This review examines EU regulations on orthopedics and traumatology during COVID-19, suggesting improvements in digital health management and patient safety.
The COVID‐19 pandemic had a detrimental impact on healthcare provision globally and in the European Union (EU). This paper investigates european health policy oriented towards orthopedics and traumatology since the onset of the pandemic. A search of peer–reviewed literature and European Union legislation and scientific databases has been performed with keywords related to both COVID‐19 as well as physical injuries, orthopedics, traumatology and related conditions and treatments. Five peer‐reviewed papers, four legislative documents, and three records of EU‐funded research proposals were included. Action undertaken by the European Commission and decisions of the General Court of the EU addressed pertinent issues of orthopedics and traumatology with limited connection to the then ongoing pandemic such as professional qualifications of healthcare workers in the field and regulation of medicines and biological tissues associated with resuscitation and surgery. Studies in the field concentrated on expert panels and consensus statements stressing the need for equivocal representation of clinicians and nonclinicians and consensus processes based on evidence synthesis. The impact of EU regulation on medical devices availability has also been addressed. A number of research proposals integrating digital health to emergencies management and integrating orthopedics and traumatology in this framework received EU funding during the pandemic. Policymaking and research regarding orthopedics and traumatology during COVID‐19 remained focused on improving safety and effectiveness of care delivery in the field with regard to long‐standing issues such as medicines, devices and accreditation of healthcare personnel. Research on digital technology to leverage emergency care has also been supported.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsagkaris et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: