Dedicated orthopaedic elective unit: our experience from a district general hospital

Joseph, Vinay Mathew; Boktor, Joseph; Roy, Kunal; Lewis, P.

doi:10.1007/s11845-022-03174-9

Cited by 1 publication

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the included studies did not describe surgical hubs based on their structure, i.e., standalone, integrated, or ring-fenced hubs. Only two studies (Joseph et al, 2022, Minto et al, 2022 explicitly described surgical facilities with ring-fenced or dedicated capacity/resources. Joseph et al (2022) explored outcomes at a dedicated orthopaedic PESU with ring-fenced resources, embedded within a district general hospital.…”

Section: Overview Of the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only two studies (Joseph et al, 2022, Minto et al, 2022 explicitly described surgical facilities with ring-fenced or dedicated capacity/resources. Joseph et al (2022) explored outcomes at a dedicated orthopaedic PESU with ring-fenced resources, embedded within a district general hospital. Minto et al (2022) also evaluated a PESU which was self-contained, separated from emergency care, and had staff and resources ring-fenced from other hospital units.…”

Section: Overview Of the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this review, only comparative studies comparing surgical hubs with other surgical units or comparing time periods before and after establishment of a surgical hub, were analysed when evaluating effectiveness outcomes, as these studies are better placed to determine cause and effect relationships (Joseph et al 2022, Kruse et al 2019a, Kruse et al 2019b, Minto et al 2022, Spinelli et al 2021, Syed et al 2015, Tulp et al 2020Vanhegan et al 2015. For patient-reported outcomes such as patient satisfaction and compliance, data from both comparative and non-comparative studies were utilised (Huddy et al 2022, Joseph et al 2022. Kruse et al 2019a, Kruse et al 2019b, Perrone et al 2020.…”

Section: Overview Of the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Length of hospital stay was reported in two studies which compared outcomes between patients undergoing surgery at surgical hub facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic with patients who had undergone surgery pre-pandemic. Joseph et al (2022) compared the functioning and efficiency of an orthopaedic PESU instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic with the pre-pandemic elective service at a general hospital ward. The length of hospitalisation was significantly reduced at the PESU compared to the pre-pandemic ward (mean length of hospitalisation 3 days vs 4.8 days).…”

Section: Length Of Hospital Staymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One comparative study (from the UK) reported comparative data on the cancellation of procedures as an assessment of a surgical hub's performance. Joseph et al (2022) compared outcomes between an orthopaedic PESU instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic and a pre-pandemic elective service at a general hospital ward. The study found that cancellations were four times higher in the pre-pandemic ward.…”

Section: Cancellation Of Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A rapid review of the effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of surgical hubs in supporting planned care activity

Okolie

Everitt

Wale

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated disruptions to elective care services in the UK, leading to longer waits for treatment and a growing elective surgery backlog. There have been growing calls for the creation of surgical hubs to help reduce this backlog. Surgical hubs aim to increase surgical capacity by providing quicker access to procedures, as well as facilitate infection control by segregating patients and staff from emergency care. This rapid review aimed to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of surgical hubs in supporting planned care activity, to inform the implementation of these hubs in Wales. The review identified evidence available up until January 2023. Twelve primary studies were included, eight of which used comparative methods. Most of the studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and described surgical hubs designed mainly to mitigate the transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Outcome measures reported included clinical, performance, economic, and patient reported outcomes across a variety of different surgical disciplines. Most of the studies did not describe surgical hubs based on their structure, i.e., standalone, integrated, or ring-fenced hubs. The evidence relating to the impact of surgical hubs on clinical outcomes appeared to be heterogenous and limited. Included studies did not appear to control for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outcomes. Evidence of the impact of surgical hubs on performance outcomes such as efficiency, utilisation/usage, volume of surgeries/treatments, performance, cancellations, and time from diagnosis to treatment is limited. Evidence relating to the economic impact of surgical hubs is also limited, however there is evidence to suggest that total average costs are lower in surgical hubs when compared to general hospitals. Evidence relating to the impact of surgical hubs on patient reported outcomes is limited but indicates there may be a positive effect on patient satisfaction and compliance. Considerable variation in the types of surgical hubs reviewed, surgical disciplines, along with the small number of comparative studies, as well as methodological limitations across included studies, could limit the applicability of these findings.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%