The Impact of COVID-19 on Rates of Pressure Injuries Among Hospitalized Patients across the US.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) rates and composition of HAPI stages among hospitalized patients across the US. METHODS: Using encounter-level data from a nationwide healthcare insurance claims database, the authors conducted a retrospective cohort study and an interrupted time-series analysis to determine HAPI rates among hospitalized patients within 90 days of admission before (January 2018 to February 2020) and after (March 2020 to December 2020) the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of 3,418,438 adult patients assessed for inclusion in the study, 1,750,494 met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes measured included the presence of a HAPI within 90 days of admission and HAPI stage based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnosis codes. RESULTS: The authors identified HAPIs in 59,175 episodes of care, representing 59,019 unique patients and corresponding to an overall HAPI rate of 2.65%. Baseline characteristics did not vary significantly across the two time periods. Further, HAPI rates were consistent across the time periods analyzed with no significant differences in rates following the onset of the pandemic (P = .303). Composition of HAPI stages remained consistent across the pandemic (unspecified, stages 1-4, Ps = .62, .80, .22, .23, and .52, respectively) except for a significant decrease in unstageable/deep tissue pressure injuries (-0.088%, P = .0134). CONCLUSIONS: Although hospital resources were strained at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, no differences were identified in HAPI rates among the study's cohort of privately insured patients.

Variation in pre-operative insurance requirements for bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: For patients who wish to undergo bariatric surgery, variation in pre-operative insurance requirements may represent inequity across insurance plan types. We conducted a cross-sectional assessment of the variation in pre-operative insurance requirements. METHODS: Original insurance policy documents for pre-operative requirements were obtained from bariatric surgery programs across the entire USA and online insurance portals. Insurance programs analyzed include commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare/TriCare plans. Poisson regression adjusting for U.S. Census region was used to evaluate variation in pre-operative requirements. Analyses were done at the insurance plan level. Our primary outcome was number of requirements required by each plan by insurance type. Our secondary outcome was number of months required to participate in medically supervised weight loss (MSWL). RESULTS: Among 43 insurance plans reviewed, representing commercial (60.5%), Medicaid (25.6%), and Medicare/TriCare (14.0%) plans, the number of pre-operative requirements ranged from 1 to 8. Adjusted Poisson regression showed significant variation in pre-operative requirements across plan types with Medicaid-insured patients required to fulfill the greatest number (4.1, 95%CI 2.7 to 5.4) compared to 2.7 (95%CI 2.2 to 3.2, P = 0.028) for commercially insured patients and 2.1 (95%CI 1.1 to 3.1, P = 0.047) for Medicare/TriCare-insured patients. Medicaid-insured patients were also required to complete a greater number of months in MSWL (6.6, 95%CI 5.5 to 7.6) compared to commercially (3.8, 95%CI 2.9 to 4.8, P < .001) and Medicare/TriCare-insured patients (1.7, 95%CI 0.3 to 3.0, P = .001). CONCLUSION: The greater frequency of pre-operative requirements in Medicaid plans compared to Medicare/TriCare and commercial plans demonstrates inequity across insurance types which may negatively impact access to bariatric surgery. Pre-operative insurance requirements must be reevaluated and standardized using established evidence to ensure all individuals have access to this life-saving intervention.

Association of bundled payments with spending, utilization, and quality for surgical conditions: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the body of literature examining episode-based bundled payment models effect on health care spending, utilization, and quality of care for surgical conditions. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Episode-based bundled payments were developed as a strategy to lower healthcare spending and improve coordination across phases of healthcare. Surgical conditions may be well-suited targets for bundled payments because they often have defined periods of care and widely variable healthcare spending. In bundled payment models, hospitals receive financial incentives to reduce spending on care provided to patients during a predefined clinical episode. Despite the recent proliferation of bundles for surgical conditions, a collective understanding of their effect is not yet clear. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, and four databases were queried from inception through September 27, 2021, with search strings for bundled payments and surgery. All studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded a total of 879 unique articles of which 222 underwent a full-text review and 28 met final inclusion criteria. Of these studies, most (23 of 28) evaluated the impact of voluntary bundled payments in orthopedic surgery and found that bundled payments are associated with reduced spending on total care episodes, attributed primarily to decreases in post-acute care spending. Despite reduced spending, clinical outcomes (e.g., readmissions, complications, and mortality) were not worsened by participation. Evidence supporting the effects of bundled payments on cost and clinical outcomes in other non-orthopedic surgical conditions remains limited. CONCLUSIONS: Present evaluations of bundled payments primarily focus on orthopedic conditions and demonstrate cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. Evidence for the effect of bundles on other surgical conditions and implications for quality and access to care remain limited.

Unmasked Neuropathic Pain After Neurectomy: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.

Localization of neuropathic pain to a specific peripheral nerve origin relies on patient history, physical examination, and nerve blocks. Neurectomy of the involved nerve(s) can successfully alleviate patients' pain. However, a subset of patients postoperatively describe persistent pain, but say that the pain "moved" to a new location (eg, from the dorsum of the foot to the lateral foot). This may be viewed as a treatment failure by the patient and surgeon alike. Further investigation, however, may localize the new pain to an additional, separate peripheral nerve injury, which was previously unrecognized by both parties. The mechanism involved is that of pain masking and unmasking. Successful treatment of the more prominent pain stimulus allows for recognition of a second, less-offending peripheral nerve injury. As the field of surgical treatment of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain advances, it is important to identify and define specific nuances of diagnosis and treatment via neurectomy. The term "diffuse noxious inhibitory control," used to describe the pain-inhibits-pain pathway, may help explain the phenomenon of masking, whereby one pain generator is more prominent and shields another site from recognition and subsequent diagnosis. In this context, unmasked pain should be considered as a potential source of surgical treatment failure. We present a series of patients who, following improvement in the initial location of their pain, reported pain in a distinctly new peripheral nerve distribution, leading to reoperation.

Fostering Passion and Skills in Surgical Research Across the Medical Education Continuum: The Transplant Research, Education, and Engagement Group.

OBJECTIVE: We describe a multilevel, collaborative research group for trainees and faculty engaging in transplant surgery research within one institution. DESIGN: Transplant Research, Education, and Engagement (TREE) was designed to develop trainees' research skills and foster enthusiasm in transplant surgery along the educational continuum. Our research model intentionally empowers junior researchers, including undergraduates and medical students, to assume active roles on a range of research projects and contribute new ideas within a welcoming research and learning environment. SETTING: Section of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. PARTICIPANTS: Undergraduate premedical students, first through fourth year medical students, general surgery residents, transplant surgery fellows, and transplant surgery faculty. RESULTS: TREE was founded in September 2019 and has grown to include over 30 active members who meet weekly and collaborate virtually on a range of research projects, many of which are led by students. Trainees can assume both mentee and mentor roles and build their research, presentation and writing skills while collaborating academically. CONCLUSIONS: Our model has increased trainees' engagement in transplant research projects and fosters early enthusiasm for the field. This model can be feasibly replicated at other institutions and within other subspecialties.

Introduction to the Best-Case/Worst-Case Framework Within Transplantation Surgery to Improve Decision-Making for Increased Risk Donor Organ Offers.

Public Health Service increased risk donor kidneys are discarded 50% more often than nonincreased risk donor kidneys despite equivalent patient and graft survival outcomes. Patient and provider biases as well as challenges in risk interpretation contribute to the underuse of increased risk donor organs. As the ultimate decision to accept or reject an increased risk donor organ results from the patient-provider conversation, there is an opportunity to improve this dialogue. This report introduces the best-case/worst-case communication guide for structuring high-stake conversations on increased risk kidney offers between transplant providers and their patients. Through best case/worst case, providers focus on eliciting patient values and long-term goals. The patient's unique context can then inform an individualized discussion of "best," "worst," and "most likely" outcomes and support the provider's ultimate recommendation. Transplant providers are encouraged to adopt this communication strategy to enhance shared decision-making and improve patient outcomes.