Search

Background: Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play an important role in providing access to care for many patients in rural communities. Prior studies have shown that these facilities are able to provide timely and quality care for patients who undergo various elective and emergency general surgical procedures. However, little is known about the quality and reimbursement of surgical care for patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs compared with non-CAH facilities., Questions/purposes: Are there any differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, mortality, and Medicare payments between patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs and those undergoing surgery at non-CAHs?, Methods: The 2005 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files were queried using ICD-9 procedure codes to identify Medicare-eligible beneficiaries undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (79.15, 79.35, and 78.55), hemiarthroplasty (81.52), and THA (81.51) for isolated closed hip fractures. This database was selected because the claims capture inpatient diagnoses, procedures, charged amounts and paid claims, as well as hospital-level information of the care, of Medicare patients across the nation. Patients with concurrent fixation of an upper extremity, lower extremity, and/or polytrauma were excluded from the study to ensure an isolated cohort of hip fractures was captured. The study cohort was divided into two groups based on where the surgery took place: CAHs and non-CAHs. A 1:1 propensity score match, adjusting for baseline demographics (age, gender, Census Bureau-designated region, and Elixhauser comorbidity index), clinical characteristics (fixation type and time to surgery), and hospital characteristics (whether the hospital was located in a rural ZIP code, the average annual procedure volume of the operating facility, hospital bed size, hospital ownership and teaching status), was used to control for the presence of baseline differences in patients presenting at CAHs and those presenting at non-CAHs. A total of 1,467,482 patients with hip fractures were included, 29,058 of whom underwent surgery in a CAH. After propensity score matching, each cohort (CAH and non-CAH) contained 29,058 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, and mortality between the two matched cohorts. As funding policies of CAHs are regulated by Medicare, an evaluation of costs-of-care (by using Medicare payments as a proxy) was conducted. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess the 90-day Medicare payments among patients undergoing surgery in a CAH, while controlling for differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics., Results: Patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures were less likely to experience many serious complications at a critical access hospital (CAH) than at a non-CAH. In particular, after controlling for patient demographics, hospital-level factors and procedural characteristics, patients treated at a CAH were less likely to experience: myocardial infarction (3% (916 of 29,058) versus 4% (1126 of 29,058); OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), sepsis (3% (765 of 29,058) versus 4% (1084 of 29,058); OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.78]; p < 0.001), acute renal failure (6% (1605 of 29,058) versus 8% (2353 of 29,058); OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.61 to 0.69]; p < 0.001), and Clostridium difficile infections (1% (367 of 29,058) versus 2% (473 of 29,058); OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.88]; p < 0.001) than undergoing surgery in a non-CAH. CAHs also had lower rates of all-cause 90-day readmissions (18% (5133 of 29,058) versus 20% (5931 of 29,058); OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (4% (1273 of 29,058) versus 5% (1437 of 29,058); OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.82 to 0.95]; p = 0.001) than non-CAHs. Further, CAHs also had risk-adjusted lower 90-day Medicare payments than non-CAHs (USD 800, standard error 89; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Patients who received hip fracture surgical care at CAHs had a lower risk of major medical and surgical complications than those who had surgery at non-CAHs, even though Medicare reimbursements were lower as well. Although there may be some degree of patient selection at CAHs, these facilities appear to provide high-value care to rural communities. These findings provide evidence for policymakers evaluating the impact of the CAH program and allocating funding resources, as well as for community members seeking emergent care at local CAH facilities., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that neither he or she, nor any member of his or her immediate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Value-based healthcare models rely on quality measures to evaluate the efficacy of healthcare delivery and to identify areas for improvement. Quality measure research in other areas of health care has generally shown that there is a limited number of available quality measures and that those that exist disproportionately focus on processes as opposed to outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the current state of quality measures and candidate quality measures in spine surgery., Questions/purposes: (1) How many quality measures and candidate quality measures are currently available? (2) According to Donabedian domains and National Quality Strategy (NQS) priorities, what aspects or domains of care do the present quality measures and candidate quality measures represent?, Methods: We systematically reviewed the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures relevant to spine surgery. A systematic search for candidate quality measures was also performed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase as well as publications from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and the North American Spine Society. Clinical practice guidelines were included as candidate quality measures if their development was in accordance with Institute of Medicine criteria for the development of clinical practice guidelines, they were based on consistent clinical evidence including at least one Level I study, and they carried the strongest possible recommendation by the developing body. Quality measures and candidate quality measures were then pooled for analysis and categorized by clinical focus, NQS priority, and Donabedian domain. Our initial search yielded a total of 3940 articles, clinical practice guidelines, and quality measures, 74 of which met criteria for inclusion in this study., Results: Of the 74 measures studied, 29 (39%) were quality measures and 45 (61%) were candidate quality measures. Fifty of 74 (68%) were specific to the care of the spine, and 24 of 74 (32%) were related to the general care of spine patients. The majority of the spine-specific measures were process measures (45 [90%]) and focused on the NQS priority of "Effective Clinical Care" (44 [88%]). The majority of the general care measures were also process measures (14 [58%]), the highest portion of which focused on the NQS priority of "Patient Safety" (10 [42%])., Conclusions: Given the large number of pathologies treated by spine surgeons, the limited number of available quality measures and candidate quality measures in spine surgery is inadequate to support the transition to a value-based care model. Additionally, current measures disproportionately focus on certain aspects or domains of care, which may hinder the ability to appropriately judge an episode of care, extract usable data, and improve quality. Physicians can steward the creation of meaningful quality measures by participating in clinical practice guideline development, assisting with the creation and submission of formal quality measures, and conducting the high-quality research on which effective guidelines and quality measures depend.

