Search

From the increase in telehealth to the expansion of private investors to the growth of transparency (both price and patient outcomes) and value-based care initiatives, health-care delivery is rapidly changing. At the same time, demand for musculoskeletal care continues to rapidly increase, with more than 1.7 billion people globally suffering from musculoskeletal conditions, yet burnout is a major concern and growing since the onset COVID-19 global pandemic. When taken together, these factors have a major impact on the health-care delivery environment and pose enormous challenges and increased stressors on orthopedic surgeons and their teams. Coaching can help., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In recent years, the use of national databases in orthopaedic surgery research has grown substantially with database studies comprising an estimated ∼10% of all published lower extremity arthroplasty research. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to: (1) design; (2) execute; and (3) publish an orthopaedic database arthroplasty project. In part II, we discuss how to collect data, propose a novel checklist/standards for presenting orthopaedic database information (SOPOD), discuss methods for appropriate data interpretation/analysis, and summarize how to convert findings to a manuscript (providing a previously published example study). Data collection can be divided into two stages: baseline patient demographics and primary/secondary outcomes of interest. Our proposed SOPOD is more orthopaedic-centered and builds upon previous standards for observational studies from the EQUATOR network. There are a host of statistical methods available to analyze data to compare baseline demographics, primary/secondary outcomes, and reduce type 1 errors seen in large datasets. When drafting a manuscript, it is important to consider and discuss the limitations of database studies, including their retrospective nature, issues with coding/billing, differences in statistical versus clinical significance (or relevance), lack of surgery details (approach, laterality, and implants), and limited sampling or follow-up. We hope this paper will serve as a starting point for those interested in conducting lower extremity arthroplasty database studies., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Use of clinical and administrative databases in orthopaedic surgery research has grown substantially in recent years. It is estimated that approximately 10% of all published lower extremity arthroplasty research have been database studies. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to (1) design, (2) execute, and (3) publish an orthopaedic administrative database arthroplasty project., Methods: In part I, we discuss how to develop a research question and choose a database (when databases should/should not be used), detailing advantages/disadvantages of those most commonly used. To date, the most commonly published databases in orthopaedic research have been the National Inpatient Sample, Medicare, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, and those provided by PearlDiver. General advantages of most database studies include accessibility, affordability compared to prospective research studies, ease of use, large sample sizes, and the ability to identify trends and aggregate outcomes of multiple health care systems/providers., Results: Disadvantages of most databases include their retrospective observational nature, limitations of procedural/billing coding, relatively short follow-up, limited ability to control for confounding variables, and lack of functional/patient-reported outcomes., Conclusion: Although this study is not all-encompassing, we hope it will serve as a starting point for those interested in conducting and critically reviewing lower extremity arthroplasty database studies., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: 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.

Patient activation, the propensity for patients to engage in adaptive health behaviors, is a modifiable factor associated with health outcomes and treatment compliance. The authors evaluated the effect of a question-building intervention (QBI) on patient activation among patients with musculoskeletal symptoms and a low baseline level of activation. Patients seeking treatment for musculoskeletal pain were recruited at the beginning of their outpatient clinic appointment, and they completed the Patient Activation Measure 10-item version (PAM-10) and a demographic questionnaire. Those identified as low activating, based on the initial PAM-10 scores, completed a QBI protocol before their consultation with their provider. A follow-up PAM-10 survey was administered at the end of the visit. A paired sample Student's t test was used to evaluate preintervention and postintervention PAM-10 scores. Fisher's exact test and an unpaired t test were used to assess the association between demographic variables and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PAM-10. Of 194 patients who consented to participate, 60 were identified as low activating and completed the QBI. A paired Student's t test showed a statistically significant increase in mean PAM-10 scores from preintervention (47.3±7.4) to postintervention (54.8±16.8; P <.001). No statistically significant differences were shown in the likelihood of achieving MCID for PAM-10 scores for the sociodemographic variables that were tested. Low-activating patients may benefit from a simple question-formulating intervention before consultation with an orthopedic provider. [ Orthopedics . 2021;44(5):e661-e667.].

