Search

IntroductionWhile short-term surgical outreach trips improve access to care in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), there is rising concern about their long-term impact. In response, many organizations seek to incorporate capacity building programs into their outreach efforts to help strengthen local health systems. Although leading organizations, like the World Health Organization (WHO), advocate for this approach, uniform guidelines are absent.MethodsWe performed a systematic review, using search terms pertaining to capacity building guidelines during short-term surgical outreach trips. We extracted information on authorship, guideline development methodology, and guidelines relating to capacity building. Guidelines were classified according to the Global-QUEST framework, which outlines seven domains of capacity building on surgical outreach trips. Guideline development methodology frequencies and domain classifications frequencies were calculated; subsequently, guidelines were aggregated to develop a core guideline for each domain.ResultsA total of 35 studies were included. Over 200 individual guidelines were extracted, spanning all seven framework domains. Guidelines were most frequently classified into Coordination and Community Impact domains and least frequently into the Finance domain. Less than half (46%) of studies collaborated with local communities to design the guidelines. Instead, guidelines were predominantly developed through author trip experience.ConclusionAs short-term surgical trips increase, further work is needed to standardize guidelines, create actionable steps, and promote collaborations in order to promote accountability during short-term surgical outreach trips.

BackgroundQuality measures provide a way to assess health care delivery and to identify areas for improvement that can inform patient care delivery. When operationalized by a hospital or a payer, quality measures can also be tied to physician or hospital reimbursement. Prior work on quality measures in orthopaedic surgery have identified substantial gaps in measurement portfolios and have highlighted areas for future measure development. This study aims to identify the portfolio of quality measures in pediatric orthopaedic surgery.MethodsWe used methodology of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and reviewed PubMed/ MEDLINE and EMBASE, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS), National Quality Forum (NQF), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), for quality measures and candidate quality measures. Quality measure and candidate quality measures were categorized as structure, process, or outcome. Measures were also classified into 1 of the 6 National Quality Strategy priorities (safety, effective, patient centered, timely, efficient, and equitable).ResultsA review of PubMed/EMBASE returned 1640 potential quality measures and articles. A review of AAOS, NQF, and AHRQ databases found 80 potential quality measures. After screening we found a total of 18 quality measures and candidate quality measures specifically for pediatric orthopaedic surgery. Quality measures addressed conditions such as supracondylar humerus fractures, developmental dysplasia of the hip, and osteochondritis dissecans. There were 10 process measures, 8 outcome measure, and 0 structure measures. When we categorized by National Quality Strategy priorities and found 50% (9/18) were effective clinical care, 44% (8/18) were person and care-giver centered experience and outcomes, 6% (1/18) were efficient use of resources.ConclusionsThere are few quality measures and candidate quality measures to assess pediatric orthopaedic surgery. Of the quality measure available, process measures are relatively over-represented. Pediatric orthopaedic surgeons can lead the development of outcome (eg, patient-reported outcomes after surgery) and structure measures (eg, subspecialty training certification) to assess quality of care in pediatric orthopaedic surgery.Level of evidenceLevel II-systematic review.

The Management of Distal Radius Fractures Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline is based on a systematic review of published studies for the treatment of distal radius fractures in adults older than 18 years. The scope of this guideline is limited to the treatment of acute distal radius fractures and does not address distal radius malunion. This guideline contains seven recommendations to assist orthopaedic surgeons and all qualified physicians managing patients with acute distal radius fractures based on the best current available evidence. It serves as an information resource for professional healthcare practitioners and developers of practice guidelines and recommendations. In addition to providing pragmatic practice recommendations, this guideline also highlights gaps in the literature and informs areas for future research and quality measure development.

BackgroundPoorly controlled diabetes mellitus (DM) increases the risk for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). While institutional protocols include hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) screening in TJA patients, the costs and benefits of routine preoperative screening have not been described.MethodsThe authors created a decision tree model to evaluate short-term costs and risk reduction for PJIs with routine screening of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. Probabilities and costs were obtained from published sources. They calculated net costs and absolute risk reduction in PJI for routine screening versus no screening. The authors also performed sensitivity analyses of model inputs including probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) consisting of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsIn patients with DM, routine screening before THA resulted in net cost savings of $81 per patient with 286 patients needing to be screened to prevent 1 PJI, while screening before TKA incurred net additional costs of $25,810 per PJI prevented. Routine screening in patients with DM undergoing THA or TKA was cost-saving across 75.5% or 21.8% of PSA simulations, respectively. In patients with no history of DM, routine screening before THA or TKA incurred net additional costs of $24,583 or $87,873 per PJI prevented, respectively.ConclusionsRoutine HbA1c screening in patients with DM prior to THA with referral of patients with elevated HbA1c for glycemic optimization may prevent PJI and reduce healthcare costs. In contrast, routine screening in patients with DM prior to TKA or in patients with no history of DM is not cost-saving.Level of evidenceEconomic Level IV.