Background: Standardized care plans are effective at controlling cost and quality. Registries provide insights into quality and outcomes for use of implants, but most registries do not combine implant and care quality data. In 2012, several Michigan area hospitals and a major insurance provider formed a voluntary statewide total joint database/registry, the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI), to collect procedural, hospital, discharge, and readmission data. Noting substantial variation in transfusion practices after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in our institutions, we used these prospectively collected data to examine whether awareness and education of the American Association of Blood Banks' (AABB) transfusion guidelines would result in decreased transfusions., Questions/purposes: (1) Can an established arthroplasty registry help implement a quality initiative (QI) designed to decrease the proportion of transfused postoperative patients undergoing TJA? (2) Do data-driven transfusion protocols decrease length of stay without increasing ischemic complications (myocardial infarctions and cerebrovascular accidents)? (3) Are decreased transfusion proportions associated with decreased readmissions, nonischemic morbidity (including deep vein thrombosis and deep prosthetic infection), and mortality in postoperative patients who had undergone TJA?, Methods: After reviewing data from the recently established MARCQI registry, the orthopaedic department noticed many discrepancies and practice variances regarding blood transfusions among their providers. In October 2013, a QI was implemented to raise awareness of the discrepancies and education about the AABB guidelines was presented at the monthly orthopaedic service line meeting. A total of 1872 TJA cases were reviewed; 50 were excluded for incomplete data and two for intraoperative transfusions for the period before education (May 2012 to June 2013, n = 1240) and after education (November 2013 to April 2014, n = 580). Data collected included gender, age, length of stay, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin level, lowest postoperative hemoglobin level during admission, transfusion status, number of units transfused, ischemic and nonischemic morbidity, hospital readmissions within 90 days, and mortality. Pre- and post-QI transfusion proportions were calculated. Chi-square test, Student's t-test, and a multivariate analysis were performed to compare differences in transfusion proportions for patients with a postoperative hemoglobin ≥ 8 g/dL., Results: Overall, the percentage of patients transfused with a postoperative hemoglobin ≥ 8 g/dL decreased 80% (6.5% [71 of 1092] versus 1.3% [seven of 538]; odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-11.6; p < 0.001) after the educational intervention. Before education, 16% (195 of 1240) of all patients undergoing TJA were transfused, whereas 6.5% (71 of 1092) were outside recommended AABB guidelines (hemoglobin ≥ 8 g/dL). In the 6 months after QI initiation, overall transfusions decreased to 6% (35 of 580) with 1.3% (seven of 538) having a hemoglobin ≥ 8 g/dL. The mean length of stay for nontransfused patients was shorter (2.4 days ± 0.9 versus 3.3 days ± 1.1, p < 0.001) and ischemic complications did not differ between groups (0.32% [four of 1240] versus 0.34% [two of 580], p = 0.61). Before and after education, neither the number of readmissions (5.4% [67 of 1240] versus 4.7% [27 of 580], p = 0.50) nor morbidity (3.6% [45 of 1240] versus 2.4% [14 of 580], p = 0.17) differed between time periods. There were no deaths., Conclusions: Simple education and awareness of quality practices drive safety and compliance. The impact can be immediate and lasting. Arthroplasty registries that combine procedural and care quality data are vital and may be used for important data-driven QIs., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: The goal of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is to improve patient safety. The database has been used by hospitals across the United States to decrease the rate of adverse events and improve surgical outcomes, including dramatic decreases in 30-day mortality, morbidity, and complication rates. However, only a few orthopaedic surgical studies have employed the ACS NSQIP database, all of which have limited their analysis to either single orthopaedic procedures or reported rates of adverse events without considering the effect of patient characteristics and comorbidities., Question/purposes: Our specific purposes included (1) investigating the most common orthopaedic procedures and 30-day adverse events, (2) analyzing the proportion of adverse events in the top 30 most frequently identified orthopaedic procedures, and (3) identifying patient characteristics and clinical risk factors for adverse events in patients undergoing hip fracture repair., Methods: We used data from the ACS NSQIP database to identify a large prospective cohort of patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery procedures from 2005 to 2011 in more than 400 hospitals around the world. Outcome variables were separated into the following three categories: any complication, minor complication, and major complication. The rate of adverse events for the top 30 orthopaedic procedures was calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine risk factors for each of the outcome variables for hip fracture repair., Results: Of the 1,979,084 surgical patients identified in the database, 146,774 underwent orthopaedic procedures (7%). Of the 30 most common orthopaedic procedures, the top three were TKA, THA, and knee arthroscopy with meniscectomy, which together comprised 55% of patients (55,575 of 101,862). We identified 5368 complications within the top 30 orthopaedic procedures, representing a 5% complication rate. The minor and major complication rates were 3.1% (n = 3174) and 2.8% (n = 2880), respectively. The most common minor complication identified was urinary tract infection (n = 1534) and the most common major complication identified was death (n = 850). An American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher was a consistent risk factor for all three categories of complications in patients undergoing hip fracture repair., Conclusions: The ACS NSQIP database allows for evaluating current trends of adverse events in selected surgical specialties. However, variables specific to orthopaedic surgery, such as open versus closed injury, are needed to improve the quality of the results.

Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is a globally recognized leader in musculoskeletal and orthopaedic education. Clinical guidelines are one important focus of the AAOS' educational efforts. Although their recommendations sometimes generate controversy, a critical appraisal of the overall quality of these guidelines has not, to our knowledge, been reported., Questions/purposes: We wished to assess the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines using the AGREE II (Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care) instrument., Methods: All 14 guidelines available on the AAOS website as of August 2, 2013 were evaluated. Appraisal was performed by three reviewers, independently, using the AGREE II instrument. This is an internationally recognized and validated assessment tool for evaluating guideline quality. Interrater reliability was calculated and descriptive statistics were performed. Strong interrater reliability was shown using a Spearman's Rho test (correlation coefficient ≥ 0.95)., Results: The overall results for AGREE II domains across all 14 guidelines were: scope and purpose (median score, 95%), stakeholder involvement (median score, 83%), rigor of development (median score, 94%), clarity of presentation (median score, 92%), applicability (median score, 48%), and editorial independence (median score, 79%)., Conclusions: This study showed that the overall quality of the AAOS guidelines is high, however their applicability was found to be poor. The value of guidelines that have a high quality but that are difficult for clinicians to implement is questionable. Numerous suggestions have been proposed to improve applicability including; health economist involvement in guideline production, implementation of pilot studies and audit to monitor uptake of the guidelines and clinician feedback sessions and barrier analysis studies. Future AAOS guidelines should consider and implement steps that can improve their applicability.

Background: National databases are being used with increasing frequency to conduct orthopaedic research. However, there are important differences in these databases, which could result in different answers to similar questions; this important potential limitation pertaining to database research in orthopaedic surgery has not been adequately explored., Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to explore the interdatabase reliability of two commonly used national databases, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), in terms of (1) demographics; (2) comorbidities; and (3) adverse events. In addition, using the NSQIP database, we identified (4) adverse events that had a higher prevalence after rather than before discharge, which has important implications for interpretation of studies conducted in the NIS., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing operative stabilization of transcervical and intertrochanteric hip fractures during 2009 to 2011 was performed in the NIS and NSQIP. Totals of 122,712 and 5021 patients were included from the NIS and NSQIP, respectively. Age, sex, fracture type, and lengths of stay were compared. Comorbidities common to both databases were compared in terms of more or less than twofold difference between the two databases. Similar comparisons were made for adverse events. Finally, adverse events that had a greater postdischarge prevalence were identified from the NSQIP database. Tests for statistical difference were thought to be of little value given the large sample size and the resulting fact that statistical differences would have been identified even for small, clinically inconsequential differences resulting from the associated high power. Because it is of greater clinical importance to focus on the magnitude of differences, the databases were compared by absolute differences., Results: Demographics and hospital lengths of stay were not different between the two databases. In terms of comorbidities, the prevalences of nonmorbid obesity, coagulopathy, and anemia in found in the NSQIP were more than twice those in the NIS; the prevalence of peripheral vascular disease in the NIS was more than twice that in the NSQIP. Four other comorbidities had prevalences that were not different between the two databases. In terms of inpatient adverse events, the frequencies of acute kidney injury and urinary tract infection in the NIS were more than twice those in the NSQIP. Ten other inpatient adverse events had frequencies that were not different between the two databases. Because it does not collect data after patient discharge, it can be implied from the NSQIP data that the NIS does not capture more than ½ of the deaths and surgical site infections occurring during the first 30 postoperative days., Conclusions: This study shows that two databases commonly used in orthopaedic research can identify similar populations of operative patients but may generate very different results for specific commonly studied comorbidities and adverse events. The NSQIP identified higher rates of morbid obesity, coagulopathy, and anemia. The NIS identified higher rates of peripheral vascular disease, acute kidney injury, and urinary tract infection., Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is one of the most widely performed elective procedures; however, there are wide variations in cost and quality among facilities where the procedure is performed., Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were to (1) develop a generalizable clinical care pathway for primary TJA using inputs from clinical, academic, and patient stakeholders; and (2) identify system- and patient-level processes to provide safe, effective, efficient, and patient-centered care for patients undergoing TJA., Methods: We used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to design a care pathway that spans 14 months beginning with the presurgical office visit and concluding 12 months after discharge. We derived care suggestions from interviews with 16 hospitals selected based on readmission rates, cost, and quality (n = 10) and author opinion (n = 6). A 32-member multistakeholder panel refined the pathway during a 1-day workshop. Participants were selected based on leadership in orthopaedic (n = 4) and anesthesia (n = 1) specialty societies; involvement in organizations specializing in safety and high reliability care (n = 3), lean production/consumption of care (n = 3), and patient experience of care (n = 3); membership in an interdisciplinary care team of a hospital selected for interviewing (n = 8); recent receipt of a TJA (n = 1); and participation in the pathway development team (n = 9)., Results: The care pathway includes 40 suggested processes to improve care, 37 techniques to reduce waste, and 55 techniques to improve communication. Central themes include standardization and process improvement, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, and patient/family engagement and education. Selected recommendations include standardizing care protocols and staff roles; aligning information flow with patient and process flow; identifying a role accountable for care delivery and communication; managing patient expectations; and stratifying patients into the most appropriate care level., Conclusions: We developed a multidisciplinary clinical care pathway for patients undergoing TJA based on principles of high-value care. The pathway is ready for clinical testing and context-specific adaptation., Level of Evidence: Level V, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Modern interest in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in orthopaedics dates back to the mid-1980s. While gradual growth of activity in this area has occurred over the past 25 years, the extent to which this research methodology is applied in clinical practice to improve patient care is unclear. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Historically, clinical research in orthopaedics has focused on the technical success of treatment, and objective indicators such as mortality, morbidity, and complications. By contrast, the PROMs framework focuses on effects of treatment described in terms of relief of symptoms, restoring functional ability, and improving quality of life. PROMs can be used to study the relative effects of disease, injury, and treatment across different health conditions. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: All clinical research should begin with identifying clear and meaningful research questions so that the resources and efforts required for data collection result in useful data. Different consumers of research data have different perspectives on what comprises meaningful information. Involving stakeholders such as patients, providers, payers, and policy-makers when defining priorities in the larger research endeavor is one way to inform what type of data should be collected in a particular study. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Widespread collection of outcomes data would potentially aid these stakeholders by identifying best practices, benefits and costs, and important patient or practice characteristics related to outcomes. Several initiatives currently underway may help systematic collection of PROMs, create efficient systems, and foster collaborations to provide support and resources to minimize costs.

