Clinical efficacy of the virtual fracture clinic: analysis of 17,269 referrals by type of injury.

Abstract

Numerous studies have deemed the virtual fracture clinic (VFC) model to be both cost and clinically effective. However, very few of these studies have analysed the type of injuries seen in the VFC. The objectives of this study were to assess the clinical effectiveness of the VFC and analyse the types of injuries that lead to patients re-presenting in the face-to-face fracture clinic after being discharged virtually. This is a retrospective study analysing 17,269 patients referred to the VFC between September 2017 and February 2020. Data regarding the type of presenting injury were collected to understand which injuries required further management after being discharged virtually. Patient clinic letters provided data regarding the purpose and outcomes of VFC referrals as well as face-to-face appointments. Theatre lists were cross-referenced to extract data regarding surgical management. In total, 57.37% (9,908) patients were discharged virtually. Of these patients, 92.52% were discharged successfully and 7.48% re-presented to the fracture clinic: 98.11% were managed conservatively and 1.88% required surgery. The highest number of failed discharges were for distal radius fractures (109, 14.69%). Face-to-face follow-up in fracture clinic was requested for 37.06% (6,400) of patients; 4.98% of them required surgical intervention. Some 5.56% (961) of referrals were removed from our analysis: 807 were inappropriate referrals and 154 were deemed suitable for multidisciplinary team discussion. The trust has saved an average of £702,205 annually since introduction of the VFC. The VFC model delivers as promised in terms of clinical efficacy and cost management. Injury types showing higher numbers of unsuccessful discharges could benefit from having modified management pathways.