CFP
HOME HELP CONTACT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Can Fam Physician
Vol. 55, No. 10, October 2009, pp.1006 - 1007.e5
Copyright © 2009 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Résumé
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rouleau, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Parent, S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rouleau, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Parent, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Résumés de recherche

Research

Delay to orthopedic consultation for isolated limb injury

Cross-sectional survey in a level 1 trauma centre

Dominique M. Rouleau, MD MSC FRCSC, Debbie Ehrmann Feldman, PT PHD and Stefan Parent, MD PHD FRCSC
Dr Rouleau is an orthopedic surgeon in upper limb reconstruction and traumatology and Dr Parent is an orthopedic surgeon in pediatric and adult spine surgery, both in the Orthopaedic Department at Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur in Montreal, Que. Dr Ehrmann Feldman is a Physiotherapist and a teacher at the University of Montreal

Correspondence: Dr Dominique Rouleau, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur, Orthopedie, 5400 Gouin Blvd W, Montreal, QC H4J 1C5; telephone 514 338-2222-2060; fax 514 338-3661; e-maildominique_rouleau{at}yahoo.ca

Serious isolated limb injury requiring medical care affects 9% to 13% of adults annually.1 The incidence of fracture is 8.5 per 1000 adults and the incidence of dislocation is 1 per 1000 adults.2 Approximately 10% of all referrals from emergency department physicians are to orthopedic surgery, which is more than any other specialty.3 The large number of patients affected by traumatic orthopedic lesions makes them a challenge for public health care systems with limited resources. A basic tenet of the Canadian system is universal access to health care. However, accessing specialists can be problematic. In the case of traumatic orthopedic injury, prompt access is important to prevent potentially serious complications.4,5 In order to access an orthopedic surgeon, a patient must obtain a referral requisition. Therefore, access to an orthopedic surgeon is dependent on access to primary care, subsequent recognition of the need for referral, and availability of an orthopedic team. Factors related to access and health care use include patients’ predisposing characteristics, enabling resources, and patient needs.6

To our knowledge, no one has characterized access to ambulatory orthopedics services for isolated limb injuries. The objective of this study was to describe referral mechanisms for orthopedic surgery consultations for isolated limb injuries and to identify factors affecting access. The secondary objective of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with the referral mechanism.


   METHODS
TOP
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
 References
 
Study design and setting
This cross-sectional survey was conducted in a 420-bed tertiary care level 1 trauma centre in Montreal, Que. The orthopedic service is composed of 9 orthopedic surgeons specializing in trauma. There is no screening system for injury referral; thus, access depends on prompt referral by primary care physicians. Also, ambulatory injured patients might put off attending the orthopedic clinic for various reasons. In our centre, urgent referrals can be seen the same day by the team on call and nonurgent cases are typically referred to the next day‘s trauma clinic. The institution’s Research Ethics Committee approved the study.

Study patients
Patients were included in the study if they were ambulatory adult patients referred to the orthopedic service with isolated limb injuries. Patients were excluded if they were unable to speak French or English or if their injuries had occurred more than 3 months earlier. Referrals came from the emergency department in the same hospital, different hospitals, local community health centres, and family medicine clinics.

Data collection and measures
Following the first orthopedic visit for an injury, any patient meeting the inclusion criteria was recruited by a research nurse who administered questionnaires after obtaining written consent. Patients answered a questionnaire on sociodemographic characteristics, injury history, past medical history, initial primary care treatment, time of injury, and time of each medical consultation. We also asked participants about consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. A second questionnaire was completed by the orthopedist, addressing type of injury, quality of immobilization, adequacy of referral diagnosis, and type of treatment offered. The "Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen" (AO) classification for fractures was used.7 Soft tissue injuries were described by the anatomic structure injured. A third questionnaire was completed by the patient regarding pain relief treatment, immobilization, and walking aids, as well as an evaluation of pain using a scale (0 to 10).8 Patient satisfaction with the process of care was assessed with the Visit Satisfaction Questionnaire, a validated, 9-item questionnaire.9,10

Analysis
Access to an orthopedic surgeon was defined as the time elapsed from the injury until the orthopedic consultation. The time between injury and each primary care physician visit was calculated in hours according to patient self-report. We defined 3 time intervals (Figure 1). We compared the time to referral to the orthopedic service with the norms published by the Quebec Orthopaedic Association.4,5 We also documented the number of consultations before orthopedic consultation. To assess patients’ proximity to the hospital, we calculated the distances between patients’ home and the hospital using their postal codes, with the aid of MapQuest (www.mapquest.ca).


Figure 10551006
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1 Diagram defining time interval in referral mechanism: A interval represents time between injury and the first primary care visit; B interval represents time between first primary care visit and the consultation in orthopedic surgery; AB interval represents the total delay between the time of injury and the orthopedic consultation.

