma units during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown. Data were collected, and themes were analysed across a number of predetermined categories. This was underpinned by a review of contemporary policy guidance and literature.
RESULTS
A total of 85% of patients were offered an appropriate format of follow-up; this was defined by the ability to achieve desired patient-clinician goals and lack of complications. Key factors in determining appropriate follow-up included extent of injury, mental health considerations, and the need for face-to-face (F2F) assessment and treatment.
CONCLUSION
Study findings demonstrate consistency between units in the factors determining the appropriate use of TECS. The refined screening tool provides a risk-stratified, standardised approach to the choice of follow-up format, F2F or TECS. It is hoped that this will support future clinical decision-making processes to ensure optimal patient care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35367161
pii: S1748-6815(22)00072-9
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.02.003
pmc: PMC8855640
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2127-2134Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest None.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Mar 19;96(6):495-9
pubmed: 24647506
Pain. 1999 Nov;83(2):157-62
pubmed: 10534586
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):e586-e594
pubmed: 31160368
Clin Rehabil. 2017 May;31(5):625-638
pubmed: 27141087
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Apr;45(2):777-783
pubmed: 32869133
Br J Gen Pract. 2021 Feb 25;71(704):e166-e177
pubmed: 33558332
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Jun;24(5):341-355
pubmed: 28403669
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Feb;45(1):343-348
pubmed: 32885319
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):e595-e604
pubmed: 31262846
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2020 Nov;45(9):1005-1006
pubmed: 32594824
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021 Jun;74(6):1408-1412
pubmed: 33384232
J Telemed Telecare. 2020 Dec;26(10):581-589
pubmed: 31213166