Background: Virtual fracture clinics are increasingly implemented globally to provide follow-up care for patients with simple fractures through phone or video calls, as an alternative to traditional clinics. No study has compared patient and clinician views between these different services.
Aim: Our qualitative study aims to. (i) explore the experiences, feelings and expectations of patients who received care through either a virtual or traditional fracture clinic, and (ii) understand clinician decision-making and willingness to refer patients with simple fractures to a virtual clinic.
Methods: Participants were purposively sampled to participate in an interview. The Theoretical Domains Framework guided development of the interview guides. Data were analysed thematically based on Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework.
Results: We interviewed 30 patients (15 traditional, 15 virtual – recruited from the Fracture Clinic Trial which compares these two models) and 30 clinicians (21 doctors, 8 physiotherapists, 1 nurse). Patients using the physiotherapist-led virtual clinic reported it was more convenient and accessible. However, some felt less engaged compared to seeing an orthopaedic surgeon at the traditional clinic. When referring patients to a virtual clinic, clinicians reported considering the fracture type, and patient access and ability to navigate technology. The type of clinician providing care (surgeon vs physiotherapist) did not influence clinician decisions to refer.
Conclusion: A physiotherapist-led virtual clinic was an acceptable alternative service to the traditional clinic for patients and referrers, provided the injury had a clear prognosis, and patients understood the limitations of the virtual clinic."