 
We sought to identify factors affecting the number of primary care consultations, the amount of time elapsed before seeing an orthopedic surgeon (B interval in Figure 1), and patient satisfaction. Bivariate analyses of continuous variables were performed using the Student t test. The {chi}2 test was used for dichotomous variables. We used multiple logistic regression for the dichotomous outcomes and multiple linear regression models for continuous data.


   RESULTS
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
 References
 
A total of 201 ambulatory patients were referred for orthopedic surgery for isolated limb injuries during the 4-month period following September 1, 2006. Of 178 eligible patients, 166 (93%) agreed to complete all questionnaires. Mean age of the sample was 48 years (SD 19 years, range 18 to 88 years) and slightly more than half were female (n = 85, 51%). Most (n = 150, 90%) declared that they were in good to excellent health before their injuries. On average, participants had 14 years of schooling (SD 4.5, range 2 to 37). The mean distance between home and the hospital was 15.9 km (SD 55.5 km, range 0 to 616 km, median 5.7 km). Sociodemographic characteristics are described in Table 1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Descriptive data: A total of 166 respondents completed the survey, but not all respondents answered all questions.

 
Most patients (n = 142, 86%) were diagnosed with fractures; 24 (14%) were diagnosed with soft tissue injuries. The severity of their injuries was graded by patients on a 5-point Likert scale (Table 1). The most common physical site of injury was upper limbs (n = 107, 64%).

Referral mechanism
Sources of referral varied: 76 (46%) patients were referred from the same hospital, 67 (40%) from family medicine clinics, 13 (8%) from other hospitals, and 6 (4%) from community health centres. Mean time from injury to orthopedic consultation (AB interval in Figure 1) was 89 hours (SD 108 hours, range 3 to 642 hours, median 45 hours, interquartile range [IQR] 372 hours). The average time from injury to the first medical visit (A interval) was 21 hours (SD 49 hours, range 0 to 412 hours, median 4 hours, IQR 23 hours). The average time from the first medical consultation to the visit with an orthopedic surgeon (B interval) was 68 hours (SD 94 hours, range 0 to 642 hours, median 29 hours, IQR 385 hours). In the bivariate analysis, 5 variables were significantly associated with longer time between the first primary care visit and the orthopedic consultation (B interval) (Figure 2). In the multivariate analysis, 2 independent predictors were associated with shorter B intervals: high severity of injury according to the patient (P < .001) and having a fracture instead of a soft tissue injury (P = .003, R2 = 0.379).


Figure 20551006
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2 Results of bivariate analysis for delays (in hours) between initial primary care visit and consultation in orthopedic surgery

 
Although most (n = 127, 77%) patients saw only 1 primary care doctor, there were 39 patients (23%) who saw 2 or more primary care doctors before consulting the orthopedic service. In bivariate analyses, 7 variables were significantly associated with multiple primary care consultations (Table 2). Also, seeing 2 general practitioners or more was associated with longer B intervals for these patients compared with patients who had seen 1 physician (128 hours vs 49 hours, P < .001). In the multivariate analysis, the 2 independent predictors of multiple consultations were lower limb injury (odds ratio [OR] 3.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 7.68, P = .006) and consulting first in another health care centre (OR 13.50, 95% CI 4.36 to 41.5, P < .001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Bivariate analysis of factors associated with multiple previous consultations

 
According to Quebec guidelines,4,5 42 (25%) patients had time-sensitive pathologies. Of these, 15 (36%) cases were seen after unacceptable delays (Table 3). Among the 15 cases with longer times to consultation, 7 saw more than 1 doctor before getting orthopedic referrals. Longer distance between patients’ homes and the hospital (18.6 km vs 9.0 km; P = .03) was associated with not being seen within the recommended time.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Cases with referral times exceeding those recommended by the Quebec Orthopaedic Association

 
Patient satisfaction
Results obtained with the Visit Satisfaction Questionnaire indicated that global satisfaction of patients was 82.4% (SD 12.1%, range 47.5% to 100%, median 83%, IQR 17%). Only 16 (9.9%) patients rated the time to see the orthopedic surgeon as poor or fair. Satisfaction with time to consultation or number of primary care visits before seeing an orthopedic surgeon was not associated.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
Footnotes
 References
 
The mean time from injury to orthopedic consultation was approximately 3.5 days. However, 36% of those patients with time-sensitive diagnoses were not seen by orthopedic surgeons within the acceptable delay time. Referral from another hospital or clinic, lower limb injury, low self-assessment of injury severity, and having a soft tissue injury were all independent predictors of delayed access to orthopedic consultation.