Competing Interests: 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.

Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has published evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for the nonarthroplasty management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of this study is to determine how closely our orthopedic providers adhered to the recommendations included in those CPGs., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1096 consecutive ambulatory visits with primary diagnosis of knee OA at a single center. Demographic, radiographic, and treatment information was collected. The primary outcome was the frequency of agreement between our treatment recommendations and the AAOS CPGs. A secondary outcome was the associated costs of care., Results: The total number of interventions generated during the visits was 1955. Adherence to the AAOS guidelines was 65% (362/557), 60% (226/377), and 40% (413/1021) in new/never treated, new/previously treated, and return patients, respectively. Intra-articular injection with either corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid was the most common intervention (32%) followed by physical therapy (29%). As the severity of OA increased, adherence to the AAOS guidelines decreased (61%, 60%, 54%, and 49% for Kellgren-Lawrence grades I through IV, respectively). The estimated annual costs associated with our treatment recommendations were $2,403,543.18, of which $1,206,757.8 (50.2%) was supported by evidence. The most expensive treatment intervention was intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection, which carried a strong evidence against its use., Conclusion: Adherence to the recommendations contained within the AAOS CPGs was modest regardless of the Kellgren-Lawrence grade or history of treatment. Given the size of the affected patient population, there is a need for uniformly accepted guidelines to clarify the role and timing of the different treatment interventions. CPGs should be combined with education, patient engagement, and shared decision-making to minimize variation in treatment patterns, improve patient outcomes, and lower overall costs of care., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Orthopaedic surgeons have a strong legacy for the early of adoption of new technologies that promise to advance patient care. Such technologies are being developed at an extraordinary pace, leveraging advances in orthobiologics and cartilage restoration, surgical navigation, robotic surgery, 3-D printing, and manufacturing of customized implants and sensors. The functionality provided by this revolution is impressive, promising substantial benefits for patients. However, the value of these technologies resides not in their "newness" but in the ability to improve outcomes for patients and reduce overall costs of care. Deciding whether a new technology brings value to an orthopaedic practice can be difficult, especially in an environment of rising health care costs, abundant choice, competition, consumer pressures, variable quality in supporting data, and a shifting regulatory landscape. In this article, we explore the drivers for orthopaedic companies, institutions, and care providers to develop, evaluate, and incorporate new technology. We outline the technology innovation cycle and the major demographic and psychosocial characteristics of adopter groups. We introduce factors considered in evaluating new technologies, such as patient safety, product efficacy, regulatory issues, and their value. Finally, we summarize the ethical concerns associated with new technology, alongside education and training, network security, financial remuneration and informed consent. This article aims to empower orthopaedic surgeons with a balanced and critical approach to ensure the adoption of new technologies in a safe, effective, and ethical manner.

Background: Residents' and fellows' participation in orthopedic surgery is a potential source of anxiety and concern for patients. The purpose of this study was to determine patients' attitudes toward trainee involvement in orthopedic surgery, surgeons as educators, and disclosure of trainee involvement., Methods: Three hundred two consecutive patients with preoperative and postoperative appointments at three arthroplasty practices in academic medical centers were surveyed with an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed in consultation with an expert in survey design., Results: Two hundred thirty-four patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 77.5%). Respondents were 60.5% female, 79.6% white, 66.5% privately insured, and 82.8% had at least some college education. About 65.9% of the respondents felt that surgeons who teach are better surgeons. Nearly all felt residents and fellows should perform surgeries as part of their education (94.1% and 95.3%, respectively). However, 39.7% of the respondents were not satisfactory with a second-year resident assisting in their own surgery. Patients dissatisfied with their most recent orthopedic surgery were more likely to respond that they did not want residents helping with their surgery. Respondents agreed that resident or fellow involvement in surgery should be disclosed (92.2% and 90.1%, respectively)., Conclusions: Insured and educated patients in the United States overwhelmingly desire disclosure of trainee involvement in their surgery. To address the need for orthopedic training in the context of a patient population that is not fully comfortable with trainee involvement in their own surgery, an open discussion between patients and surgeons regarding trainees' roles may be the best course of action., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) have become increasingly emphasized in the transition from volume-based to value-based orthopaedic care. Incorporation of PROM collection into daily clinical practice can be challenging, however, because of financial and logistic constraints. In modern orthopaedics, PROM are important and can be successfully and practically incorporated into clinical practice.

