Search

Purpose: As US healthcare expenditures continue to rise, there is significant pressure to reduce the cost of inpatient medical services. Studies have estimated that over 70% of routine labs may not yield clinical benefits while adding over $300 in costs per day for every inpatient. Although orthopaedic trauma patients tend to have longer inpatient stays and hip fractures have been associated with significant morbidity, there is a dearth of data examining pre-operative labs in predicting post-operative adverse events in these populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether pre-operative labs significantly predict post-operative cardiac and septic complications in orthopaedic trauma and hip fracture patients., Methods: Between 2006 and 2013, 56,336 (15.6%) orthopaedic trauma patients were identified and 27,441 patients (7.6%) were diagnosed with hip fractures. Pre-operative labs included sodium, BUN, creatinine, albumin, bilirubin, SGOT, alkaline phosphatase, white count, hematocrit, platelet count, prothrombin time, INR, and partial thromboplastin time. For each of these labs, patients were deemed to have normal or abnormal values. Patients were noted to have developed cardiac or septic complications if they sustained (1) myocardial infarction (MI), (2) cardiac arrest, or (3) septic shock within 30 days after surgery. Separate regressions incorporating over 40 patient characteristics including age, gender, pre-operative comorbidities, and labs were performed for orthopaedic trauma patients in order to determine whether pre-operative labs predicted adverse cardiac or septic outcomes., Results: 749 (1.3%) orthopaedic trauma patients developed cardiac complications and 311 (0.6%) developed septic shock. Multivariate regression demonstrated that abnormal pre-operative platelet values were significantly predictive of post-operative cardiac arrest (OR: 11.107, p=0.036), and abnormal bilirubin levels were predictive (OR: 8.487, p=0.008) of the development of septic shock in trauma patients. In the hip fracture cohort, abnormal partial thromboplastin time was significantly associated with post-operative myocardial infarction (OR: 15.083, p=0.046), and abnormal bilirubin (OR: 58.674, p=0.002) significantly predicted the onset of septic shock., Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate the utility of pre-operative labs in predicting perioperative cardiac and septic adverse events in orthopaedic trauma and hip fracture patients. Particular attention should be paid to haematologic/coagulation labs (platelets, PTT) and bilirubin values., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Due to rising medical costs, the purpose of this study was to investigate the spending patterns of orthopedic surgeons across the United States and the financial implications of such behavior. Overall, 2,000 randomly chosen orthopedic surgeons from the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) were invited to answer web-based surveys on their utilization of healthcare resources; 1,214 (61%) completed the survey. There was a significant difference (P < .001) in monthly expenditure based on 8 domains of orthopedic care for the average orthopedist: x-ray costs were $7,536, computed tomography costs were $2,340, magnetic resonance imaging costs were $14,975, ultrasound costs were $686, laboratory test costs were $969, specialty referral costs were $1,389, biopsy costs were $1,314, and hospital admission costs were $6,808. Significant differences in monthly expenditure existed based on orthopedist practice setting (P < .001), subspecialty (P < .001), gender (P < .001), and age (P < .001). Demographics with the highest monthly spending included orthopedic private group setting ($36,278), orthopedic oncology subspecialty ($41,795), male gender ($33,843), and age 50 to 59 ($35,559). The average monthly expenditure for orthopedists nationally was calculated to be $33,436 per physician. Given there are approximately 20,400 practicing orthopedists, the annual United States expenditure in orthopedic surgery was calculated to be $8.2 billion. Orthopedic spending is a significant component of national healthcare expenditure.

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.

Background: Orthopaedic surgery is a physically demanding profession that requires many hours per week in body positions known to contribute to musculoskeletal injury and pain. Injuries to surgeons can affect the delivery of care and impose costs on the health care system. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and types of injuries sustained at the workplace during the career of an orthopaedic surgeon as well as the impact of such injuries on practicing surgeons., Methods: A survey was developed to assess occupational injury among orthopaedic surgeons. Electronic surveys were distributed via e-mail to all orthopaedic surgeons in Tennessee. Data were analyzed to determine statistical associations of demographic and workplace factors with the rate of injury., Results: One hundred and forty (28%) of 495 surveys were returned, with representation from all orthopaedic subspecialties. Sixty-one (44%) of the respondents reported sustaining one or more injuries at the workplace during their career. A significant association was found between years performing surgery and prevalence of injury (p = 0.03), with surgeons working between twenty-one and thirty years reporting the most injuries. Twenty-five percent of respondents reported sustaining an injury to the hand; 19%, to the lower back; 10%, to the neck; 7%, to the shoulder; and 6%, to another area. Fourteen (10%) of all surgeons reported missing work as a result of a workplace injury, with five (4%) missing at least three weeks. Twenty-three surgeons (38% of injured respondents) reported that no institutional resources were available to support their recovery from the injury., Conclusions: Our study is the first of its kind, to our knowledge, to demonstrate that many orthopaedic surgeons sustain occupational injuries during their careers. The volume of work missed suggests that occupational injury has economic implications for the health-care system and providers. Given the number of injured respondents reporting no institutional support for occupational injuries, more attention should be focused on this issue.

Background: The future direction of American health care has become increasingly controversial during the last decade. As healthcare costs, quality, and delivery have come under intense scrutiny, physicians play evolving roles as "advocates" for both their profession and patients via healthcare policy. Hospital-physician alignment is critical to the future success of advocacy among orthopaedic surgeons, as both hospitals and physicians are key stakeholders in health care and can work together to influence major health policy decisions., Questions/purposes: We (1) define the role of advocacy in medicine, specifically within orthopaedic surgery; (2) explore the history of physician advocacy and its evolution; (3) examine the various avenues of involvement for orthopaedic surgeons interested in advocacy; and (4) reflect on the impact of such activities on the future of orthopaedic surgery as it relates to hospital-physician alignment., Methods: We performed a comprehensive review of the literature through a bibliographic search of MEDLINE(®) and Google Scholar databases from January 2000 to December 2010 to identify articles related to advocacy and orthopaedic surgery., Results: Advocacy among orthopaedic surgeons is critical in guiding the future of the American healthcare system. In today's world, advocacy necessitates a wider effort to improve healthcare access, quality, and delivery for patients on a larger scale. The nature of physician advocacy among orthopaedic surgeons is grounded in the desire to serve patients and alleviate their suffering. Participation in medical societies and political campaigns are two avenues of involvement., Conclusions: The increasing role of government in American health care will require a renewed commitment to advocacy efforts from orthopaedic surgeons. The role of advocacy is rapidly redefining the continuum of care to a trinity of clinical excellence, innovative research, and effective advocacy. Failure to recognize this growing role of advocacy limits the impact we can have for our patients.