These findings have potential explanations. Although the waiting time for orthopedic consultation was for the most part acceptable, there were some problems. In our level 1 trauma centre, there is 24-hour access to the orthopedic team on call. Nevertheless, communication with this team can be difficult because there is no specific protocol for new consultations from other centres. Patients with lower limb injuries might experience more difficulty finding transportation to a medical facility. Patients who perceive their injuries as more severe are more likely to consult physicians sooner. Having soft tissue injuries, as opposed to fractures, was associated with longer delay, as they are often regarded as less urgent than bony injuries.11

A substantial number of patients (n = 39, 23%) with isolated limb injury saw 2 or more doctors before receiving referral for orthopedic consultation. In the context of limited financial resources for health care, this situation is unacceptable. In addition, 36% of patients with time-sensitive injuries4,5 did not consult orthopedic surgeons within the appropriate time frame. This was associated with longer distance between patients’ homes and our hospital. A recent study showed that patients often bypass the nearest hospital for orthopedic care, despite longer delays in the farther health centre, if they believe that it delivers better care.12 There might be problems at the primary care level, as suggested by results from another Canadian study that showed deficits in care of acute orthopedic conditions13 and other musculoskeletal diseases14 by primary care physicians, possibly owing to inadequate medical training in this area.15 Other studies have found that sex and social status were associated with access to health care.16 Our analysis showed that male patients typically had longer delays before orthopedic consultation, although it was no longer significant in the multivariate analysis. No association was found between socioeconomic status and access to orthopedics, unlike results found by other researchers.17–24 This might be the result of universal health insurance in Canada.

In this study, patient satisfaction with the care they received was high, and it was not related to access to care, as was the case in another study.22 Completing the questionnaire immediately following the visit (as in our study) as opposed to filling it out later might increase the level of satisfaction.25,26

Limitations
Our study has several limitations. First, participants might have been those who were most likely to have shorter delays to consultation, fewer previous consultations, and higher levels of satisfaction. This would represent a selection bias. This study was done in a single health care centre in the context of a public health care system. Results on elapsed time to consultation might not be generalizable to other hospitals.

Conclusion
Injury type, patient self-assessment of severity, and type of first health care resource used by the patient are factors influencing access to orthopedic consultation. Substantial rates of multiple primary care consultations before obtaining orthopedic consultation and long delays for time-sensitive injuries underscore the necessity of improving primary care physician training in the area of musculoskeletal injuries. Orthopedic surgeons should get involved in teaching first-line care and must improve communication to accept referrals. Development of clear guidelines for referral is also needed to improve referral mechanisms.27



   EDITOR’S KEY POINTS
 
  • Access to orthopedic surgeons is dependent on access to primary care and subsequent recognition by primary care physicians of the need for orthopedic consultation.
  • This study describes referral mechanisms for orthopedic surgery consultation for isolated limb injuries and identifies factors affecting access.
  • The mean time from injury to orthopedic consultation was 89 hours or approximately 3.5 days, and half the sample consulted an orthopedist within 45 hours. However, 36% of those with time-sensitive diagnoses were not seen by orthopedic surgeons within the acceptable time frame.

 



   POINTS DE REPÈRE DU RÉDACTEUR
 
  • L’accès aux chirurgiens orthopédiques dépend de l’accès aux soins primaires et de la reconnaissance subséquente par le médecin de première ligne de la nécessité d’une consultation orthopédique.
  • Cette étude décrit les mécanismes pour demander une consultation orthopédique pour une blessure isolée à un membre et identifie les facteurs qui nuisent à l’accès à ce service.
  • Il s’est écoulé en moyenne 89 heures, ou environ, 3,5 jours, entre la blessure et la consultation orthopédique, et la moitié des patients étudiés ont été vus par l’orthopédiste en moins de 45 heures. Toutefois, 36 % des patients avec un diagnostic où le temps est un facteur limitant n’ont pas été vus par un chirurgien orthopédiste dans un délai acceptable.

 


   Footnotes
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
References
 
This article has been peer reviewed.

Competing interest

None declared

Contributors

All authors contributed substantially to the concept and design of the protocol, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. Dr Rouleau collected the data.

*Full text is available in english at www.cfp.ca.


