Search

Objectives: As our healthcare system moves toward bundling payments, orthopaedic trauma surgeons will be increasingly benchmarked on perioperative complications. We therefore sought to determine financial risks under bundled payments by identifying adverse event rates for (1) orthopaedic trauma patients compared with general orthopaedic patients and (2) based on anatomic region and (3) to identify patient factors associated with complications., Design: Prospective., Setting: Multicenter., Patients/participants: A total of 146,773 orthopaedic patients (22,361 trauma) from 2005 to 2011 NSQIP data were identified., Interventions: Minor and major adverse events, demographics, surgical variables, and patient comorbidities were collected., Main Outcome Measurements: Multivariate regressions determined significant risk factors for the development of complications., Results: The complication rate in the trauma group was 11.4% (2554/22,361) versus 4.1% (5137/124,412) in the general orthopaedic group (P = 0.001). When controlling for all variables, trauma was a risk factor for developing complications [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-1.81]. After controlling for several patient factors, hip and pelvis patients were 4 times more likely to develop any perioperative complication than upper extremity patients (OR: 3.79, 95% CI: 3.01-4.79, P = 0.01). Lower extremity patients are 3 times more likely to develop any complication versus upper extremity patients (OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 2.30-3.46, P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Our study is the first to show that orthopaedic trauma patients are 2 times more likely than general orthopaedic patients to sustain complications, despite controlling for identical risk factors. There is also an alarming difference in complication rates among anatomic regions. Orthopaedic trauma surgeons will face increased financial risk with bundled payments., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: To compare patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person follow-up appointments for orthopedic trauma., Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial (pilot study)., Setting: Level I trauma center., Patients/participants: Twenty-four patients were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups. Eight patients who had telemedicine follow-up appointments and 9 who had in-person follow-up visits were included in a per-protocol analysis. In the telemedicine group, 2 patients left the study because of nonadherence, 1 patient withdrew because of a weak Internet connection, and 1 patient sustained an open fracture. Three control patients left the study because of nonadherence., Intervention: The patients had 4 follow-up appointments during a 6-month period. Patients either had their 6-week and 6-month follow-ups through video calls or in the clinic., Main Outcome Measurements: After 6-week and 6-month follow-up appointments, the patients were given survey questions that were developed using literature-supported methods to compare follow-up experiences. The patients were monitored for complications., Results: There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between telemedicine and in-person clinic visits (telemedicine: 89% satisfied; control: 100% satisfied; P = 0.74). Zero percent of patients in the telemedicine group took time off their work for their appointment compared with 55.6% in the control (P = 0.03). Telemedicine patients spent significantly less time on their visits (P = 0.01). The majority of the patients in the telemedicine group reported clear visual (87.5%) and sound quality (100%) through and agreed to future follow-up visits through telemedicine (75.0%). One patient in each group developed complications., Conclusions: Telemedicine may be a viable alternative to some in-person clinic visits because of similar measures of patient satisfaction but with significantly less time and distance traveled., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objective: Our purpose was to identify the impact of the physical status of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) on the 30-day readmission of patients receiving operative management of orthopaedic fractures using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database., Methods: We analyzed all patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries in the American College of Surgeons NSQIP database from 2005 to 2011. A total of 8761 patients representing 91 orthopaedic trauma procedures were identified and included in analysis after selection. Logistic regressions were conducted to identify the predictive ability of ASA on the likelihood of readmission for patients in each anatomic category (upper extremity, pelvis/acetabulum, lower extremity) and the combined study population., Results: The ASA physical status proved the strongest predictor of 30-day readmission for the selected orthopaedic trauma procedures. After controlling for age, gender, race, and medical comorbidities that were shown to be significant independent risk factors for readmission, ASA score continued to have a significant association on 30-day readmissions in the combined population (odds ratio = 1.45, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-1.88, P = 0.001). For the combined analysis, compared with patients with an ASA score of 1, patients with an ASA score of 2 were 1.04 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001), patients with an ASA score of 3 were 3.77 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001), and patients with an ASA score of 4 were 13.7 times as likely to have a readmission (P = 0.001)., Conclusions: ASA classification is an indicator for variance in readmission for patients receiving operative treatment of orthopaedic fractures. Given that ASA classification is a universally collected data point, this method can be used in almost any hospital system and for any operative service. This model may be used to more accurately predict a patient's postoperative course and the expected risk for readmission, such that hospitals can target these "at-risk" individuals and reduce 30-day readmissions., Level of Evidence: Prognostic level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: Healthcare reimbursement models are changing. Fee-for-service may be replaced by pay-for-performance or capitated care. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential changes in orthopaedic trauma surgery patient management based on potential shifts in policy surrounding readmission and reimbursement., Methods: An e-mail survey consisting of 3 case-based scenarios was delivered to 375 orthopaedic surgeons. Five options for management of each case were provided. Each of the 3 cases was presented in 3 different healthcare settings: scenario A, our current healthcare setting; scenario B, in which 90-day reoperation or readmission would not be reimbursed; and scenario C, in which a capitated healthcare structure paid a fixed amount per patient., Results: The response rate was 40.3% with 151 surgeons completing the survey. A 71.1% of the respondents were in private practice settings, whereas 28.3% were in academic centers. In each case, there was significant increase in the respondents' choice to transfer patients to tertiary care centers under both the capitated and penalization systems as compared with the current fee-for-service model., Conclusions: This survey is the first of its kind to demonstrate through case-based scenarios that a healthcare system with readmission penalties and capitated reimbursement models may lead to a significant increase in transfer of complex orthopaedic trauma patients to tertiary care centers. Physicians should be encouraged to continue evidence-based medicine instead of making decisions due to finances, and other avenues of healthcare savings should be explored to decrease patient transfer rates with healthcare changes.

