Refining quality measures for electrodiagnostic testing in suspected carpal tunnel syndrome to account for acceptable variations in practice: Expert review process.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Using a set of process-of-care quality measures for electrodiagnostic testing in suspected carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), the research team previously documented large variations in electrodiagnostic testing practices and adherence to quality measures. This study sought to enhance the applicability and validity of the quality measures by integrating acceptable variations in testing practices. METHODS: We recruited 13 expert electrodiagnostic medicine specialists from five specialty societies. The experts iteratively refined five quality measures, and then rated the validity of the refined quality measures (1-9 scale). During this process, the experts reviewed data on adherence to existing quality measures and variations in electrodiagnostic testing practices, and considered recently published quality measures from the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine. RESULTS: Three quality measures (electrodiagnostic testing before surgery for CTS, temperature assessment during electrodiagnostic testing, and electrodiagnostic criteria for severe median neuropathy) underwent few refinements and were rated valid (medians 8-9). Two measures (essential components of electrodiagnosis, criteria for interpreting electrodiagnostic tests as median neuropathy) were judged valid (medians 8) after revisions. For these measures, experts' ratings on the recommended components of sensory or mixed nerve conduction studies varied: agreement among the experts about the use of sensory peak latency was greater than for onset latency or sensory velocity. DISCUSSION: This study produced quality measures that provide minimum standards for electrodiagnostic testing for suspected CTS that are more comprehensive and nuanced than prior versions. Future work can assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity of these refined measures in diverse physician practices.

Geographic Access to Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeons in the United States: An Analysis of Sociodemographic Factors.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how pediatric orthopedic surgeons are geographically distributed relative to their patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geographic distribution of pediatric orthopedic surgeons in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: County-level data of actively practicing pediatric orthopedic surgeons were identified by matching several registries and membership logs. Data were used to calculate the distance between counties and nearest surgeon. Counties were categorized as "surgeon clusters" or "surgeon deserts" if the distance to the nearest surgeon was less than or greater than the national average and the average of all neighboring counties, respectively. Cohorts were then compared for differences in population characteristics using data obtained from the 2020 American Community Survey. RESULTS: A total of 1197 unique pediatric orthopedic surgeons were identified. The mean distance to the nearest pediatric orthopedic surgeon for a patient residing in a surgeon desert or a surgeon cluster was 141.9±53.8 miles and 30.9±16.0 miles, respectively. Surgeon deserts were found to have lower median household incomes (P<.001) and greater rates of children without health insurance (P<.001). Multivariate analyses showed that higher Rural-Urban Continuum codes (P<.001), Area Deprivation Index scores (P<.001), and percentage of patients without health insurance (P<.001) all independently required significantly greater travel distances to see a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. CONCLUSION: Pediatric orthopedic surgeons are not equally distributed in the United States, and many counties are not optimally served. Additional studies are needed to identify the relationship between travel distances and patient outcomes and how geographic inequalities can be minimized. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):e204-e210.].

Surgical appropriateness nudges: Developing behavioral science nudges to integrate appropriateness criteria into the decision making of spine surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists in surgeon decision making. In response, multiple specialty societies have established criteria for the appropriate use of spine surgery. Yet few strategies exist to facilitate routine use of appropriateness criteria by surgeons. Behavioral science nudges are increasingly used to enhance decision making by clinicians. We sought to design "surgical appropriateness nudges" to support routine use of appropriateness criteria for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The work reflected Stage I of the NIH Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development and involved an iterative, multi-method approach, emphasizing qualitative methods. Study sites included two large referral centers for spine surgery. We recruited spine surgeons from both sites for two rounds of focus groups. To produce preliminary nudge prototypes, we examined sources of variation in surgeon decision making (Focus Group 1) and synthesized existing knowledge of appropriateness criteria, behavioral science nudge frameworks, electronic tools, and the surgical workflow. We refined nudge prototypes via feedback from content experts, site leaders, and spine surgeons (Focus Group 2). Concurrently, we collected data on surgical practices and outcomes at study sites. We pilot tested the refined nudge prototypes among spine surgeons, and surveyed them about nudge applicability, acceptability, and feasibility (scale 1-5, 5 = strongly agree). RESULTS: Fifteen surgeons participated in focus groups, giving substantive input and feedback on nudge design. Refined nudge prototypes included: individualized surgeon score cards (frameworks: descriptive social norms/peer comparison/feedback), online calculators embedded in the EHR (decision aid/mapping), a multispecialty case conference (injunctive norms/social influence), and a preoperative check (reminders/ salience of information/ accountable justification). Two nudges (score cards, preop checks) incorporated data on surgeon practices and outcomes. Six surgeons pilot tested the refined nudges, and five completed the survey (83%). The overall mean score was 4.0 (standard deviation [SD] 0.5), with scores of 3.9 (SD 0.5) for applicability, 4.1 (SD 0.5) for acceptability, and 4.0 (SD 0.5), for feasibility. Conferences had the highest scores 4.3 (SD 0.6) and calculators the lowest 3.9 (SD 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral science nudges might be a promising strategy for facilitating incorporation of appropriateness criteria into the surgical workflow of spine surgeons. Future stages in intervention development will test whether these surgical appropriateness nudges can be implemented in practice and influence surgical decision making.