Background: Some orthopaedic procedures, including TKA, enjoy high survivorship but leave many patients dissatisfied because of residual pain and functional limitations. An important cause of patient dissatisfaction is unfulfilled preoperative expectations. This arises, in part, from differences between provider and patient in their definition of a successful outcome. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Patients generally are less satisfied with their outcomes than surgeons. While patients are initially concerned with symptom relief, their long-term expectations include return of symptom-free function, especially in terms of activities that are personally important. While surgeons share their patients' desire to achieve their goals, they are aware this will not always occur. Conversely, patients do not always realize some of their expectations cannot be met by current orthopaedic procedures, and this gap in understanding is an important source of discrepancies in expectations and patient dissatisfaction. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: An essential prerequisite for mutual understanding is information that is accurate, objective, and relevant to the patient's condition and lifestyle. This critical information must also be understandable within the educational and cultural background of each patient to enable informed participation in a shared decision making process. Once this is achieved, it will become easier to formulate similar expectations regarding the likely level of function and symptom relief and the risk of adverse events, including persistent pain, complications, and revision surgery. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Predictive models of patient outcomes, based on objective data, are needed to inform decision making on the individual level. This can be achieved once comprehensive data become available capturing the lifestyles of patients of diverse ages and backgrounds, including data documenting the frequency and intensity of participation in sporting and recreational activities. There is also a need for greater attention to the process of informing patients of the outcome of orthopaedic procedures, not simply for gaining more meaningful consent, but so that patients and providers may achieve greater alignment of expectations and increased acceptance of both the benefits and limitations of alternative treatments.

Background: Good orthopaedic care requires a knowledge of the patient's history of musculoskeletal pain and associated limitations in daily function. Standardized measures of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can provide this information. Integrating PROs into routine orthopaedic patient visits can provide key information to monitor changes in symptom severity over time, support shared clinical care decisions, and assess treatment effectiveness for quality initiatives and value-based reimbursement. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Although standardized, validated PRO surveys are routinely used in clinical and comparative effectiveness research, they are not consistently or efficiently collected in clinical practice. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: Ideally, PROs need to be collected directly from patients before their surgeon visit so the data are readily available to the surgeon and patient at the time of the office visit. In addition, PROs should be integrated in the electronic health record to monitor patient status over time. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: PRO integration in clinical practice requires minor modifications to the office flow, some additional staff to facilitate collection, and the technical infrastructure to score, process, and store the responses. We document successful office procedures for collecting PROs in one busy orthopaedic clinic and some suggested methods to extend this model to the Function and Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement (FORCE-TJR) consortium of 121 surgeons where the process is centralized and staff obtained consent to send the PRO directly to the patient's home. Both methods are options for the broader adoption of office-based PROs.

