The Impact of Harm Review Service on Patients Awaiting Elective Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgery for More Than 52 Weeks

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2022-03, Vol.14 (3), p.e23444-e23444
• Main Authors: Virani, Siddharth, Asaad, Oubida, Divekar, Omkaar, Southgate, Crispin, Dhinsa, Baljinder S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ankle; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Elective surgery; Joint surgery; Mental health; Orthopedics; Pandemics; Patients; Perceptions; Quality Improvement; Quality of life
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23444

Background and objective There has been a significant increase in waiting times for elective surgical procedures in orthopaedic surgery as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As per the hospital policy, patients awaiting elective surgery for more than 52 weeks were offered a consultant-led harm review. The aim of this study was to objectively assess the impact of this service on the field of foot and ankle surgery. Materials and methods The data from harm review clinics at a District General Hospital related to patients waiting to undergo elective foot and ankle procedures in the year 2021 (wait time of more than 52 weeks) were assessed. Clinical data points like change in diagnosis, need for further investigations, and patients being taken off the waiting list were reviewed. The effect of the waiting time on patients' mental health and their perception of the service was assessed as well. Results A total of 72 patients awaiting foot and ankle procedures for more than 52 weeks were assessed as a part of the harm review service. It was noted that 25% of patients found that their symptoms had worsened while 66.1% perceived them to be unchanged. Twelve patients (16.9%) were sent for updated investigations. Twenty-one patients (29.5%) were taken off the waiting lists for various reasons with the most common one being other pressing health concerns; 9% of patients affirmed that the wait for surgery had a significant negative impact on their mental health. Conclusion This study concludes that the harm review service is a useful programme as it helps guide changes in the diagnosis and clinical picture. The service is found to be valuable by most patients, and its impact on the service specialities and multiple centres could be further assessed to draw broad conclusions.