Dataset Information

Qualitative evaluation of a form for standardized information exchange between orthopedic surgeons and occupational physicians.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Both occupational physicians and orthopedic surgeons can be involved in the management of work relevant musculoskeletal disorders. These physicians hardly communicate with each other and this might lead to different advice to the patient. Therefore, we evaluated a standardized information exchange form for the exchange of relevant information between the orthopedic surgeon and the occupational physician. The main goals of this qualitative study are to evaluate whether the form improved information exchange, whether the form gave relevant information, and to generate ideas to further improve this information exchange.

Methods

The information exchange form was developed in two consensus meetings with five orthopedic surgeons and five occupational physicians. To evaluate the information exchange form, a qualitative evaluation was set up. Structured telephone interviews were undertaken with the patients, interviews with the physicians were face-to-face and semi-structured, based on a topic list. These interviews were recorded and literally transcribed. Each interview was analyzed separately in Atlas-Ti.

Results

The form was used for 8 patients, 7 patients agreed to participate in the qualitative evaluation. All three orthopedic surgeons involved and three of the six involved occupational physicians agreed to be interviewed. The form was transferred to 4 occupational physicians, the other 3 patients recovered before they visited the occupational physician. The information on the form was regarded to be useful. All orthopedic surgeons agreed that the occupational physician should take the initiative. Most physicians felt that the form should not be filled out for each patient visiting an orthopedic surgeon, but only for those patients who do not recover as expected. Orthopedic surgeons suggested that a copy of the medical information provided to the general practitioner could also be provided to occupational physicians.

Conclusion

The information exchange form was regarded to be useful and could be used in practice. The occupational physician should take the initiative for using this form and most physicians felt the information should only be exchanged for patients who do not recover as expected. That means that the advantage of giving information early in the treatment is lost.

SUBMITTER: Faber E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1635707 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Qualitative evaluation of a form for standardized information exchange between orthopedic surgeons and occupational physicians.

Faber Elske E Burdorf Alex A van Staa Anne Loes AL Miedema Harald S HS Verhaar Jan A N JA

BMC health services research 20061102

<h4>Background</h4>Both occupational physicians and orthopedic surgeons can be involved in the management of work relevant musculoskeletal disorders. These physicians hardly communicate with each other and this might lead to different advice to the patient. Therefore, we evaluated a standardized information exchange form for the exchange of relevant information between the orthopedic surgeon and the occupational physician. The main goals of this qualitative study are to evaluate whether the form ...[more]

PMID: 17081281

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe exchange of information is an integral component of continuity of health care and may limit or prevent costly duplication of tests and treatments. This study determined the probability that patient information from previous visits with other physicians was available for a current physician visit.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre prospective cohort study including patients discharged from the medical or surgical services of 11 community and academic hospitals in Ontario. Patients included in the study saw at least 2 different physicians during the 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome was whether information from a previous visit with another physician was available at the current visit. We determined the availability of previous information using surveys of or interviews with the physicians seen during current visits.ResultsA total of 3250 patients, with a total of 39 469 previous-current visit combinations, met the inclusion criteria. Overall, information about the previous visit was available 22.0% of the time. Information was more likely to be available if the current doctor was a family physician (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54-1.98) or a physician who had treated the patient before the hospital admission (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21-1.46). Conversely, information was less likely to be available if the previous doctor was a family physician (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.44) or a physician who had treated the patient before the admission (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.86). The strongest predictor of information exchange was the current physician having previously received information about the patient from the previous physician (OR 7.72, 95% CI 6.92-8.63).InterpretationHealth care information is often not shared among multiple physicians treating the same patient. This situation would be improved if information from family physicians and patients' regular physicians was more systematically available to other physicians.

Project description:BackgroundDigital media is an effective tool to enhance brand recognition and is currently referenced by more than 40% of orthopedic patients when selecting a physician. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of social media among foot and ankle (F&A) orthopedic surgeons, and the impact of that social media presence on scores of a physician-rated website (PRW).MethodsRandomly selected F&A orthopedic surgeons from all major geographical locations across the United States were identified using the AAOS.org website. Internet searches were then performed using the physician's name and the respective social media platform. A comprehensive social media use index (SMI) was created for each surgeon using a scoring system based on social media platform use. The use of individual platforms and SMI was compared to the F&A surgeon's Healthgrades scores. Descriptive statistics, unpaired Student t tests, and linear regression were used to assess the effect of social media on the PRW scores.ResultsA total of 123 board-certified F&A orthopedic surgeons were included in our study demonstrating varying social media use: Facebook (48.8%), Twitter (15.4%), YouTube (23.6%), LinkedIn (47.9%), personal website (24.4%), group website (52.9%), and Instagram (0%). The mean SMI was 2.4 ± 1.6 (range 0-7). Surgeons who used a Facebook page were older, whereas those using a group website were younger (P < .05). F&A orthopedic surgeons with a YouTube page had statistically higher Healthgrades scores compared to those without (P < .05).ConclusionF&A orthopedic surgeons underused social media platforms in their clinical practice. Among all the platforms studied, a YouTube page was the most impactful social media platform on Healthgrades scores for F&A orthopedic surgeons. Given these findings, we recommend that physicians closely monitor their digital identity and maintain a diverse social media presence including a YouTube page to promote their clinical practice.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

Dataset Information

Qualitative evaluation of a form for standardized information exchange between orthopedic surgeons and occupational physicians.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Qualitative evaluation of a form for standardized information exchange between orthopedic surgeons and occupational physicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets