The AOA: A Comprehensive House with Compassionate Leaders. Presidential Address to the AOA, June 15, 2020: AOA Critical Issues.

ABSTRACT: The American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) is the world's oldest orthopaedic association and it has been responsible for the founding of many prominent organizations as well as The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. While the AOA has traditionally focused on academic orthopaedic leadership, the time has come to expand our horizons and look to include all orthopaedic leaders from the wide variety of leadership roles in which they currently serve.Orthopaedic surgeons who demonstrate compassionate leadership will find that they create stronger, more successful teams. Compassionate leadership is a skill that can be learned, and investing the energy to develop this skill will have a profound impact on our success as orthopaedic surgeons and leaders.

Orthopaedic surgeons' perceptions and attitudes on COVID-19 related changes in practice: an international cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: the purpose of this study was to assess the orthopaedic surgeons' perceptions and attitudes on COVID-19 related changes in their practice. METHODS: an online survey was shared with orthopaedic surgeons practicing in different countries. RESULTS: this study showed that orthopaedic surgery plan management was adapted to respond more effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic while maintaining the continuity of health care and ensuring protection of medical staff and patients. Among the introduced measures, elective surgery was postponed to free-up beds for suspected or COVID-19 positive patients requiring hospitalization. Additionally, the number of outpatient visits was considerably decreased and non-urgent visits were postponed to reduce the flow of patients in and out of hospitals and therefore minimize the risk of contamination. Interestingly, data revealed the willingness of orthopaedic surgeons to take care of COVID-19 positive patients and support their colleagues in intensive care units, if needed. CONCLUSION: orthopaedic surgery departments have adapted their programs to face the unprecedented challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Quick measures were taken to reduce the risk of contamination in patients, medical staff and to allow hospitals to free up beds for treatment of patients with positive or suspected COVID-19.

Factors Considered in Ranking Spine Surgery Fellowship Applicants: A Survey of Program Directors.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors spine surgery fellowship program directors (PDs) consider most important when ranking applicants. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgery is a popular orthopedic subspecialty. As such, the spine fellowship match process is highly competitive. Surveys of fellowship PDs in orthopedic sports medicine and hand surgery have demonstrated differing opinions regarding factors considered most important when ranking fellowship applicants. The factors considered important to spine surgery fellowship PDs have not been evaluated. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was sent to the PDs of all spine surgery fellowships participating in the San Francisco (SF) Match Program. The questions were designed to identify criteria considered most important in ranking spine surgery fellowship applicants. A list of 12 criteria was presented and PDs were asked to rank these in order of importance. A weighted score for each criterion was calculated using the following scale: 5 points for each criterion ranked 1st, 4 points for 2nd, 3 points for 3rd, 2 points for 4th, and 1 point for 5th. RESULTS: Of the 73 PDs queried, 52 responded (71% response rate). The interview was the most important factor when ranking fellowship applicants. The other criteria deemed most important in order of weighted scoring were letters of recommendation and personal connections to the applicant and/or familiarity with the applicant's letter writer(s). CONCLUSION: Spine surgery fellowship PDs consider the interview, letters of recommendation, and personal connections with the applicant/letter writers to be the most important factors when ranking candidates. These results may be valuable to orthopedic residents and mentors of those pursuing fellowship training in spine surgery.Level of Evidence: 4.

Redeployment of the trainee orthopaedic surgeon during COVID-19: a fish out of water?

Background and purpose - COVID-19 has had a significant impact on health services and the entire healthcare sector, including trauma and orthopaedics, has been compelled to adapt. At the heart of this was the redeployment of the orthopaedic trainees to support "frontline specialties". This paper sheds light on the experience of orthopaedic trainees in redeployment. Methods - In this retrospective study, we asked orthopaedic trainees in the KSS (Kent, Surrey, Sussex) and London Deaneries to complete a survey regarding their experience in redeployment during the COVID-19 outbreak. The study took place in the Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and London regions of the United Kingdom over a period of 8 weeks from 15th of March 2020 until 15th of May 2020. The study was based at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust and participants were recruited from a number of secondary and tertiary care centres across the region. 120 orthopaedic trainees were contacted, working in 21 teaching hospitals. Of these, 40 trainees (30%) from 13 hospitals responded and completed the survey. Results - 50% of the surveyed trainees were redeployed to other specialties. Trainees spent varying amounts of time in the redeployed speciality and gave differing views on how comfortable they felt and how useful they felt the experience was. One-third of trainees experienced symptoms and/or tested positive for COVID-19 and the majority of these were redeployed to other specialties. Interpretation - Orthopaedic training appears to have taken a temporary back seat at this time but trainees have made a significant contribution to reinforcing key front-line specialties in the fight against COVID-19.

The Orthopaedic Political Action Committee: Growth and Influence Over 20 Years.

The Political Action Committee (PAC) of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, also known as the OrthoPAC, is one of the most powerful and well-respected healthcare PACs in Washington, DC. Since its inception in 1999, the OrthoPAC has advocated at the federal level for orthopaedic patients and orthopaedic surgery as a profession. This manuscript will familiarize the reader with PACs, the history and structure of the OrthoPAC, important accomplishments of the OrthoPAC, current legislative positions, and leadership/organization. We also review the various ways that orthopaedic surgeons can engage in advocacy for musculoskeletal care.

Quality Improvement and Patient Safety: How Leadership Can Create a Culture of Safety: AOA Critical Issues Symposium.

Orthopaedic leaders need to create a shared vision and must establish trust, open lines of communication, and buy-in from all team members in order to establish a culture that is supportive of quality improvement. Leaders should encourage teams to follow evidence-based guidelines, reduce variation, take an active role in supply chain processes, and develop new ideas to improve quality and safety of care. With rapidly changing medical and surgical advancements, orthopaedic leaders must continually adapt in the face of evolving challenges.

Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by General Pediatricians and Referring Physicians.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by General Pediatricians and Referring Physicians. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by General Pediatricians and Referring Physicians AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients presenting with developmental dysplasia of the hip in clinical practice. The 24 patient scenarios and four treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate multidisciplinary, Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by Orthopaedic Specialists.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by Orthopaedic Specialists. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by Orthopaedic Specialists AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients presenting with developmental dysplasia of the hip in clinical practice. The 432 patient scenarios and three treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate multidisciplinary, Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).