Orthopaedist-hospital alignment in a community setting.

BACKGROUND: Physician-hospital alignments are becoming more common in today's healthcare environment. In the community setting, these relationships can impact quality of care as well as physician and hospital bottom lines. Alignment strategies take many different forms and can be advantageous to both the community orthopaedist and the community hospital, but certain key factors must be present to prevent a failed effort. Both the physician and hospital must be clear about their goals and expectations to overcome barriers and ensure success. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We outline alignment strategies, goals, expectations, and implementation of a community-based, hospital alignment program and key factors that must be present to prevent a failed effort. SEARCH STRATEGY: We queried PubMed and the AAOS web site for the terms "physician hospital alignment", "hospital physician alignment", and "clinical integration". We initially identified 65 articles and identified 19 that described the formation, evaluation, and examples of community hospital alliances. RESULTS: In 2012, multiple business arrangements have been developed to deal with this vision for our healthcare future. One of these strategies known as alignment is generally considered to be a relationship among patients, orthopaedic surgeons, and stakeholders to fulfill these quality benchmarks and deliver improved quality care. Community practices have unique developmental barriers that must be negotiated for this process to be successful. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of hospital-based, orthopaedic care is practiced in the community settings far away from large, urban medical centers. Despite the relatively rural nature of these orthopaedic practices, patients, physicians, and all other orthopaedic stakeholders share a common goal of providing safe, quality health care at an affordable price.

Anterior iliopsoas impingement and tendinitis after total hip arthroplasty.

Anterior iliopsoas impingement and tendinitis is a poorly understood and likely underrecognized cause of groin pain and functional disability after total hip arthroplasty. The patient history and physical examination findings are usually only suggestive, and the symptoms frequently subtle. The diagnosis may be confirmed by one or more imaging studies, including a cross-table lateral radiograph, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography, in combination with a confirmatory diagnostic injection. Nonsurgical management may not resolve the problem. Surgical treatment, consisting of release or resection of the iliopsoas tendon, alone or in combination with acetabular revision for an anterior overhanging component, usually provides permanent pain relief.

Operating Room Efficiency: Benefits of an Orthopaedic Traumatologist at a Level II Trauma Center.

OBJECTIVES: Fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists are presumably taught skill sets leading to "best practice" outcomes and more efficient use of hospital resources. This should result in more favorable economic opportunities when compared with general orthopaedic surgeons (GOSs) providing similar clinical services. The purpose of our study was to compare the operating room utilization and financial data of traumatologists versus GOSs at a level II trauma center. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Level II community-based trauma hospital. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients who presented to the emergency room at our institution with fractures and orthopaedic conditions requiring surgical intervention from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. INTERVENTION: Operative fracture fixation by members of our orthopaedic trauma panel, including fellowship and nontrauma fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Our institutional database was queried to determine operative times, surgical supply and implant costs, and surgery labor expenses. Patients were stratified according to those treated by our trauma panel's 3 traumatologists and those treated by the 15 GOSs on our trauma panel. These 2 groups were then compared using standard statistical methods. RESULTS: A total of 6449 orthopedic cases were identified and 2076 of these involved fracture care. One thousand one hundred ninety-nine patients were treated by traumatologists and 877 by GOSs. There was no statistical difference detected in American Society of Anesthesiologists score between trauma and nontrauma groups. Overall, the traumatologist group demonstrated significantly decreased procedure times when compared with the GOS group (55.6 vs. 75.8 minutes, P , 0.0001). In 16 of 18 most common procedure types, traumatologists were more efficient. This led to significantly decreased surgical labor costs ($381.4 vs. $484.8; P < 0.0001) and surgical supply and implant costs ($2567 vs. $3003; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in our communitybased trauma system, fracture care provided by traumatologists results in improved utilization of hospital-based resources when compared with equivalent services provided by GOSs. Significantly decreased operative times, surgical labor expenses, and supply and implant costs by the fellowship-trained group represent enhanced control of the design, plan, execution, and monitoring of orthopaedic trauma care. Traumatologists can provide leadership recommendations for operating room efficiency in community-based orthopaedic trauma care models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Healthcare fundamentals.

In order for a trauma surgeon to have an intelligent discussion with hospital administrators, healthcare plans, policymakers, or any other physicians, a basic understanding of the fundamentals of healthcare is paramount. It is truly shocking how many surgeons are unable to describe the difference between Medicare and Medicaid or describe how hospitals and physicians get paid. These topics may seem burdensome but they are vital to all business decision making in the healthcare field. The following chapter provides further insight about what we call "the basics" of providing medical care today. Most of the topics presented can be applied to all specialties of medicine. It is broken down into 5 sections. The first section is a brief overview of government programs, their influence on care delivery and reimbursement, and past and future legislation. Section 2 focuses on the compliance, care provision, and privacy statutes that regulate physicians who care for Medicare/Medicaid patient populations. With a better understanding of these obligations, section 3 discusses avenues by which physicians can stay informed of current and pending health policy and provides ways that they can become involved in shaping future legislation. The fourth section changes gears slightly by explaining how the concepts of trade restraint, libel, antitrust legislation, and indemnity relate to physician practice. The fifth, and final, section ties all of components together by describing how physician-hospital alignment can be mutually beneficial in providing patient care under current healthcare policy legislation.

Operating room efficiency: benefits of an orthopaedic traumatologist at a level II trauma center.

OBJECTIVES: Fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists are presumably taught skill sets leading to "best practice" outcomes and more efficient use of hospital resources. This should result in more favorable economic opportunities when compared with general orthopaedic surgeons (GOSs) providing similar clinical services. The purpose of our study was to compare the operating room utilization and financial data of traumatologists versus GOSs at a level II trauma center. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Level II community-based trauma hospital. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients who presented to the emergency room at our institution with fractures and orthopaedic conditions requiring surgical intervention from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. INTERVENTION: Operative fracture fixation by members of our orthopaedic trauma panel, including fellowship and nontrauma fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Our institutional database was queried to determine operative times, surgical supply and implant costs, and surgery labor expenses. Patients were stratified according to those treated by our trauma panel's 3 traumatologists and those treated by the 15 GOSs on our trauma panel. These 2 groups were then compared using standard statistical methods. RESULTS: A total of 6449 orthopedic cases were identified and 2076 of these involved fracture care. One thousand one hundred ninety-nine patients were treated by traumatologists and 877 by GOSs. There was no statistical difference detected in American Society of Anesthesiologists score between trauma and nontrauma groups. Overall, the traumatologist group demonstrated significantly decreased procedure times when compared with the GOS group (55.6 vs. 75.8 minutes, P < 0.0001). In 16 of 18 most common procedure types, traumatologists were more efficient. This led to significantly decreased surgical labor costs ($381.4 vs. $484.8; P < 0.0001) and surgical supply and implant costs ($2567 vs. $3003; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in our community-based trauma system, fracture care provided by traumatologists results in improved utilization of hospital-based resources when compared with equivalent services provided by GOSs. Significantly decreased operative times, surgical labor expenses, and supply and implant costs by the fellowship-trained group represent enhanced control of the design, plan, execution, and monitoring of orthopaedic trauma care. Traumatologists can provide leadership recommendations for operating room efficiency in community-based orthopaedic trauma care models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.