Health care has entered an era where value and quality have become more important than just quantity. Patient-reported outcomes are a critical aspect of the value equation. Orthopaedic surgeons will need to demonstrate that their treatment regimens actually are enhancing their patients' quality of life. In order to do this, the collection of prospective patient-reported outcome data will be critical. For most patients, this will require the use of a general health survey and a disease-specific questionnaire. Currently, most orthopaedic surgeons are not collecting this type of data. The questions are: What types of patient-generated questionnaires can provide the information needed, and how can these data be collected in a cost-effective manner? We will discuss what value means to payers and what the outcome measures are that are selected by various orthopaedic subspecialty societies to evaluate patients who undergo total hip and knee arthroplasty as well as patients with shoulder and knee problems, and we will review potential strategies to collect prospective patient-outcome data in a cost-effective manner in the office.

Purpose: To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) with legacy patient-reported outcome measures with regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria for orthopaedic conditions., Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Three authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 130 studies, 44 of which underwent review. Of these, 18 were selected for inclusion. A general linear model and paired t-tests were used to assess for differences between legacy patient-reported outcome measures and PROMIS., Results: The combined sample size of all articles yielded 3,047 total patients. Overall, PROMIS PF measures and legacy scores showed strong correlations (range: 0.59-0.83) when evaluating upper extremity, lower extremity, and spine patients. PROMIS questionnaires (6.04, standard error [SE] = 0.7) have significantly fewer questions than legacy forms (24.27, SE = 4.36). In lower extremity studies, the PROMIS PF (100.14 seconds, SE = 28.41) forms were completed in significantly less time (P = .03) than legacy forms (243.70 seconds, SE = 45.8). No significant difference was found between the reliabilities of the 2 types of measures., Conclusions: PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly, particularly in lower extremity patients, with some of the most commonly used legacy measures in orthopaedics. PROMIS can be administered quicker and applied to a broader patient population while remaining highly reliable., Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV evidence., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Research is a foundational component of an orthopaedic residency. It fosters intellectual curiosity and pursuit of excellence, while teaching discipline and the scientific method. These are the key principles for careers in both community-based practice and academia. Currently, no consensus exists on how to best engage residents and support their research endeavors. In 2014, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Board of Specialty Societies Research and Quality Committee convened a Clinician-Scientist Collaboration Workgroup. The workgroup's task was to identify barriers to clinical and basic science research, and to propose feasible recommendations to overcome these barriers. Herein, we have compiled the opinions of various stakeholder constituencies on how to foster scholarly pursuits during an orthopaedic residency. These opinions reflect the workgroup's conclusions that research is directly and indirectly influenced by funding, departmental support, and mentorship, and that early exposure and dedicated time to pursue scholarly activities may have a positive impact on lifelong research interests.

The population of the United States and the world is aging rapidly. Musculoskeletal care for older adults will be impacted by the manner in which health care is financed and the ability of the orthopaedic community to provide evidence-based integrated care for this population. We review the financial aspects of health-care reform and the implications for musculoskeletal care in the elderly. We discuss the establishment of quality measures for hip fracture care in the elderly, team building to accomplish this, and an innovative program designed to provide orthopaedic care to the frail elderly outside of the usual office setting.

