scholarly journals Service reconfiguration in the department of hand surgery during the UK COVID-19 lockdown: Birmingham experience

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139280
Author(s):  
Natasha Emma Picardo ◽  
Harriet Walker ◽  
Qureish Vanat ◽  
Bafiq Nizar ◽  
Tomas Madura ◽  
...  

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic swept through the UK and had a major impact on healthcare services. The Birmingham hand centre, one of the largest hand trauma units in the country, underwent a dramatic service reconfiguration to enable robust and safe provision of care that would withstand the peak of the pandemic. Streamlining our service significantly reduced patient footfall and hospital admission while preventing intra-hospital viral transmission. Many of the changes implemented have been kept as permanent adjustments to our practice as this new model of care yields higher patient satisfaction and efficacy to withstand the pressures of further peaks in the pandemic.

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Rodziewicz ◽  
Terence O'Neill ◽  
Audrey Low

Abstract Background/Aims  Rheumatology departments were required to switch rapidly from face-to-face (F2F) to remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. We conducted a patient satisfaction survey on the switch to inform future service development. Methods  All patients [new (NP), follow-up (FU)] were identified between 1st to 5th June 2020. Patients who attended or did not attend (DNA) a pre-booked F2F consultation or cancelled were excluded. Of the remainder, half the patients was surveyed by phone using a standardised questionnaire and the other half was posted the same questionnaire. Both groups were offered the opportunity to complete the survey online. Patients were surveyed on the organisation and content of the consultation, whether they were offered a subsequent F2F appointment and future consultation preference. Results  233 consultations were scheduled during the study period. After 53 exclusions (34 pre-booked F2F, 16 DNA, 3 cancellations), 180 eligible consultations were surveyed (85 via mailshot, 95 by telephone). 75/180 patients (42%) responded within 1 month of the telephone consultation (20 NP, 47 FU, 8 missing). The organisation of the switch was positively perceived (Table). Patients were highly satisfied with 4 of the 5 consultation domains but were undecided whether a physical assessment would have changed the outcome of the consultation (Table). After the initial phone consultation, 7 of 20 NP and 19 of 47 FU were not offered subsequent F2F appointments at the clinicians’ discretion. Of those not offered subsequent F2F appointments, proportionally more NP (3/7, 43%) would have liked one, compared to FU (5/19, 26%). Reasons included communication difficulties and a desire for a definitive diagnosis. 48/75 (64%) would be happy for future routine FU to be conducted by phone “most of the time" or "always”; citing patient convenience and disease stability. Caveats were if physical examination was required or if more serious issues (as perceived by the patient) needed F2F discussion. Conclusion  Patients were generally satisfied with telephone consultations and most were happy to be reviewed again this way. NPs should be offered F2F appointments for first visits to maximise patient satisfaction and time efficiency. P071 Table 1:Median age, yearsFemale; n (%)Follow-up; n (%)All eligible for survey; n = 18056122 (68)133 (74)Sent mailshot; n = 855459 (69)65 (76)Surveyed by phone; n = 955663 (66)68 (72)Responder by mail; n = 166911 (69)13 (82)Responder by phone; n = 525437 (71)34 (65)Responder by e-survey; n = 7495 (71)UnknownOrganisation of the telephone consultation, N = 75Yes, n (%)No, n (%)Missing, n (%)Were you informed beforehand about the phone consultation?63 (84)11 (15)1 (1)Were you called within 1-2 hours of the appointed date and time?66 (88)6 (8)3 (4)Domains of the consultation, N = 75Strongly disagree, n (%)Disagree, n (%)Neutral, n (%)Agree, n (%)Strongly agree, n (%)Missing, n (%)During the call, I felt the clinician understood my problem3 (4)1 (1)1 (1)20 (27)49 (65)1 (1)During the call, I had the opportunity to ask questions regarding my clinical care1 (1)02 (3)16 (21)55 (73)1 (1)A physical examination would have changed the outcome of the consultation16 (21)18 (24)20 (27)11 (15)10 (13)0The clinician answered my questions to my satisfaction2 (3)06 (8)18 (24)49 (65)0At the end of the consultation, the clinician agreed a management plan with me3 (4)2 (3)6 (8)24 (32)39 (52)1 (1)Future consultations, N = 75Never, n (%)Sometimes, n (%)Most of the time, n (%)Always, n (%)Missing, n, (%)In the future, would you be happy for routine FU to be conducted by phone?5 (7)20 (27)16 (21)32 (43)2 (3) Disclosure  M. Rodziewicz: None. T. O'Neill: None. A. Low: None.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e341
Author(s):  
J. Huber ◽  
A. Ihrig ◽  
E. Winkler ◽  
C. Gruellich ◽  
P. Hallscheidt ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
John Schulga ◽  
Heather Mitchell ◽  
S. Faisal Ahmed ◽  
Assunta Albanese ◽  
Justin Warner ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Independent peer review of healthcare services can complement existing internal-, institutional-, and national-level regulatory mechanisms aimed at improving quality of healthcare. However, this has not been reported for paediatric endocrinology services in the UK. We aimed to test feasibility and acceptability through a first cycle of a national peer review of paediatric endocrine services. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Tertiary centres in paediatric endocrinology across the UK were assessed against 54 quality standards, developed by the British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (BSPED) in five domains of healthcare by a team comprising paediatric endocrinologists and specialist nurses. The evaluation was supported by a self-assessment. A post-peer-review questionnaire was used as feedback. <b><i>Results:</i></b> All 22 centres in the UK underwent independent peer review between 2011 and 2017. Each served a median population of 2.6 million (range 1–8 million) and offered 1,872 (range 779–6,738) outpatient consultations annually. A total of 43 (range 30–49) standards were met in combined evaluation of all centres. Variance of adherence for essential standards ranged from 52 to 97% at individual centres with 90% adherence demonstrated by 32% of centres. Post-review feedback showed 20/22 (95%) validating the utility of the peer review. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The BSPED peer review of all UK centres providing paediatric endocrine services is shown to be feasible and provides a quality benchmark for replication by national services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document