Search

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is an increasingly recognized public health issue. Identifying risk factors for food insecurity would support public health initiatives to provide targeted nutrition interventions to high-risk individuals. Food insecurity has not been investigated in the orthopedic trauma population. METHODS: From April 27, 2021 to June 23, 2021, we surveyed patients within six months of operative pelvic and/or extremity fracture fixation at a single institution. Food insecurity was assessed using the validated United States Department of Agriculture Household Food Insecurity questionnaire generating a food security score of 0 to 10. Patients with a food security score ≥ 3 were classified as Food Insecure (FI) and patients with a food security score < 3 were classified as Food Secure (FS). Patients also completed surveys for demographic information and food consumption. Differences between FI and FS for continuous and categorical variables were evaluated using the Wilcoxon sum rank test and Fisher’s exact test, respectively. Spearman’s correlation was used to describe the relationship between food security score and participant characteristics. Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between patient demographics and odds of FI. RESULTS: We enrolled 158 patients (48% female) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 20.3 years. Twenty-one patients (13.3%) screened positive for food insecurity (High security: n=124, 78.5%; Marginal security: n=13, 8.2%; Low security: n=12, 7.6%; Very Low security: n=9, 5.7%). Those with a household income level of ≤ $15,000 were 5.7 times more likely to be FI (95% CI 1.8-18.1). Widowed/single/divorced patients were 10.2 times more likely to be FI (95% CI 2.3-45.6). Median time to the nearest full-service grocery store was significantly longer for FI patients (t=10 minutes) than for FS patients (t=7 minutes, p=0.0202). Age (r= -0.08, p=0.327) and hours working (r= -0.10, p=0.429) demonstrated weak to no correlation with food security score. CONCLUSION: Food insecurity is common in the orthopedic trauma population at our rural academic trauma center. Those with lower household income and those living alone are more likely to be FI. Multicenter studies are warranted to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for food insecurity in a more diverse trauma population and to better understand its impact on patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: III

BACKGROUND: Effective communication between the physician and the patient is crucial to quality healthcare. The orthopedic surgery clinic setting provides an environment for cultivating the physician-patient relationship, eliciting diagnostic data, and developing treatment strategies. However, little is known about the orthopedic surgeon perspective on communicating with patients. The purpose of the study was to identify patient communication and care issues faced in the orthopedic surgery clinic setting that physicians categorize as challenging. METHODS: All surgeons in the department of orthopedics in a large tertiary care center were invited to respond to an online survey on common communication challenges. Physicians were asked to rate 13 challenges identified by the literature and opinion leaders using a four-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all challenging” to “Extremely challenging”. In addition, the survey included open ended questions regarding common challenges in communicating with patients and types of encounters, and thematic analysis was applied. Mean scores were calculated. RESULTS: Nineteen orthopedic surgeons completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Orthopedic surgeons identified misaligned expectations for surgical intervention for a nonsurgical diagnosis as the most challenging encounter in the clinic (16/19). Managing postoperative patient expectations (14/19) and communicating with patients who were dissatisfied with their surgical outcome (13/19) were also commonly rated as particularly challenging. Open ended responses echoed these ratings and additional difficulty facilitating patient understanding of complex information as common communication challenges. CONCLUSION: Common challenges in the orthopedic clinic often surround managing patient expectations and providing effective explanations, particularly where physicians perceive a surgical intervention as inappropriate for addressing the patient complaint. Identifying these issues can guide training efforts to help orthopedic physicians in managing these and improving communication. These findings can also provide basis for collecting information about communication challenges from orthopedic surgeons across institutions. Level of Evidence: IV

BACKGROUND: Physicians with a large number of reviews and a high rating may be employing reputation management strategies. Specialists may be more likely than non-specialists to employ such strategies. This should be apparent in a study of online physician reviews on physician rating websites (PRW). METHODS: Using one physician rating website, we gathered orthopedic surgeon and family physician reviews. We measured Spearman correlations between the number of reviews and average numerical rating and used chi-squared to test threshold relationships. RESULTS: There were very small negative Spear-man correlations between the number of online reviews and the average numerical rating for orthopedic surgeons (p= -0.097, p-value=