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to objectively and quantifiably assess patient symptomatology allows tracking of symptoms over time, measurement of the effect of healthcare interventions, and performance of cost-effectiveness analyses to assess and compare the value of treatment options. Many of the PROMs historically used had limited versatility because they were developed using classical test theory, which generates static tests that are not comparable with other measures assessing similar outcomes. Recently developed PROMs, however, were designed according to the principles of the newer item response theory (IRT), which allows for the creation of dynamic instruments deliverable in a variety of forms that are readily comparable with similar measures. IRT also enables computerized adaptive testing to decrease the burden of using PROMs by allowing rapid and complete data acquisition. IRT-based instruments are suitable for patient care and research and have been validated in a variety of populations, many of which are relevant to orthopaedic populations.

Healthcare costs in the United States continue to rise, and substantial variations in the type, quality, and location of that care persist. It is critically important for all healthcare stakeholders to address and define value in orthopaedic care delivery. Evidence-based orthopaedic care delivery, reliable quality and performance measurement, and the delivery of the best care at the lowest cost are the key strategies to improve the value of musculoskeletal care. A failure to implement these strategies could negatively affect the reimbursement of all healthcare providers--at both the private and government payer levels.

The goal of alternative payment models (APMs), particularly bundling of payments in total joint arthroplasty (TJA), is to incentivize physicians, hospitals, and payers to deliver quality care at lower cost. To study the effect of APMs on the field of adult reconstruction, we conducted a survey of AAHKS members using an electronic questionnaire format. Of the respondents, 61% are planning to or participate in an APM. 45% of respondents feel that a bundled payment system will be the most effective model to improve quality and to reduce costs. Common concerns were disincentives to operate on high-risk patients (94%) and uncertainty about revenue sharing (79%). While many members feel that APMs may improve value in TJA, surgeons continue to have reservations about implementation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of large-scale national databases for observational research in orthopaedic surgery has grown substantially in the last decade, and the data sets can be categorized as either administrative claims or clinical registries. Clinical registries contain secondary data on patients with a specific diagnosis or procedure. The data are typically used for patient outcome surveillance to improve patient safety and health-care quality. Registries used in orthopaedic research exist at the regional, national, and international levels, and many were designed to specifically collect outcomes relevant to orthopaedics, such as short-term surgical complications, longer-term outcomes (implant survival or reoperations), and patient-reported outcomes. Although heterogeneous, clinical registries-in contrast to claims data-typically have a more robust list of variables, with relatively precise prospective data input, management infrastructure, and reporting systems. Some weaknesses of clinical registries include a smaller number of patients, inconstant follow-up duration, and use of sampling methods that may limit generalizability. Within the U.S., national joint registry adoption has lagged international joint registries. Given the changing health-care environment, it is likely that clinical registries will provide valuable information that has the potential to influence clinical practice improvement and health-care policy in the future., (Copyright © 2015 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Cost-effectiveness research is an increasingly used tool in evaluating treatments in orthopaedic surgery. Without high-quality primary-source data, the results of a cost-effectiveness study are either unreliable or heavily dependent on sensitivity analyses of the findings from the source studies. However, to our knowledge, the strength of recommendations provided by these studies in orthopaedics has not been studied., Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) What are the strengths of recommendations in recent orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies? (2) What are the reasons authors cite for weak recommendations? (3) What are the methodologic reporting practices used by these studies?, Methods: The titles of all articles published in six different orthopaedic journals from January 1, 2004, through April 1, 2014, were scanned for original health economics studies comparing two different types of treatment or intervention. The full texts of included studies were reviewed to determine the strength of recommendations determined subjectively by our study team, with studies providing equivocal conclusions stemming from a lack or uncertainty surrounding key primary data classified as weak and those with definitive conclusions not lacking in high-quality primary data classified as strong. The reasons underlying a weak designation were noted, and methodologic practices reported in each of the studies were examined using a validated instrument. A total of 79 articles met our prespecified inclusion criteria and were evaluated in depth., Results: Of the articles included, 50 (63%) provided strong recommendations, whereas 29 (37%) provided weak recommendations. Of the 29 studies, clinical outcomes data were cited in 26 references as being insufficient to provide definitive conclusions, whereas cost and utility data were cited in 13 and seven articles, respectively. Methodologic reporting practices varied greatly, with mixed adherence to framing, costs, and results reporting. The framing variables included clearly defined intervention, adequate description of a comparator, study perspective clearly stated, and reported discount rate for future costs and quality-adjusted life years. Reporting costs variables included economic data collected alongside a clinical trial or another primary source and clear statement of the year of monetary units. Finally, results reporting included whether a sensitivity analysis was performed., Conclusions: Given that a considerable portion of orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies provide weak recommendations and that methodologic reporting practices varied greatly among strong and weak studies, we believe that clinicians should exercise great caution when considering the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies. Future research could assess the effect of such cost-effectiveness studies in clinical practice, and whether the strength of recommendations of a study's conclusions has any effect on practice patterns., Clinical Relevance: Given the increasing use of cost-effectiveness studies in orthopaedic surgery, understanding the quality of these studies and the reasons that limit the ability of studies to provide more definitive recommendations is critical. Highlighting the heterogeneity of methodologic reporting practices will aid clinicians in interpreting the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies and improve future research efforts.