   References
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
 References
 

  1. Courpied JP, Caton J, Bouee S, Charpak Y, Thomine JM. Osteoarticular disease in adults in France. A survey of 2000 persons [article in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2001;87(5):424–36.[Medline]
  2. Brinker MR, O’Connor DP. The incidence of fractures and dislocations referred for orthopaedic services in a capitated population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A(2):290–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Piterman L, Koritsas S. Part II. General practitioner-specialist referral process. Intern Med J 2005;35(8):491–6.[Medline]
  4. Gagnon S, Le traumatisme du member inférieur. Le Médecin du Québec 2003;38(4):45–98.
  5. Gagnon S, Le traumatisme du member supérieur. Le Médecin du Québec 2002;37(7):33–84.
  6. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 1995;36(1):1–10.[Medline]
  7. Johnstone DJ, Radford WJ, Parnell EJ. Interobserver variation using the AO/ASIF classification of long bone fractures. Injury 1993;24(3):163–5.[Medline]
  8. Stalnikowicz R, Mahamid R, Kaspi S, Brezis M. Undertreatment of acute pain in the emergency department: a challenge. Int J Qual Health Care 2005;17(2):173–6. Epub 2005 Feb 21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Gasquet I, Villeminot S, Dos Santos C, Vallet O, Verdier A, Kovess V, et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of questionnaires measuring satisfaction with the French health system [article in French]. Sante Publique 2003;15(4):383–402.[Medline]
  10. Ware JE Jr, Davies AR. Patients’ perspectives on the quality of medical care. J Fam Pract 1988;26(5):489–90.[Medline]
  11. Stiell I. Ottawa ankle rules. Can Fam Physician 1996;42:478–80.[Medline]
  12. Varkevisser M, van der Geest SA. Why do patients bypass the nearest hospital? An empirical analysis for orthopaedic care and neurosurgery in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ 2007;8(3):287–95.[Medline]
  13. Glazier RH, Dalby DM, Badley EM, Hawker GA, Bell MJ, Buchbinder R, et al. Management of common musculoskeletal problems: a survey of Ontario primary care physicians. CMAJ 1998;158(8):1037–40.[Abstract]
  14. Gamez-Nava JI, Gonzalez-Lopez L, Davis P, Suarez-Almazor ME. Referral and diagnosis of common rheumatic diseases by primary care physicians. Br J Rheumatol 1998;37(11):1215–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Craton N, Matheson GO. Training and clinical competency in musculoskeletal medicine. Identifying the problem. Sports Med 1993;15(5):328–37.[Medline]
  16. Houde S, Feldman DE, Pilote L, Beck EJ, Giannetti N, Frenette M, et al. Are there sex-related differences in specialized, multidisciplinary congestive heart failure clinics? Can J Cardiol 2007;23(6):451–5.[Medline]
  17. Skaggs DL, Lehmann CL, Rice C, Killelea BK, Bauer RM, Kay RM, et al. Access to orthopaedic care for children with Medicaid versus private insurance: results of a national survey. J Pediatr Orthop 2006;26(3):400–4.[Medline]
  18. Skaggs DL, Clemens SM, Vitale MG, Femino JD, Kay RM. Access to orthopedic care for children with Medicaid versus private insurance in California. Pediatrics 2001;107(6):1405–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Carey TS, Garrett JM. The relation of race to outcomes and the use of health care services for acute low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28(4):390–4.
  20. Ibrahim SA, Siminoff LA, Burant CJ, Kwoh CK. Understanding ethnic differences in the utilization of joint replacement for osteoarthritis: the role of patient-level factors. Med Care 2002;40(1 Suppl):I44–51.[Medline]
  21. Gaskin DJ, Arbelaez JJ, Brown JR, Petras H, Wagner FA, Cooper LA. Examining racial and ethnic disparities in site of usual source of care. J Natl Med Assoc 2007;99(1):22–30.[Medline]
  22. Slover J, Gibson J, Tosteson T, Smith B, Koval K. Racial and economic disparity and the treatment of pediatric fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 2005;25(6):717–21.[Medline]
  23. Weisfeld A, Perlman RL. Disparities and discrimination in health care: an introduction. Perspect Biol Med 2005;48(1 Suppl):S1–9.[Medline]
  24. Löfvendahl S, Eckerlund I, Hansagi H, Malmqvist B, Resch S, Hanning M. Waiting for orthopaedic surgery: factors associated with waiting times and patients’ opinion. Int J Qual Health Care 2005;17(2):133–40. Epub 2005 Jan 21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Ware JE Jr, Davies AR. Behavioral consequences of consumer dissatisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann 1983;6(3–4):291–7.[Medline]
  26. Trandel-Korenchuk DM. Comparison of three visit-specific patient satisfaction instruments: reliability and validity measures and the effect of four methods of data collection on dimensions of patient satisfaction. J Ambul Care Manage 1997;20(4):56–73.[Medline]
  27. Madhok R, Green S. Orthopaedic outpatient referral guidelines: experience in an English health district. Int J Qual Health Care 1994;6(1):73–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Résumé
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rouleau, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Parent, S.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rouleau, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Parent, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Résumés de recherche

HOME HELP CONTACT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES SEARCH