IntroductionCancer is the second leading cause of death among women in the United States. Previous studies demonstrate a higher prevalence of cancer among female orthopaedic surgeons. This study aimed to provide an updated prevalence of breast and all-cause cancer among female orthopaedic surgeons using a larger and more current study population.MethodsWe distributed surveys to female orthopaedic surgeons in national orthopaedic specialty societies. Six hundred seventy-two survey responses were collected. We calculated standardized prevalence ratios (SPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on gender-specific, race-specific, and age-specific cancer prevalence statistics in the US population. We compared the distribution of breast cancer risk factors with that of women in the 2018 and 2009 California Health Interview Survey.ResultsFifty-one of the 672 surveyed surgeons reported a diagnosis of invasive cancer. Twenty reported breast cancer with a prevalence higher among female orthopaedic surgeons compared with the US female population (SPR: 2.89, 95% CI: 2.16 to 3.81, P < 0.001). The breast cancer prevalence was also higher among orthopaedic surgeons compared with the US female population (SPR: 3.97, 95% CI: 2.43 to 6.14, P = 0.003).DiscussionThe increased prevalence of breast and all-cause cancer among a larger and more diverse cohort of female orthopaedic surgeons confirms previous studies and provides an update regarding a concerning public health issue within this specialty.

BackgroundSmoking cessation represents an opportunity to reduce both short and long-term effects of smoking on complications after lumbar fusion and smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the cost-effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions prior to lumbar fusion is not fully known.MethodsWe created a decision-analytic Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 5 smoking-cessation strategies (behavioral counseling, nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], bupropion or varenicline monotherapy, and a combined intervention) prior to single-level, instrumented lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) from the health payer perspective. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published sources. We calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each strategy over multiple time horizons and accounted for uncertainty with probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) consisting of 10,000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsEvery smoking-cessation intervention was more effective and less costly than usual care at the lifetime horizon. In the short term, behavioral counseling, NRT, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were also cost-saving, while bupropion monotherapy was more effective but more costly than usual care. The mean lifetime cost savings for behavioral counseling, NRT, bupropion monotherapy, varenicline monotherapy, and the combined intervention were $3,291 (standard deviation [SD], $868), $2,571 (SD, $479), $2,851 (SD, $830), $6,767 (SD, $1,604), and $34,923 (SD, $4,248), respectively. The minimum efficacy threshold (relative risk for smoking cessation) for lifetime cost savings varied from 1.01 (behavioral counseling) to 1.15 (varenicline monotherapy). A PSA revealed that the combined smoking-cessation intervention was always more effective and less costly than usual care.ConclusionsEven brief smoking-cessation interventions yield large short-term and long-term cost savings. Smoking-cessation interventions prior to PLF can both reduce costs and improve patient outcomes as health payers/systems shift toward value-based reimbursement (e.g., bundled payments) or population health models.Level of evidenceEconomic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PurposeA question prompt list (QPL) is a tool that lists possible questions a patient may want to ask their surgeon. Its purpose is to improve patient-physician communication and increase patient engagement. Although QPLs have been developed in other specialties, one does not exist for hand conditions. We sought to develop a QPL for use in the hand surgery clinic using a mixed-methods design.MethodsWe drafted a QPL based on prior work outside of hand surgery and then used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design (both qualitative and quantitative methods) to finalize the QPL. Qualitative evaluation included both a written questionnaire completed by a patient advisory board, hand therapists, and hand surgeons, as well as cognitive interviews conducted with clinic patients using the tool. Revisions to the QPL were made after each phase of qualitative analysis. The final QPL was then evaluated quantitatively using the system usability score (SUS) questionnaire to assess its usability.ResultsA patient advisory board consisting of 6 patients, 5 hand therapists, and 6 hand surgeons completed the written questionnaire. Thirteen patients completed a cognitive interview of the QPL. We completed a content analysis of the qualitative data and incorporated the findings into the QPL. Twenty patients then reviewed the final QPL pamphlet and completed the SUS questionnaire. The resulting SUS score of 78.8 indicated above-average usability of the QPL tool.ConclusionsThe QPL developed in this study, from the perspective of multiple stakeholders, provides a usable tool to engage and prompt patients in asking questions during their visit with their hand surgeon with the potential to improve communication and patient-centered care.Clinical relevanceThis study provides clinicians with a QPL developed for use in the hand surgery clinic setting, aimed at facilitating more thorough patient-provider discussion.