Unlabelled: Attention is being paid in the United States (U.S.) to defining and measuring the value of interventions in healthcare. Traditionally, $50,000 per QALY gained has been the accepted "cost-effectiveness threshold" with which cost effectiveness is defined. The validity of this threshold has been called into question largely due to inexact origins; absence of inflationary adjustments and lack of consideration for high gross domestic product of the U.S., Population: There is an opportunity to reassess how we interpret cost utility analyses and the ratios published therein. Orthopedic surgery has typically lagged behind other fields of medicine in self-advocacy and the adoption/implementation of health economic theory. We argue for tiered QALY thresholds of $50,000, $100,000 and $150,000 corresponding respectively to Governmental, Societal and Health systems analysis perspectives., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite evidence that decision and communication aids are effective for enhancing the quality of preference-sensitive decisions, their adoption in the field of orthopaedic surgery has been limited. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the perceived value of decision and communication aids among different healthcare stakeholders., Methods: Patients with hip or knee arthritis, orthopaedic surgeons who perform hip and knee replacement procedures, and a group of large, self-insured employers (healthcare purchasers) were surveyed regarding their views on the value of decision and communication aids in orthopaedics. Patients with hip or knee arthritis who participated in a randomized controlled trial involving decision and communication aids were asked to complete an online survey about what was most and least beneficial about each of the tools they used, the ideal mode of administration of these tools and services, and their interest in receiving comparable materials and services in the future. A subset of these patients were invited to participate in a telephone interview, where there were asked to rank and attribute a monetary value to the interventions. These interviews were analyzed using a qualitative and mixed methods analysis software. Members of the American Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) were surveyed on their perceptions and usage of decision and communication aids in orthopaedic practice. Healthcare purchasers were interviewed about their perspectives on patient-oriented decision support., Results: All stakeholders saw value in decision and communication aids, with the major barrier to implementation being cost. Both patients and surgeons would be willing to bear at least part of the cost of implementing these tools, while employers felt health plans should be responsible for shouldering the costs., Conclusions: Decision and communication aids can be effective tools for incorporating patients preferences and values into preference-sensitive decisions in orthopaedics. Future efforts should be aimed at assessing strategies for efficient implementation of these tools into widespread orthopaedic practice.