Contextual barriers and enablers to establishing an addiction-focused consultation team for hospitalized adults with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization presents an opportunity to begin people with opioid use disorder (OUD) on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and link them to care after discharge; regrettably, people admitted to the hospital with an underlying OUD typically do not receive MOUD and are not connected with subsequent treatment for their condition. To address this gap, we launched a multi-site randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a hospital-based addiction consultation team (the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START)) consisting of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager team that provide collaborative care and a specified intervention to people with OUD during the inpatient stay. Successful implementation of new practices can be impacted by organizational context, though no previous studies have examined context prior to implementation of addiction consultation services (ACS). This study assessed pre-implementation context for implementing a specialized ACS and tailoring it accordingly. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital administrators, physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and social workers at the three study sites between April and August 2021 before the launch of the pragmatic trial. Using an analytical framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we completed a thematic analysis of interview data to understand potential barriers or enablers and perceptions about acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 participants across three sites. The following themes emerged across sites: (1) START is an urgently needed model for people with OUD; (2) Intervention adaptations are recommended to meet local and cultural needs; (3) Linking people with OUD to community clinicians is a highly needed component of START; (4) It is important to engage stakeholders across departments and roles throughout implementation. Across sites, participants generally saw a need for change from usual care to support people with OUD, and thought the START was acceptable and feasible to implement. Differences among sites included tailoring the START to support the needs of varying patient populations and different perceptions of the prevalence of OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals planning to implement an ACS in the inpatient setting may wish to engage in a systematic pre-implementation contextual assessment using a similar framework to understand and address potential barriers and contextual factors that may impact implementation. Pre-implementation work can help ensure the ACS and other new practices fit within each unique hospital context.

Racial Differences in Treatment Intensity at the End of Life Among Older Adults with Heart Failure: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study.

Background: Black Americans experience the highest prevalence of heart failure (HF) and the worst clinical outcomes of any racial or ethnic group, but little is known about end-of-life care for this population. Objective: Compare treatment intensity between Black and White older adults with HF near the end of life. Design: Negative binomial and logistic regression analyses of pooled, cross-sectional data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Setting/Subjects: A total of 1607 U.S. adults aged 65 years and older with HF who identify as Black or White, and whose proxy informant participated in an HRS exit interview between 2002 and 2016. Measurements: We compared four common measures of treatment intensity at the end of life (number of hospital admissions, receipt of care in an intensive care unit (ICU), utilization of life support, and whether the decedent died in a hospital) between Black and White HF patients, controlling for demographic, social, and health characteristics. Results: Racial identity was not significantly associated with the number of hospital admissions or admission to an ICU in the last 24 months of life. However, Black HF patients were more likely to spend time on life support (odds ratio [OR] = 2.16, confidence interval [CI] = 1.35-3.44, p = 0.00) and more likely to die in a hospital (OR = 1.53, CI = 1.03-2.28, p = 0.04) than White HF patients. Conclusion: Black HF patients were more likely to die in a hospital and to spend time on life support than White HF patients. Thoughtful and consistent engagement with HF patients regarding treatment preferences is an important step in addressing inequities.

Variations in surgical practice and short-term outcomes for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis: do surgeon training and experience matter?

For diverse procedures, sizable geographic variation exists in rates and outcomes of surgery, including for degenerative lumbar spine conditions. Little is known about how surgeon training and experience are associated with surgeon-level variations in spine surgery practice and short-term outcomes. This retrospective observational analysis characterized variations in surgical operations for degenerative lumbar scoliosis or spondylolisthesis, two common age-related conditions. The study setting was two large spine surgery centers in one region during 2017-19. Using data (International Classification of Diseases-10th edition and current procedural terminology codes) extracted from electronic health record systems, we characterized surgeon-level variations in practice (use of instrumented fusion - a more extensive procedure that involves device-related risks) and short-term postoperative outcomes (major in-hospital complications and readmissions). Next, we tested for associations between surgeon training (specialty and spine fellowship) and experience (career stage and operative volume) and use of instrumented fusion as well as outcomes. Eighty-nine surgeons performed 2481 eligible operations. For the study diagnoses, spine surgeons exhibited substantial variation in operative volume, use of instrumented fusion, and postoperative outcomes. Among surgeons above the median operative volume, use of instrumented fusion ranged from 0% to >90% for scoliosis and 9% to 100% for spondylolisthesis, while rates of major in-hospital complications ranged from 0% to 25% for scoliosis and from 0% to 14% for spondylolisthesis. For scoliosis, orthopedic surgeons were more likely than neurosurgeons to perform instrumented fusion for scoliosis [49% vs. 33%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.3-4.2, P-value = .006] as were fellowship-trained surgeons (49% vs. 25%, OR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.6-5.8; P = .001). Fellowship-trained surgeons had lower readmission rates. Surgeons with higher operative volumes used instrumented fusion more often (OR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2, P < .05 for both diagnoses) and had lower rates of major in-hospital complications (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97; P = .006). Surgical practice can vary greatly for degenerative spine conditions, even within the same region and among colleagues at the same institution. Surgical specialty and subspecialty, in addition to recent operative volume, can be linked to variations in spine surgeons' practice patterns and outcomes. These findings reinforce the notion that residency and fellowship training may contribute to variation and present important opportunities to optimize surgical practice over the course of surgeons' careers. Future efforts to reduce unexplained variation in surgical practice could test interventions focused on graduate medical education. Graphical Abstract.