PurposeTo test the null hypothesis that exposure to societal cost information does not affect choice of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).MethodsWe enrolled 304 participants using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform to complete a survey in which participants were given the choice between carpal tunnel release (CTR) or a less-expensive option (orthosis wear) in a hypothetical mild CTS scenario. Patients were randomized to receive information about the societal cost of CTR (cost cohort) or no cost information (control). The primary outcome was the probability of choosing CTR measured on a 6-point ordinal scale. We employed qualitative content analysis to evaluate participants' rationale for their choice. We also explored agreement with various attitudes toward health care costs on an ordinal scale.ResultsParticipants in the cost cohort exhibited a greater probability of choosing surgery than those in the control cohort. The relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.85). Among participants who had not previously been diagnosed with CTS (n = 232), the relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.06). Lack of personal monetary responsibility frequently emerged as a theme in those in the cost cohort who chose surgery. The majority (94%) of participants expressed at least some agreement that health care cost is a major problem whereas only 58% indicated that they consider the country's health care costs when making treatment decisions.ConclusionsParticipants who received societal cost information were more likely to choose the more expensive treatment option (CTR) for mild CTS.Clinical relevanceExposure to societal cost information may influence patient decision making in elective hand surgery. A complete understanding of this influence is required prior to implementing processes toward greater cost transparency for diagnostic/treatment options. Sharing out-of-pocket costs with patients may be a beneficial approach because discussing societal cost information alone will likely not improve value of care.

» The use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is not supported for elective cases of patients undergoing soft-tissue hand procedures that are ≤2 hours in length. » The use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is not supported for patients with diabetes undergoing elective, soft-tissue hand surgical procedures. » There is a paucity of literature evaluating the use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, those with cardiac valves, and those taking corticosteroids; because of this, there is no evidence to vary from our general recommendations.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were originally developed as research tools; however, there is increasing interest in using PROMs to inform clinical care. Prior work has shown the benefits of implementing PROMs at the point of care, but a patient's health numeracy (their ability to understand and work with numbers) may affect their ability to interpret PROM results. Materials and Methods: We recruited patients presenting to an outpatient orthopedic clinic. Forty-nine patients completed a survey that included demographic information, the short-form General Health Numeracy Test, and accuracy questions about four PROM displays (bar graph, table, line graph, pictograph) that indicated the same PROM results. Results: Patients with higher health numeracy answered all display accuracy questions correctly (P=.016). Patients who preferred using the table were more likely to answer display accuracy questions incorrectly (odds ratio, 0.013, P=.024). The two most frequently preferred PROM formats were bar graphs and tables, and most patients preferred to learn about their PROM function scores via a combination of displays and verbal discussions. Conclusion: Patient health numeracy is associated with the ability to correctly interpret visual displays of PROMs. Implementation of PROMs at point of care currently does not account for health numeracy. Efforts to account for health numeracy when using PROMs at point of care may improve the efficacy of using PROMs to improve outcomes in orthopedic surgery. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(5):e255–e260.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The burden of musculoskeletal conditions continues to grow in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Among thousands of surgical outreach trips each year, few organizations electronically track patient data to inform real‐time care decisions and assess trip impact. We report the implementation of an electronic health record (EHR) system utilized at point of care during an orthopedic surgical outreach trip. Methods: In March 2023, we implemented an EHR on an orthopedic outreach trip to guide real‐time care decisions. We utilized an effectiveness‐implementation hybrid type 3 design to evaluate implementation success. Success was measured using outcomes adopted by the World Health Organization, including acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, fidelity, and sustainability. Clinical outcome measures included adherence to essential quality measures and follow‐up numerical rating system (NRS) pain scores. Results: During the 5‐day outreach trip, 76 patients were evaluated, 25 of which underwent surgery beforehand. The EHR implementation was successful as defined by: mean questionnaire ratings of acceptability (4.26), appropriateness (4.12), feasibility (4.19), and adoption (4.33) at least 4.00, WHO behaviorally anchored rating scale ratings of fidelity (6.8) at least 5.00, and sustainability (80%) at least 60% follow‐up at 6 months. All clinical quality measures were reported in greater than 80% of cases with all measures reported in 92% of cases. NRS pain scores improved by an average of 2.4 points. Conclusions: We demonstrate successful implementation of an EHR for real‐time clinical use on a surgical outreach trip. Benefits of EHR utilization on surgical outreach trips may include improved documentation, minimization of medical errors, and ultimately improved quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]