To determine whether bundled payment could be an effective payment model for California, the Integrated Healthcare Association convened a group of stakeholders (health plans, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, physician organizations, and vendors) to develop, through a consensus process, the methods and means of implementing bundled payment. In spite of a high level of enthusiasm and effort, the pilot did not succeed in its goal to implement bundled payment for orthopedic procedures across multiple payers and hospital-physician partners. An evaluation of the pilot documented a number of barriers, such as administrative burden, state regulatory uncertainty, and disagreements about bundle definition and assumption of risk. Ultimately, few contracts were signed, which resulted in insufficient volume to test hypotheses about the impact of bundled payment on quality and costs. Although bundled payment failed to gain a foothold in California, the evaluation provides lessons for future bundled payment initiatives., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Morrison argued that demography, economy, and technology drive the evolution of industries from a formative first-generation state ("First Curve") to a radically different way of doing things ("Second Curve") that is marked by new skills, strategies, and partners. The current health-reform movement in the United States reflects these three key evolutionary trends: surging medical needs of an aging population, dramatic expansion of Medicare spending, and care delivery systems optimized through powerful information technology. Successful transition from a formative first-generation state (First Curve) to a radically different way of doing things (Second Curve) will require new skills, strategies, and partners. In a new world that is value-driven, community-centric (versus hospital-centric), and prevention-focused, orthopaedic surgeons and health-care administrators must form new alliances to reduce the cost of care and improve durable outcomes for musculoskeletal problems. The greatest barrier to success in the Second Curve stems not from lack of empirical support for integrated models of care, but rather from resistance by those who would execute them. Porter's five forces of competitive strategy and the behavioral analysis of change provide insights into the predictable forms of resistance that undermine clinical and economic success in the new environment of care. This paper analyzes the components that will differentiate orthopaedic care provision for the Second Curve. It also provides recommendations for future-focused orthopaedic surgery and health-care administrative leaders to consider as they design newly adaptive, mutually reinforcing, and economically viable musculoskeletal care processes that drive the level of orthopaedic care that our nation deserves-at a cost that it can afford., (Copyright © 2014 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have the potential to bring the best-quality evidence to orthopaedic surgeons and their patients. CPGs can improve quality by decreasing the variability in orthopaedic care, but they can also be misused through inappropriate development or application. The quality of a CPG is dependent on the strength of its evidence base, which is often deficient in orthopaedic publications. In addition, many surgeons express concern about legal liability associated with CPGs. Specific processes in CPG development and implementation can counter these potential problems. Other evidence tools, such as appropriate use criteria, also can help in the application of the proper treatment of patients by identifying those who are appropriate for specific procedures. Because payers, patients, and surgeons need access to the best evidence, CPGs will continue to be developed, and orthopaedic surgeons have the opportunity to ensure their proper development and implementation by understanding and participating in the process.

Background: The relationships between physicians and hospitals are viewed as central to the proposition of delivering high-quality health care at a sustainable cost. Over the last two decades, major changes in the scope, breadth, and complexities of these relationships have emerged. Despite understanding the need for physician-hospital alignment, identification and understanding the incentives and drivers of alignment prove challenging., Questions/purposes: Our review identifies the primary drivers of physician alignment with hospitals from both the physician and hospital perspectives. Further, we assess the drivers more specific to motivating orthopaedic surgeons to align with hospitals., Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review from 1992 to March 2012 to evaluate published studies and opinions on the issues surrounding physician-hospital alignment. Literature searches were performed in both MEDLINE(®) and Health Business™ Elite., Results: Available literature identifies economic and regulatory shifts in health care and cultural factors as primary drivers of physician-hospital alignment. Specific to orthopaedics, factors driving alignment include the profitability of orthopaedic service lines, the expense of implants, and issues surrounding ambulatory surgery centers and other ancillary services., Conclusions: Evolving healthcare delivery and payment reforms promote increased collaboration between physicians and hospitals. While economic incentives and increasing regulatory demands provide the strongest drivers, cultural changes including physician leadership and changing expectations of work-life balance must be considered when pursuing successful alignment models. Physicians and hospitals view each other as critical to achieving lower-cost, higher-quality health care.

Quality is a hallmark of health care, although it is difficult to come to a consensus on who gets to define what "quality health care" is. Most health-care workers enter this field with the goal of improving the health of their patients (and the community), and while everyone tries to do the best job possible, we must continuously seek better methods and techniques for achieving better outcomes. The passion for continuous improvement is fundamental, but passion is not sufficient by itself. There is substantial opportunity to improve quality and reduce cost in health care. Multidisciplinary teams that include physicians, nurses, and other ancillary care providers have led to decreased waiting times to see specialists and have also led to better management of chronic disease. By including ancillary care, providers can increase cancer-screening rates and have the potential to decrease readmissions. Moreover, the addition of hospitalists and physician assistants can produce quality and efficiency outcomes that are commensurate with those enjoyed by traditional house staff. However, truly improving performance is difficult due to questions about how we define "quality," design care processes, measure inputs and outputs, develop multi-stakeholder collaborations, and develop incentive programs for delivering "good" care. There is a definite need for more thorough and robust studies of the impact of pay-for-performance programs, with the inclusion of ancillary care providers. Current research has not shown that there is not enough evidence to be able to determine what incentive structure might "work" in a particular health-care system. Payment systems will continue to evolve to incentivize greater collaboration among providers to yield higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future efforts will necessitate the need for strong physician leadership in helping to develop an optimal care team that is as patient-centered as possible. Technology adds dimensions of capability to making improvement real and systematic, as well as providing safer care with fewer errors and better adherence to proven best practices. The drive for quality with technology produces better clinical outcomes and maximizes efficiencies and financial metrics of organizational performance. Technology also adds capabilities for capturing key metrics and reporting them back to clinicians and others. Improved data transparency informs those who can actually do things differently to produce better results and outcomes. While health-care entities strive to focus on quality of care, measuring and reporting such care in a meaningful way are difficult. The best chance of improving overall care for patients is through the adoption of systems that improve coordination and continuity, not by health-care staff working harder. Only through collaboration and integration can health care incorporate a culture for improving quality and patient safety.

The Institute of Medicine outlined a standard for patient-centered care, which has become the centerpiece of healthcare reform in the United States. Shared decision-making interventions, which include decision and communication aids, are formal embodiment of this philosophy. Although the concept of shared decision making has been shown to be an effective tool, and its relevance to orthopaedic medicine has been well documented, it has not been widely adopted by orthopaedic surgeons. It is helpful to examine the benefits of shared decision making, along with incentives to encourage adoption and implementation of this important philosophy.

Background: A variety of reforms to traditional approaches to provider payment and benefit design are being implemented in the United States. There is increasing interest in applying these financial incentives to orthopaedics, although it is unclear whether and to what extent they have been implemented and whether they increase quality or reduce costs., Questions/purposes: We reviewed and discussed physician- and patient-oriented financial incentives being implemented in orthopaedics, key challenges, and prerequisites to payment reform and value-driven payment policy in orthopaedics., Methods: We searched the MEDLINE database using as search terms various provider payment and consumer incentive models. We retrieved a total of 169 articles; none of these studies met the inclusion criteria. For incentive models known to the authors to be in use in orthopaedics but for which no peer-reviewed literature was found, we searched Google for further information., Results: Provider financial incentives reviewed include payments for reporting, performance, and patient safety and episode payment. Patient incentives include tiered networks, value-based benefit design, reference pricing, and value-based purchasing. Reform of financial incentives for orthopaedic surgery is challenged by (1) lack of a payment/incentive model that has demonstrated reductions in cost trends and (2) the complex interrelation of current pay schemes in today's fragmented environment. Prerequisites to reform include (1) a reliable and complete data infrastructure; (2) new business structures to support cost sharing; and (3) a retooling of patient expectations., Conclusions: There is insufficient literature reporting the effects of various financial incentive models under implementation in orthopaedics to know whether they increase quality or reduce costs. National concerns about cost will continue to drive experimentation, and all anticipated innovations will require improved collaboration and data collection and reporting.