Background: There is a critical need to evaluate the success of orthopaedic treatments through valid outcome measures. Previous attempts to express patient outcomes using a single aggregate score led to scores that were ambiguous, often insensitive to change, and poorly correlated with the patient's assessment of the outcome of surgical procedures. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Numerous patient-reported outcome measurement tools have been developed for assessment of patients' level of activity and functional status, especially after joint arthroplasty. However, most tools assume an idealized set of prescribed activities independent of the age, activity level, and lifestyle of each individual. Few instruments are designed to capture the priorities of individual patients, especially those involved in high-demand sporting and recreational activities. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: We need valid outcome measures that provide a meaningful, individualized assessment of the functional status of each patient, taking into account the lifestyle and expectation of each individual. This advance in outcome measurement will allow clinicians to individualize treatment and provide patients with an accurate estimate of the outcome of alternative treatments and procedures. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Much more comprehensive information is needed to characterize the activities, abilities, and physical aspirations of individual patients. This could form a database for the development of predictive models relating individual characteristics to functional outcomes. Statistical tools are needed to minimize the burden on patients in completing questionnaires to access predictive data and to ensure that all outcome assessments are psychometrically valid.

Background: Advances in the surgical treatment of musculoskeletal conditions have resulted in an interest in better defining and understanding patients' expectations of these procedures, but the best ways to do this remain a topic of considerable debate., Questions/purposes: (1) What validated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations of orthopaedic surgery have been used in published studies to date? (2) How were these expectation measures developed and validated? (3) What unvalidated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations have been used in published studies to date?, Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the OVID Medline and EMBASE databases, in duplicate, to identify all studies that assessed patient expectations in orthopaedic surgery. Sixty-six studies were ultimately included in the present review., Results: Seven validated expectation instruments were identified, all of which use patient-reported questionnaires. Five were specific to a particular procedure or affected anatomic location, whereas two were broadly applicable. Details of reliability and validity testing were available for all but one of these instruments. Forty additional unvalidated expectation assessment tools were identified. Thirteen were based on existing clinical outcome tools, and the others were study-specific, custom-developed tools. Only one of the unvalidated tools was used in more than one study., Conclusions: Several validated expectation instruments have been developed for use by patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. However, many tools have been reported without evidence of testing and validation. The wide range of untested instruments used in single studies substantially limits the interpretation and comparison of data concerning patient expectations.

Background: Biopsies of musculoskeletal tumors lead to alterations in treatment in almost 20% of cases. Control charts are useful to ensure that a process is operating at a predetermined level of performance, although their use has not been demonstrated in assessing the adequacy of musculoskeletal biopsies., Questions/purposes: We therefore (1) assessed the incidence of and the reasons for inadequate musculoskeletal biopsies when following guidelines for performing the procedure; and (2) implemented a process control chart, the CUSUM test, to monitor the proportion of inadequate biopsies., Methods: We prospectively studied 116 incisional biopsies. The biopsy was performed according to 10 rules to (1) minimize contamination in the tissues surrounding the tumor; and (2) improve accuracy. A frozen section was systematically performed to confirm that a representative specimen was obtained. Procedures were considered inadequate if: (1) another biopsy was necessary; (2) the biopsy tract was not appropriately placed; and (3) the treatment provided based on the diagnosis from the biopsy was not appropriate., Results: Five (4.3%) of the 116 incisional biopsy procedures were considered failures. Three patients required a second repeat open biopsy and two were considered to receive inappropriate treatment. No alarm was raised by the control chart and the performance was deemed adequate over the monitoring period., Conclusions: The proportion of inadequate musculoskeletal open biopsies performed at a referral center was low. Using a statistical process control method to monitor the failures provided a continuous measure of the performance.

