Aims. The Edinburgh
Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care. Cite this article:
Fracture clinics are often characterised by the referral of large
numbers of unselected patients with minor injuries not requiring
investigation or intervention, long waiting times and recurrent
unnecessary reviews. Our experience had been of an unsustainable
system and we implemented a ‘Trauma Triage Clinic’ (TTC) in order
to rationalise and regulate access to our fracture service. The
British Orthopaedic Association’s guidelines have required a prospective evaluation
of this change of practice, and we report our experience and results. We review the management of all 12 069 patients referred to our
service in the calendar year 2014, with a minimum of one year follow-up
during the calendar year 2015. Aims
Patients and Methods
This study examined spinal fractures in patients
admitted to a Major Trauma Centre via two independent pathways,
a major trauma (MT) pathway and a standard unscheduled non-major
trauma (NMT) pathway. A total of 134 patients were admitted with
a spinal fracture over a period of two years; 50% of patients were
MT and the remainder NMT. MT patients were predominantly male, had
a mean age of 48.8 years (13 to 95), commonly underwent surgery
(62.7%), characteristically had fractures in the cervico-thoracic
and thoracic regions and 50% had fractures of more than one vertebrae,
which were radiologically unstable in 70%. By contrast, NMT patients
showed an equal gender distribution, were older (mean 58.1 years;
12 to 94), required fewer operations (56.7%), characteristically
had fractures in the lumbar region and had fewer multiple and unstable
fractures. This level of complexity was reflected in the length
of stay in hospital; MT patients receiving surgery were in hospital
for a mean of three to four days longer than NMT patients. These
results show that MT patients differ from their NMT counterparts
and have an increasing complexity of spinal injury. Cite this article: