Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2024
Virtual burn care - Friend or foe? A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mondor Eli, Barnabe Jaymie, Laguan Ella Marie Robyn, Malic Claudia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Evidence on the impact of virtual care for patients with burn injuries is variable. This review aims to evaluate its use in remote assessment, rounding, and follow-up through outcomes of efficacy, usability, costs, satisfaction, clinical outcomes, impacts on triage and other benefits/drawbacks.
METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant qualitative systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021267787) was conducted in four databases and the grey literature for primary research published between 01/01/2010 and 12/31/2020. Study quality was appraised using three established tools. Evidence was graded by the Oxford classification.
RESULTS: The search provided 481 studies, of which 37 were included. Most studies (n = 30, 81%) were Oxford Level 4 (low-level descriptive/observational) designs and had low appraised risk-of-bias (n = 20, 54%). Most applications were for the acute phase (n = 26, 70%). High patient compliance, enhanced specialist access, and new educational/networking opportunities were beneficial. Concerns pertained to IT/connection, virtual communication barriers, privacy/data-security and logistical/language considerations. Low-to-moderate-level (Oxford Grade C) evidence supported virtual burn care's cost-effectiveness, ability to improve patient assessment and triage, and efficiency/effectiveness for remote routine follow-up.
CONCLUSION: We find growing evidence that virtual burn care has a place in acute-phase specialist assistance and routine outpatient follow-up. Low-to-moderate-level evidence supports its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, usability, satisfactoriness, and capacity to improve triage.
METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant qualitative systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021267787) was conducted in four databases and the grey literature for primary research published between 01/01/2010 and 12/31/2020. Study quality was appraised using three established tools. Evidence was graded by the Oxford classification.
RESULTS: The search provided 481 studies, of which 37 were included. Most studies (n = 30, 81%) were Oxford Level 4 (low-level descriptive/observational) designs and had low appraised risk-of-bias (n = 20, 54%). Most applications were for the acute phase (n = 26, 70%). High patient compliance, enhanced specialist access, and new educational/networking opportunities were beneficial. Concerns pertained to IT/connection, virtual communication barriers, privacy/data-security and logistical/language considerations. Low-to-moderate-level (Oxford Grade C) evidence supported virtual burn care's cost-effectiveness, ability to improve patient assessment and triage, and efficiency/effectiveness for remote routine follow-up.
CONCLUSION: We find growing evidence that virtual burn care has a place in acute-phase specialist assistance and routine outpatient follow-up. Low-to-moderate-level evidence supports its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, usability, satisfactoriness, and capacity to improve triage.