Health Care Professionals’ Experiences With a Mobile Self-Care Solution for Low Complex Orthopedic Injuries: Mixed Methods Study

Background: To cope with the rising number of patients with trauma in an already constrained Dutch health care system, Direct Discharge (DD) has been introduced in over 25 hospitals in the Netherlands since 2019. With DD, no routine follow-up appointments are scheduled after the emergency department (ED) visit, and patients are supported through information leaflets, a smartphone app, and a telephone helpline. DD reduces secondary health care use, with comparable patient satisfaction and primary health care use. Currently, little is known about the experiences of in-hospital health care professionals with DD. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of health care professionals with the DD protocol to enhance durable adoption and improve the protocol. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study parallel to the implementation of DD in 3 hospitals. Data were collected through a preimplementation survey, a postimplementation survey, and semistructured interviews. Quantitative data were reported descriptively, and qualitative data were reported using thematic analysis. Outcomes included the Bowen feasibility parameters: implementation, acceptability, preliminary efficacy, demand, and applicability. Preimplementation expectations were compared with postimplementation experiences. Health care professionals involved in the daily clinical care of patients with low-complex, stable injuries were eligible for this study. Results: Of the 217 eligible health care professionals, 128 started the primary survey, 37 completed both surveys (response rate of 17%), and 15 participated in semistructured interviews. Health care professionals expressed satisfaction with the DD protocol (median 7.8, IQR 6.8-8.9) on a 10-point scale, with 82% (30/37) of participants noting improved information quality and uniformity and 73% (27/37) of patients perceiving reduced outpatient follow-up and imaging. DD was perceived as safe by 79% (28/37) of participants in its current form, but a feedback system to reassure health care professionals that patients had recovered adequately was suggested to improve DD. The introduction of DD had varying effects on workload and job satisfaction among different occupations. Health care professionals expressed intentions to continue using DD due to increased efficiency, patient empowerment, and self-management. Conclusions: Health care professionals perceive DD as an acceptable, applicable, safe, and efficacious alternative to traditional treatment. A numerical in-app feedback system (eg, in-app communication tools or recovery scores) could alleviate health care professionals’ concerns about adequate recovery and further improve DD protocols. DD can reduce health care use, which is important in times of constrained resources. Nonetheless, both advantages and disadvantages should be considered while evaluating this type of treatment. In the future, clinicians and policy makers can use these insights to further optimize and implement DD in clinical practice and guidelines.