Orthopaedic trauma constitutes a significant portion of injuries in the military. By focusing on the "Quadruple Aim" of readiness, population health, experience of care, and per capita costs, the Military Health System delivers high-quality care with low costs. We examine the components of military health policy to find avenues of improvement for civilian orthopaedics. Greater emphasis on preventive medicine, alternative clinic structures, and interchangeability will help civilian orthopaedists lower costs and deliver quality patient-centered care similar to current military structure.

Objectives: To identify the impact of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status on postoperative length of stay (LOS) and to document the cost due to LOS after surgical management of the 8 most common lower extremity and 2 most common upper extremity isolated orthopaedic fractures., Design: Retrospective chart review., Setting: All patients who presented and underwent one of the 10 selected isolated orthopaedic surgical procedures at a large tertiary care center between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2010., Patients/participants: Charts for patients undergoing the 10 selected isolated orthopaedic surgical fracture procedures more than 10 years were reviewed. Thirteen thousand seven hundred seventy-six distinct operations were identified. One thousand three hundred ninety-eight distinct operations were included in analysis after selection., Intervention: This was an observational study. Patients who received operative management for isolated orthopaedic fractures were identified utilizing a CPT code search for analysis in a retrospective chart review., Main Outcome Measurements: LOS and cost secondary to LOS., Results: ASA physical status proved the strongest predictor of postoperative LOS for the 8 most common lower extremity and 2 most common upper extremity isolated orthopaedic procedures. ASA was also a significant predictor of inpatient cost for all isolated orthopaedic procedures included in the study with the exception of CPT code 27536., Conclusions: ASA classification is an indicator for variance in LOS and total inpatient cost for hospitalized patients. Given that ASA classification is a universally collected data point, this method can be used in almost any hospital system and for any operative service. In addition, this study provides a foundation for many other studies to be conducted which will include multiple institutions and fracture types, such that ASA can be used as a more generalizable predictor of LOS and inpatient cost in orthopaedic trauma patients. This model may be used to accurately predict a patient's postoperative course and the expected cost to the health care system of a given procedure., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: To review homeless patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries and examine their emergency room (ER) usage, follow-up rates, and complication rates., Design: Retrospective chart review., Setting: Patients presenting to a level 1 trauma center with orthopaedic trauma injuries from 2001 to 2010., Patients/participants: Sixty-three uninsured homeless patients and 63 uninsured nonhomeless patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries were included., Intervention: Homeless patients with orthopaedic trauma were identified through ER intake sheets and current procedural terminology code searches., Main Outcome Measurements: ER usage, orthopaedic clinic follow-up, and complications., Results: After the index visit to the ER for their orthopaedic trauma injuries, homeless patients demonstrated more ER visits and had fewer orthopaedic clinic follow-up visits than nonhomeless patients (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences among the type of complications (none, infection, hardware failure, and nonunion) between the homeless and the nonhomeless patients (P = 0.23). Operative homeless patients returned to the orthopaedic clinic for follow-up more than nonoperative homeless patients (mean = 5.4, SD = 7.6; and mean = 1.2, SD = 1.5, respectively; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our data are the first to examine the problems associated with homelessness in the patient with orthopaedic trauma and demonstrate an increased challenge in the follow-up care. The orthopaedic surgeon must consider these issues in managing this complex patient population., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: Defensive medicine includes medical practices that exonerate physicians from liability without benefit to patients. The national prevalence of defensive medicine in orthopaedic trauma surgery has not been investigated., Methods: In September 2010, 2000 orthopaedic surgeons randomly chosen from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons registry received invitations to answer a survey on defensive medicine. Among these surgeons, 1214 (61%) completed the survey and 222 (18.5%) identified themselves as nonmilitary orthopaedic traumatologists. Cost analysis was performed using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid data at the 2011 current procedural terminology code level and then aggregated to reflect the 8 domains of care assessed., Results: For orthopaedic traumatologists, on average 22% of all ordered tests were for defensive reasons (radiography, 19%; computed tomographic scanning, 23%; magnetic resonance imaging, 27%; ultrasound, 42%; referrals, 29%; laboratory tests, 23%; and biopsies, 16%). Defensive hospital admissions averaged 9% each month. Orthopaedic traumatologists reported fewer referrals to specialists compared with non-trauma orthopaedists (P = 0.02), with no significant difference in overall monthly defensive expenditures.Using 2011 current procedural terminology code reimbursement data, defensive medicine costs per respondent were calculated to be approximately $7800 monthly or $94,000/y, which is 20% of each physician's spending. Given the approximately 2724 orthopaedic trauma surgeons in practice in the United States according to the 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Census, the national cost of defensive medicine for orthopaedic trauma surgery is estimated to be $256.3 million annually., Conclusions: Defensive medicine among orthopaedic trauma surgeons is a significant factor in health care costs and of marginal benefit to patients. Policies aimed at managing liability risk may be useful in containing such practices.