Delayed and cancelled orthopaedic surgery; are there solutions to reduce the complex set of problems? A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Unexpected cancellations of, and delays to, orthopaedic surgery have adverse effects, with a negative impact on hospital performance and undesirable patient outcomes. As cancellations and delays are common, finding measures to prevent them is a matter of urgency.

METHODS

The present systematic review conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. Peer-reviewed studies reporting on cancellations or delays in patients requiring emergency orthopaedic or planned orthopaedic surgery that compared care action/intervention with no action or traditional care were included. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation used to assess the quality of evidence of the results from the included studies. The objective of the present study was systematically to search and review the literature for qualitative evidence of factors that might reduce cancellations of and delays to orthopaedic surgical procedures.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 1209 studies and eight articles were included in the performed quality assessment. The heterogeneity of the studies and the lack of calculations and statistics in the studies resulted in no meta-analysis. The result of the quality assessment indicated that the evidence ranked from low to very low across the different outcomes. The main limiting factor, which was the reason for a decrease in quality in some outcomes, was the study designs, which were non-randomised control or retrospective approach. The interventions in the included studies could help to support a reduction in the risk of cancelled and delayed orthopaedic procedures.

CONCLUSION

This systematic literature review has revealed important evidence to help reduce the risk of cancelled and delayed orthopaedic procedures associated with a variety of care action exposures. They include a fast-track pathway, pre-operative guidelines and telephone contact with patients prior to surgery, as well as careful consideration of additional pre-operative tests.

A sense of being rejected: Patients' lived experiences of cancelled knee or hip replacement surgery

BACKGROUND

Growing care queues, reduced access to care and cancelled surgery are realities for some patients being treated with total hip or knee replacement surgery in Sweden. Most of the patients on the waiting lists have experienced pain and limited motion for a varying period of time, with a negative effect on their everyday lives. Overbooked surgical schedules are already contributing to the lengthy waiting times, but, with the addition of cancellations, longer waiting times will increase still further and may affect patients' well-being.

METHODS

In the present study, we aimed to illuminate the experience of having planned surgery cancelled, based on narratives from 10 participants. The interview transcriptions were analysed using a phenomenological hermeneutic approach.

RESULTS

The comprehensive analyses revealed that the participants described the agony of being deselected and the additional impression of being excluded. Metaphors of being damaged and feeling physical pain were used and the interpretations referred to the cancellations as unpleasant. Additionally, the important relationship and the trust between the health workers and the patient were negatively affected by the cancellation.

CONCLUSION

After the cancellation, the participants expressed being vulnerable and from their perspective the cancelled surgery affected them deeply; in fact, much more than the healthcare workers appeared to understand. Therefore, information around the cancellation must be given respectfully and with dignity, in a dialogue between the patient and the healthcare workers. Taken together, to enable an opportunity to be involved in the continued care. The cancellations should be seen as an interruption, in which the patients' chance of living a pain-free, active life is postponed.

The effects of person-centered or other supportive interventions in older women with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures-a systematic review of the literature

Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is a common fragility fracture and the starting point of a lasting, painful, disabling condition. The aim was to summarize evidence of person-centered/non-medical interventions supporting women with VCF. Results show small numbers of studies with only probable effect on function, pain, QoL, fear of falling, and psychological symptoms. The vertebral compression fracture (VCF) caused by osteoporosis is the third most common fragility fracture worldwide. Previously, it was believed that the pain caused by VCF was self-subsiding within weeks or a few months post-fracture. However, this positive prognosis has been refuted by studies showing that, for the great majority of patients, the VCF was the starting point of a long-lasting, severely painful, and disabling condition. The low number of studies focusing on the experience of the natural course of VCF, and what support is available and how it is perceived by those affected, calls for further investigation. Strengthening older patients' sense of security and increasing confidence in their own abilities are of great importance for successful rehabilitation following VCF. More research is needed to identify resources, possibilities, and strategies that can assist older patients to reach their goals to improve well-being. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the current evidence of person-centered or other structured non-medical/non-surgical interventions supporting older women after experiencing an osteoporotic VCF. A systematic literature search was conducted on the MeSH terms encompassing osteoporosis and vertebral compression fractures in the PubMed-MEDLINE and Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases during March through June 2015. The initial search identified 8789 articles, but only seven articles (six randomized controlled trials and one observational study with a control group) met the inclusion criteria. It became evident from the current study that the availability of evidence on the effects of non-medical interventions aiming to support older women with VCF is limited, to say the least. The trials included in this review have few limitations and were mainly considered to be of moderate quality. This systematic literature review suggests that non-medical interventions aiming to support older women with VCF might decrease levels of pain and use of analgesic as well as promote improved physical mobility and function. These interventions would probably result in an improved difference in experiences of fear of falling and perceived psychological symptoms, but would only slightly improve quality of life. However, given the nature of the seven studies, potential biases in patient selection, issues around precision with small cohorts, and failure to control for confounders, makes it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion about the significant effects of non-medical interventions. Incurring a VCF is a complex and diverse event, necessitating equally complex interventions to identify new ways forward. However, to date, interventions struggle with a risk of selection bias in that only the needs of the healthiest of the population are addressed and the voices of the remaining majority of the people affected by VCF are unheard.

Incidence and root causes of cancellations for elective orthopaedic procedures: a single center experience of 17,625 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Swedish public health-care system is to provide care on equal terms for all citizens. In this, as in most other systems where taxes and/or insurances pay for most of the care, normal market forces are set aside at least in part. At times, this has, for example, resulted in long waiting lists, particularly in terms of elective orthopaedic surgery, with several negative consequences, such as cancellations of planned surgery.

METHODS

The main purpose of this retrospective observational single center study was to evaluate and describe the number and reasons for cancellations in elective orthopaedic surgery. Studied were all the elective patients scheduled for joint replacement, arthroscopy and foot & ankle surgery, January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011, whose procedure was cancelled at least once.

RESULTS

Of all 17,625 patients scheduled for elective surgery 6,911 (39%) received at least one, some several cancellations. The most common reason for cancelling a planned surgery was different patient-related factors 3,293 (33%). Cancellations due to treatment guarantee legislation reached 2,885 (29%) and 1,181 (12%) of the cancellations were related to incomplete pre-operative preparation of the patients. Organisational reasons were the cause of approximately 869 (9%) of the cancellations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of patients waiting for elective orthopaedic surgery 6,911(39%) had their surgical procedure cancelled at least once, some several times. It appears that it should be possible to eliminate many of these cancellations, while others are unavoidable or caused by factors outside the responsibility of the individual clinic or even hospital. One possible way of influencing the high rate of cancellations might be to change the view of the patients and involve them in the overall planning of the care process.