Vinay Joseph1, Mathias T Nagy2, James Fountain2. 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, Hall Lane, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire, WN6 9EP, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Aintree University Hospital, Lower Lane Fazakerley, Liverpool, L9 7AL, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As previously reported, a virtual clinic (VC) effectively manages the increasing need to review and monitor patients after primary joint replacement. Such procedure is increasing steadily in number, with more than 200,000 procedures performed annually in the UK. Considering that face-to-face review following routine uncomplicated primary joint arthroplasty is costly and time consuming, guidelines suggest reviewing patients at regular intervals through radiographs and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We reviewed our VC experience in a large teaching hospital. A single surgeon established the VC, and all primary hip and knee replacements over an 18-month period (January 2016 to July 2017) were included in the study. We evaluated all clinical records, PROMs, patient satisfaction, and outcome of VC at one-year follow-up. Additionally, we conducted a safety and cost analysis. RESULTS: This study included 154 primary joints (70 total knee replacements and 84 total hip replacements) in 148 patients (89 females, 59 males). The mean age at surgery was 65.3 years. Of the patients, 93% completed the postoperative PROMs, whereas <40% completed the PROM during regular clinical follow-up. All the patients had follow-up radiographs. After VC assessment, which included radiographies and PROMs, 59% of the patients were directly discharged. Of the remaining 41% patients who had face-to-face review, one-third were examined for the same arthroplasty issue, and two-thirds were examined for unrelated or other joint problems. Although the postoperative PROM was below the national average, the improvement in PROM (from pre-operative to post-operative scores) was higher than the national average. The cost analysis demonstrated an average cost savings of £10.449 per year and consultant. CONCLUSIONS: VC follow-up after primary joint replacement is a safe and cost-effective option to manage postoperative follow-up visits and identify those patients who require additional face-to-face reviews and who can be safely discharged. The discharge criteria included satisfactory improvement in PROM scores, review of follow-up radiographs, and no concerns raised by patients. Considering the increasing number of primary joint arthroplasty and the financial pressure on the National Health Service, VC offers an excellent alternative to conventional clinics.
BACKGROUND: As previously reported, a virtual clinic (VC) effectively manages the increasing need to review and monitor patients after primary joint replacement. Such procedure is increasing steadily in number, with more than 200,000 procedures performed annually in the UK. Considering that face-to-face review following routine uncomplicated primary joint arthroplasty is costly and time consuming, guidelines suggest reviewing patients at regular intervals through radiographs and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We reviewed our VC experience in a large teaching hospital. A single surgeon established the VC, and all primary hip and knee replacements over an 18-month period (January 2016 to July 2017) were included in the study. We evaluated all clinical records, PROMs, patient satisfaction, and outcome of VC at one-year follow-up. Additionally, we conducted a safety and cost analysis. RESULTS: This study included 154 primary joints (70 total knee replacements and 84 total hip replacements) in 148 patients (89 females, 59 males). The mean age at surgery was 65.3 years. Of the patients, 93% completed the postoperative PROMs, whereas <40% completed the PROM during regular clinical follow-up. All the patients had follow-up radiographs. After VC assessment, which included radiographies and PROMs, 59% of the patients were directly discharged. Of the remaining 41% patients who had face-to-face review, one-third were examined for the same arthroplasty issue, and two-thirds were examined for unrelated or other joint problems. Although the postoperative PROM was below the national average, the improvement in PROM (from pre-operative to post-operative scores) was higher than the national average. The cost analysis demonstrated an average cost savings of £10.449 per year and consultant. CONCLUSIONS: VC follow-up after primary joint replacement is a safe and cost-effective option to manage postoperative follow-up visits and identify those patients who require additional face-to-face reviews and who can be safely discharged. The discharge criteria included satisfactory improvement in PROM scores, review of follow-up radiographs, and no concerns raised by patients. Considering the increasing number of primary joint arthroplasty and the financial pressure on the National Health Service, VC offers an excellent alternative to conventional clinics.
Authors: D Culliford; J Maskell; A Judge; C Cooper; D Prieto-Alhambra; N K Arden Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Abd-Allah H El Ashmawy; Kathleen Dowson; Ahmed El-Bakoury; Hazem A H Hosny; Rathan Yarlagadda; Jonathan Keenan Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 4.757