BACKGROUND: Exposure to methyl methacrylate vapor (MMA) presents an occupational risk to orthopedic surgeons and ancillary personnel in the operating room. The purpose of this study was to identify a disposable face mask to reduce MMA organic vapor inhalation in the operative suite. METHODS: First, the effectiveness of MMA vapor filtration was determined in the laboratory. A section of activated carbon impregnated filter face mask (Model 8514, 3M Inc.) was exposed to 150 ppm MMA vapor and MMA ppm of filtered air was monitored until MMA vapor was detectable. The face mask was then worn as directed in the operating room during routine cement mixing during total knee arthroplasty to determine the exposure to MMA vapors during the procedure both with and without the activated carbon impregnated filter face mask. RESULTS: The activated carbon impregnated face mask was effective in reducing MMA vapor inhalation to non-detectable levels for up to 40 minutes in the laboratory at steady-state exposure of 150 ppm MMA vapor as well as throughout cement mixing and curing in the operative suite during routine total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: An activated carbon impregnated face mask offers a solution for the orthopedic surgeon and supporting personnel who wish to limit their exposure to MMA vapors due to health concerns. Level of Evidence: III

BACKGROUND: Many US health care institutions have adopted compensation models based on work relative value units (wRVUs) to standardize payments and incentivize providers. Among other factors, a major determinant of payment and wRVU assignments is operative time. Our objective was to determine whether differences in estimated operative times between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) contribute to payment and wRVU misvaluation for the most common hospital-based hand and upper extremity procedures. METHODS: Data on wRVUs, surgeon payment, and estimated operative times were collected from CMS for 53 procedures. We used regression models to compare relationships between these variables, in addition to actual median operative times as reported in the NSQIP database, from 2011 to 2016. We then determined the relative valuation of each procedure based on operative time. RESULTS: There was a wide discrepancy between CMS and NSQIP operative times (R(2)=0.49), with 60% of CMS times being longer than NSQIP times. Payment correlated more strongly with CMS operative times (R(2)=0.55) than with NSQIP operative times (R(2)=0.24). Similarly, wRVUs more strongly correlated with CMS operative times (R(2)=0.84) than with NSQIP operative times (R2=0.51). In general, for trauma-related procedures, any distal radius open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) had the highest valuation while any ORIF proximal to the distal radius had lower valuation in analysis of both databases. While 61% of trauma procedures were highly valued, 70% of elective procedures had a low valuation, including nearly all elective tendon procedures. Notable compensation differences were found between trapeziectomy versus ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition, epicondyle debridement with tendon repair versus denervation, proximal row carpectomy versus four corner fusion, and distal radius open versus percutaneous fixation. CONCLUSIONS: CMS may misvalue payment and wRVU rates of hospital-based hand procedures due to inaccurate operative time estimates. By identifying which procedures are misvalued in terms of payment and wRVU per operative time, providers and payors may be able to address these imbalances and maximize appropriate care delivery incentives. Level of Evidence: III