Medication Safety Event Reporting: Factors That Contribute to Safety Events During Times of Organizational Stress.

BACKGROUND: Incident reports submitted during times of organizational stress may reveal unique insights. PURPOSE: To understand the insights conveyed in hospital incident reports about how work system factors affected medication safety during a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) surge. METHODS: We randomly selected 100 medication safety incident reports from an academic medical center (December 2020 to January 2021), identified near misses and errors, and classified contributing work system factors using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System-Healthcare. RESULTS: Among 35 near misses/errors, incident reports described contributing factors (mean 1.3/report) involving skill-based errors (n = 20), communication (n = 8), and tools/technology (n = 4). Reporters linked 7 events to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Skill-based errors were the most common contributing factors for medication safety events during a COVID-19 surge. Reporters rarely deemed events to be related to COVID-19, despite the tremendous strain of the surge on nurses. Future efforts to improve the utility of incident reports should emphasize the importance of describing work system factors.

A randomized controlled trial of a proactive analgesic protocol demonstrates reduced opioid use among hospitalized adults with inflammatory bowel disease.

Most hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experience pain. Despite the known risks associated with opioids in IBD including risk for misuse, overdose, infection, readmission, and even death, opioid use is more prevalent in IBD than any other chronic gastrointestinal condition. Most hospitalized IBD patients receive opioids; however, opioids have not been shown to improve pain during hospitalization. We conducted a randomized controlled trial in hospitalized patients with IBD to evaluate the impact of a proactive opioid-sparing analgesic protocol. Wearable devices measured activity and sleep throughout their hospitalization. Chronic opioid users, post-operative, and pregnant patients were excluded. The primary endpoint was a change in pain scores from admission to discharge. Secondary endpoints included opioid use, functional activity, sleep duration and quality, and length of stay. Of 329 adults with IBD evaluated for eligibility, 33 were enrolled and randomized to the intervention or usual care. Both the intervention and control group demonstrated significant decreases in pain scores from admission to discharge (- 2.6 ± 2.6 vs. - 3.0 ± 3.2). Those randomized to the intervention tended to have lower pain scores than the control group regardless of hospital day (3.02 ± 0.90 vs. 4.29 ± 0.81, p = 0.059), used significantly fewer opioids (daily MME 11.8 ± 15.3 vs. 30.9 ± 42.2, p = 0.027), and had a significantly higher step count by Day 4 (2330 ± 1709 vs. 1050 ± 1214; p = 0.014). There were no differences in sleep duration, sleep quality, readmission, or length-of-stay between the two groups. A proactive analgesic protocol does not result in worsening pain but does significantly reduce opioid-use in hospitalized IBD patients.Clinical trial registration number: NCT03798405 (Registered 10/01/2019).

Comprehensive Pharmacist-led Transitions-of-care Medication Management around Hospital Discharge Adds Modest Cost Relative to Usual Care: Time-and-Motion Cost Analysis.

Optimal medication management is important during hospitalization and at discharge because post-discharge adverse drug events (ADEs) are common, often preventable, and contribute to patient harms, healthcare utilization, and costs. Conduct a cost analysis of a comprehensive pharmacist-led transitions-of-care medication management intervention for older adults during and after hospital discharge. Twelve intervention components addressed medication reconciliation, medication review, and medication adherence. Trained, experienced pharmacists delivered the intervention to older adults with chronic comorbidities at 2 large U.S. academic centers. To quantify and categorize time spent on the intervention, we conducted a time-and-motion analysis of study pharmacists over 36 sequential workdays (14 519 min) involving 117 patients. For 40 patients' hospitalizations, we observed all intervention activities. We used the median minutes spent and pharmacist wages nationally to calculate cost per hospitalization (2020 U.S. dollars) from the hospital perspective, relative to usual care. Pharmacists spent a median of 66.9 min per hospitalization (interquartile range 46.1-90.1), equating to $101 ($86 to $116 in sensitivity analyses). In unadjusted analyses, study site was associated with time spent (medians 111 and 51.8 min) while patient primary language, discharge disposition, number of outpatient medications, and patient age were not. In this cost analysis, comprehensive medication management around discharge cost about $101 per hospitalization, with variation across sites. This cost is at least an order of magnitude less than published costs associated with ADEs, hospital readmissions, or other interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Work is ongoing to assess the current intervention's effectiveness.