Background: The ability to measure health system quality has become a priority for governments, the private sector, and the public. Quality indicators (QIs) refer to clear, measurable items related to outcomes. The use of QIs can initiate local quality improvement and track changes in quality over time as interventions are implemented., Questions/purposes: We identified existing evidence-based indicators of quality pediatric orthopaedic care and evaluated published QIs that may be applicable to pediatric orthopaedic care., Search Strategy: Using five standard search engines we searched the literature using terms such as "quality indicators," "orthopaedic surgery," and "pediatric." Study selection was performed in a stepwise manner, first by title, then abstract, and then full-text review. Of the 604 citations identified, 13 articles were selected for inclusion. Eight papers included only pediatric patients., Results: The most commonly reported indicator was mortality followed by postoperative complications. Reoperation and readmission rates were also reported along with patient-centered QIs, although with less frequency., Conclusion: Although mortality and postoperative complications were the most frequently reported QIs, concern for their applicability was raised because of their relative infrequency in pediatrics. Patient-centered QIs appear to be the most useful tools reported, although their use is somewhat limited in the published literature. Although there are benefits and drawbacks to all reported QIs, patient-centered and surgeon-defined outcomes along with cost-effectiveness have important roles in evaluating the quality of pediatric orthopaedic care.

As US healthcare expenditures continue to rise, reform has shifted from spending controls to value-based purchasing. This paradigm shift is a drastic change on how health care is delivered and reimbursed. For the shift to work, policymakers and physicians must restructure the present system by using initiatives such as process reengineering, insurance and payment reforms, physician reeducation, data and quality measurements, and technology assessments. Value, as defined in economic terms, will be a critical concept in modern healthcare reform. We summarize the conclusions of this ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on healthcare reform.

Improving quality of care in arthroplasty is of increasing importance to payors, hospitals, surgeons, and patients. Efforts to compel improvement have traditionally focused measurement and reporting of data describing structural factors, care processes (or 'quality measures'), and clinical outcomes. Reporting structural measures (eg, surgical case volume) has been used with varying degrees of success. Care process measures, exemplified by initiatives such as the Surgical Care Improvement Project measures, are chosen based on the strength of randomized trial evidence linking the process to improved outcomes. However, evidence linking improved performance on Surgical Care Improvement Project measures with improved outcomes is limited. Outcome measures in surgery are of increasing importance as an approach to compel care improvement with prominent examples represented by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. Although outcomes-focused approaches are often costly, when linked to active benchmarking and collaborative activities, they may improve care broadly. Moreover, implementation of computerized data systems collecting information formerly collected on paper only will facilitate benchmarking. In the end, care will only be improved if these data are used to define methods for innovating care systems that deliver better outcomes at lower or equivalent costs.

While all of medicine is under pressure to increase transparency and accountability, joint replacement subspecialists will face special scrutiny. Disclosures of questionable consulting fees, a demographic shift to younger patients, and uncertainty about the marginal benefits of product innovation in a time of great cost pressure invite a serious and progressive response from the profession. Current efforts to standardize measures by the National Quality Forum and PQRI will not address the concerns of purchasers, payors, or policy makers. Instead, they will ask the profession to document its commitment to appropriateness, stewardship of resources, coordination of care, and patient-centeredness. One mechanism for addressing these expectations is voluntary development of a uniform national registry for joint replacements that includes capture of preoperative appropriateness indicators, device monitoring information, revision rates, and structured postoperative patient followup. A national registry should support performance feedback and quality improvement activity, but it must also be designed to satisfy payor, purchaser, policymaker, and patient needs for information. Professional societies in orthopaedics should lead a collaborative process to develop metrics, infrastructure, and reporting formats that support continuous improvement and public accountability.