Correlation of Relative Value Units With Surgical Complexity and Physician Workload: A Contemporary Nationwide Analysis of Orthopaedic Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Although previous studies have demonstrated inconsistencies between surgeon work and reimbursement, no previous study has calculated expected relative value units (RVUs) based on procedure-specific variables. Our study aimed to evaluate how measures of physician workload and surgical complexity correlate with the work RVUs (wRVUs) assigned to orthopaedic procedures and compare our predicted wRVUs with actual wRVUs. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was used to identify orthopaedic surgeries with the highest procedural volume in 2019. For each Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, variables related to surgical complexity and postoperative management were retrieved. A multivariable linear regression was conducted, and R 2 values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 229,792 cases from the top 20 CPT codes by frequency in 2019 were identified. Base RVU values ranged from 7.03 mRVUs for arthroscopic meniscectomy to 30.28 mRVUs for revision total hip arthroplasty. A total of 15 (75%) of the projected mRVUs were lower than the actual mRVU of the procedure. For the 5 (25%) procedures with mRVU projections higher than actual values, the largest differences were seen for CPT codes 29,888 (arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] repair; difference: 7.81), 22,630 (posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar interbody; difference: 7.75), and 27,487 (revision total knee arthroplasty; difference: 4.04). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates that current orthopaedic wRVUs do not appropriately compensate for objective measures of overall complexity as it relates to each procedure. Significant undercompensation in projected RVUs was noted for several high-volume orthopaedic procedures including arthroscopic ACL repair and revision total knee arthroplasty.

Absence or presence: Silent discourse in the operating room and impact on surgical team action.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to examine the influence of silence on team action in the operating room. METHODS: We conducted a constructed grounded theory study with semi-structured interviews with 25 interprofessional surgical team members. Using a framework of silence as communication and performance, transcripts were iteratively team-coded to develop themes and a conceptual model. RESULTS: OR silence is expressed verbally and nonverbally. Two contexts of silence were identified: homogenous as collective action, and disparate, as disengagement. Complex and dynamic, two primary themes emerged, Power that often shuts down communication, and Focus during critical moments. Five additional sub-themes included critical moments, respect, self-reflection, personal preference, and, bad mood. CONCLUSION: OR silence is not an absence of communication and requires a response. Whether homogenous through cohesiveness, or desperate as a solitary act, OR silence is a call to action. Examining silence as a part discourse has important implications on surgical team function.