BACKGROUND: Midlevel providers (i.e. physician assistants [PAs] and nurse practitioners [NPs]) are being integrated into systems of care due to the exponentially increasing demand for orthopaedic care. There is a lack of studies which investigate orthopaedic patients’ perspectives regarding midlevel providers. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was administered to 538 first-time patients of four orthopaedic surgeons before their new patient visit. Content included patient perspectives regarding: optimal scope of practice, midlevel provider importance in physician selection, and reimbursement equity with physicians. RESULTS: Of 538 consecutive patients, 415 (77%) responded. 57% were female with an average age of 63.9 ± 11.4 years. Most patients (68%) considered the training background of the surgeon’s midlevel provider when initially choosing an orthopaedic surgeon. 34% of all patients perceived PAs to be more highly trained than NPs while 17% perceived the opposite. Patients had specific preferences regarding which services should be surgeon-provided: follow-up for abnormal tests (82%), initial postoperative appointment (81%), new patient visits (81%), and determining the need for advanced diagnostic studies (e.g. MRI) (76%). Patients had specific preferences regarding which services could be midlevel-provided: preoperative teaching (73%), minor in-office procedures (65%), long term postoperative appointments (61%), and prescriptions (61%). Patients lacked a consensus on reimbursement equity for midlevel providers and orthopaedic surgeons, despite most patients (78%) reporting the surgeon provides a higher-quality consultation. CONCLUSIONS: As health care becomes increasingly consumer-centric and value-driven, a databased utilization of midlevel staff will allow orthopaedic physicians to optimize efficiency and patient satisfaction. Surgeons may consider our results in division of clinical duties among midlevel staff since patients had specific preferences regarding which services should be physician-provided or midlevel-provided. Orthopaedic surgeons may also consider including the midlevel provider in marketing efforts, as most patients considered the midlevel provider’s training background when initially choosing a surgeon and perceived PAs to be more highly trained than NPs. Patients lacked a consensus towards reimbursement equity for orthopaedic surgeons and midlevels, despite reporting that the surgeon provides a higher quality consultation. These findings are important as the midlevel workforce grows in response to the rising demand for orthopaedic care. Level of Evidence: IV

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction surveys are increasingly utilized to measure the patient experience and as a tool to assess the quality of care delivered by medical providers. Press Ganey (PG) is the largest provider of tools for patient satisfaction measurement and analysis. The purpose of this study was to determine if patient satisfaction surveys were subject to selection and/ or nonresponse bias. METHODS: Patients seen in an outpatient academic orthopedic clinic were included in this retrospective cohort study. Demographic data included age, race, gender, marital status, primary payer, and native language. All surveys were administered by PG Associates per internal protocols adhering to exclusion criteria within the institutional contract with PG Associates. RESULTS: 3.5% of outpatient encounters generated PG survey data, which were generated by 9.1% of all patients evaluated. The population of patients who were administered as well as patients who responded to the patient satisfaction survey represented a unique population with regards to age, race, gender, marital status, insurance status, and native language. CONCLUSIONS: Demographically, patients who were administered and patients who responded to PG surveys differed from the overall population of patients seen in an outpatient orthopedic setting, evidencing both selection and non-response bias. Because of these differences, and considering the small number of survey returned, caution should be exercised when interpreting and applying these data. Level of Evidence: III

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgery is a male-dominated specialty associated with many stereotypes, despite the increased representation of females compared to 30 years ago. Numerous studies have examined medical student and resident perceptions regarding females in orthopaedic surgery to explain the disparity, but there are few studies that analyze whether patients have a gender preference in their orthopaedic surgeon. Our study sought to determine whether patients have a preference for the gender of their orthopaedic surgeon, and what traits in orthopaedic surgeons are important to their patients. METHODS: A total of 191 new patients seen in the emergency department and orthopaedic urgent care clinic were administered a 22-question survey regarding preferences in their orthopaedic provider. Patients were asked questions regarding preferred gender of their provider, as well as preferences in characteristics exhibited. RESULTS: The majority of patients did not have a preference for the gender of their orthopaedist (83.9%); however, 14.5% of patients preferred a female surgeon and 1.6% of patients preferred a male surgeon. Female patients had a preference for the same gender compared to male patients and preferred females (p=0.04). Of the patients that had a preference, 90% preferred a female provider. There were trends towards preference for gender that varied depending on subspecialty. There was a statistically insignificant trend towards preference for male providers in total joint replacements and spine surgery, and conversely a preference for female providers in hand surgery and pediatric orthopaedics. 48.6% of patients cited the single most important trait to be board certification, followed by years in practice (27.1%), then reputation or prestige (16.7%). Over one-third of patients found physical appearance, gender, racial background and age to be important traits. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients did not have a preference for the gender of their orthopaedic surgeon. 16.1% of patients had a preference, and the majority of these patients preferred female surgeons. Preferences for a specific gender were seen that varied based on the subspecialty. Efforts at increasing gender diversity in orthopaedics should continue to be a major goal. Level of Evidence: III