Direct to Patient Synchronous Teledermatology During COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledermatology became a popular mode of health care delivery. Thus, deciphering which diagnoses are best suited for synchronous video visits is important to guide providers on appropriate patient care. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 1,647 submitted synchronous video visits from September 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 at a single, large academic institution. Results: Video visits' follow-up rate was significantly associated with diagnosis subtype (p < 0.001). Compared with patients with skin lesions and nonskin dermatologic conditions, patients with a rash had higher odds of being recommended to have their follow-up visit as a video visit (odds ratio [OR] = 0.222, p < 0.001; OR = 0.296, p < 0.001). Patients with a rash had lower odds of being recommended to have their follow-up visit as an in-person office visit when compared with skin lesions (OR = 9.679, p < 0.001), nonskin dermatologic conditions (OR = 4.055, p < 0.001), and other skin dermatologic conditions (OR = 2.23, p < 0.01). Demographically, employed, middle-aged patients with private insurance made up the majority of video visit usage. African American patients were less likely to utilize a video visit compared with Asian patients (OR = 2.06, p < 0.038). Conclusions: Certain dermatologic diagnoses, most notably rashes, are more conducive to video visit management. Rashes made up 86% of new patient video visits, were more likely to have video visit follow-up if needed and were more likely to not require further follow-up indicating that the management of rashes from initial diagnosis to completion in care is suitable for video visit management.

Out-of-Network Facility Charges for Patients Undergoing Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of outpatient (OP) total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is increasing. Although many arthroplasty surgeons and hospitals have longstanding agreements with insurance companies, it may take time for ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to establish in-network agreements. The purposes of this study are to investigate trends in out-of-network facility charges for OP-TJA, as well as compare rates of out-of-network facilities between ASC and hospital outpatient department (HOPD) OP-TJA. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of the MarketScan commercial claims database of OP-TJAs (same-day discharge) performed at ASCs or HOPDs from 2007 to 2017. Detailed demographic, geographic, operative, insurance, temporal, and financial details were collected. Out-of-network facility utilization was trended over time. Adjusted regressions compared the prevalence of out-of-network facilities between ASCs and HOPDs. RESULTS: There were 13,031 OP-TJA patients (58.8% total knee arthroplasty). Utilization of out-of-network facilities significantly decreased over time, from 27.8% of surgeries in 2007 to 9.5% in 2017 (Ptrend < .001); however, this was non-linear with a significant increase in 2013-2015 corresponding to rising use of out-of-network ASCs. Patients treated at ASCs were significantly more likely to be out-of-network than those treated at HOPDs (odds ratio 4.88, 95% confidence interval 4.28-5.57, P < .001; odds ratio 7.70, 95% confidence interval 6.42-9.25, P < .001 among the 11,870 patients with in-network surgeons). About 10.4% of patients with in-network surgeons were treated at out-of-network facilities. CONCLUSION: Although the utilization of out-of-network facilities has decreased, over 10% of patients with in-network surgeons face out-of-network facility charges, which may often come as a surprise. Efforts are warranted to reduce the out-of-network facility burden for OP-TJA patients, including accelerating insurance contracting and reviewing patients' coverage statuses.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Hip Fracture Surgery Care in the United States From 2006 to 2015: A Nationwide Trends Study.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in the surgical treatment of hip fractures have been previously reported, demonstrating delayed time to surgery and worse perioperative outcomes for minority patients. However, data are lacking on how these disparities have trended over time and whether national efforts have succeeded in reducing them. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends in racial and ethnic disparities in perioperative metrics for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery in the United States from 2006 to 2015. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients who underwent hip fracture surgery between 2006 and 2015. Perioperative metrics, including delayed time to surgery (≥2 calendar days from admission to surgical intervention), length of stay (LOS), total inpatient complications, and mortality, were trended over time. Changes in racial and ethnic disparities were assessed using linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: During the study period, there were persistent disparities in delayed time to surgery for White versus Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients (eg, White versus Black: 30.1% versus 39.7% in 2006 and 22% versus 28.8% in 2015, Ptrend> 0.05 for all). Although disparities in total LOS remained consistent for White versus Black patients (Ptrend= 0.97), these disparities improved for White versus Hispanic and Asian patients (eg, White versus Hispanic: 4.8 days versus 5.3 in 2006 and 4.1 days versus 4.4 in 2015, Ptrend < 0.05 for both). DISCUSSION: Racial and ethnic disparities were persistent in time to surgery and discharge disposition for hip fracture surgery between White and minority patients from 2006 to 2015 in the United States. These disparities particularly affected Black patients. Although there were encouraging signs of improving disparities in the LOS, these findings highlight the need for renewed orthopaedic initiatives and healthcare reform policies aimed at reducing perioperative disparities in orthopaedic trauma care.

Image-Guided Intra-articular Hip Injections and Risk of Infection After Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Although intra-articular injections are important in the management of patients who may later undergo hip arthroscopy, conflicting data are available regarding the safety of such injections when administered within 3 months of surgery. Furthermore, despite the increasing use of image-guided intra-articular hip injections, it is unknown whether the type of imaging modality used is associated with infection after hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To assess the risk of infection associated with image-guided intra-articular injections before hip arthroscopy and, secondarily, compare that risk between ultrasound (US) and fluoroscopic (FL) guidance. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in a large national insurance database who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2007 and 2017. Patients were required to have continuous enrollment from at least 1 year before to 6 months after hip arthroscopy. Patient age, sex, geographic region, medical history, surgical details, and hip injections were collected. Patients who underwent injection ≤3 months preoperatively and >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively were compared with patients who did not undergo preoperative injection. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the association between ipsilateral preoperative hip injection and surgical site infection within 6 months of surgery. RESULTS: We identified 17,987 patients (36.3% female; mean ± SD age, 37.6 ± 14.0 years) undergoing hip arthroscopy, 2276 (12.7%) of whom had an image-guided hip injection in the year preceding surgery (53.0% FL). Patients who underwent intra-articular injection ≤3 months preoperatively had similar infection rates to patients who did not undergo preoperative injection in the year before surgery for both the FL (0.46% vs 0.46%; P≥ .995) and the US cohorts (0.50% vs 0.46%; P = .76). Results persisted in adjusted analysis (FL ≤3 months: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.32-3.37; P = .94; US ≤3 months: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.36-3.90; P = .78). Similar results were seen for patients undergoing injections >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively. CONCLUSION: Postoperative infection was rare in patients undergoing intra-articular hip injection ≤3 months before hip arthroscopy and was no more common than in patients not undergoing preoperative injection. Moreover, no differences were seen in infection risk between US and FL guidance. Although intra-articular hip injections should always be administered with careful consideration, these results do not suggest that these injections are uniformly contraindicated in the 3 months preceding hip arthroscopy.