Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Carrier Rate in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carrier rate among surgical patients on an orthopaedic trauma service and to determine whether screening is an effective tool for reducing postoperative MRSA infection in this population. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-eight patients with operatively managed orthopaedic trauma conditions during the study period. Two hundred three patients (82%) had acute orthopaedic trauma injuries. Forty-five patients (18%) underwent surgery for a nonacute orthopaedic trauma condition, including 36 elective procedures and 9 procedures to address infection. INTERVENTION: MRSA screening protocol, preoperative antibiotics per protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: MRSA carrier rate, overall infection rate, MRSA infection rate. RESULTS: Our screening captured 71% (175/248) of operatively treated orthopaedic trauma patients during the study period. The overall MRSA carrier rate was 3.4% (6/175). When separated by group, the acute orthopaedic trauma cohort had an MRSA carrier rate of 1.4% (2/143), and neither MRSA-positive patient developed a surgical site infection. Only one MRSA infection occurred in the acute orthopaedic trauma cohort. The nonacute group had a significantly higher MRSA carrier rate of 12.5% (4/32, P = 0.01), and the elective group had the highest MRSA carrier rate of 15.4% (4/26, P < 0.01). The odds ratio of MRSA colonization was 10.1 in the nonacute group (95% confidence interval, 1.87-75.2) and 12.8 for true elective group (95% confidence interval, 2.36-96.5) when compared with the acute orthopaedic trauma cohort. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low MRSA colonization rate (1.4%) among patients presenting to our institution for acute fracture care. Patients undergoing elective surgery for fracture-related conditions such as nonunion, malunion, revision surgery, or implant removal have a significantly higher MRSA carrier rate (15.4%) and therefore may benefit from MRSA screening. Our results do not support routine vancomycin administration for orthopaedic trauma patients whose MRSA status is not known at the time of surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Severity of Postoperative Complications From the Perspective of the Patient.

BACKGROUND: Although provider-derived surgical complication severity grading systems exist, little is known about the patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-rated complication severity and determine concordance with existing grading systems. METHODS: A survey asked general surgery patients to rate the severity of 21 hypothetical postoperative events representing grades 1 to 5 complications from the Accordion Severity Grading System. Concordance with the Accordion scale was examined. Separately, descriptive ratings of 18 brief postoperative events were ranked. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients returned a mailed survey following their discharge from a general surgery service. Patients rated grade 4 complications highest. Grade 1 complications were rated similarly to grade 5 and higher than grades 2 and 3 (P ≤ .01). Patients rated one event not considered an Accordion scale complication higher than all but grade 4 complications (P < .001). The brief events also did not follow the Accordion scale, other than the grade 6 complication ranking highest. CONCLUSION: Patient-rated complication severity is discordant with provider-derived grading systems, suggesting the need to explore important differences between patient and provider perspectives.

Analysis of National Presentations of Surgical Case Series Discussions: What Matters to Surgeons?

BACKGROUND: Although the surgical case series is a useful study design for surgical disciplines, elements of its presentation have not been standardized with a widely accepted reporting guideline. Hence, case series may not include all components necessary for surgeons to best interpret their results. We aimed to determine core elements of case series through qualitative analysis of discussions after presentations at national meetings. METHODS: Case series with accompanying discussions in three high-impact journals from 2010 to 2015 were analyzed with conventional content analysis. All interrogative sentences were selected for analysis and were classified by a redundant iterative process into descriptive categories and subcategories. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one case series were identified, 56 of which included discussion transcripts. Four hundred seventy six unique interrogatives were classified into 4 categories and 13 subcategories. The main categories identified were "Application of Results to Patient Care," "Clarification of Study Methodology," "Facilitation of Author Insight," and "Request for Additional Study-Specific Data." The most frequent subcategories of inquiry pertained to the changes to current standard of care, clarification of study variables, and subgroup data and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We determined major themes of inquiry that reflected core elements surgeons use to evaluate case series for relevance and applicability to their own practice. Discussants frequently questioned how the study's results changed the author's standard of care. Specifically encouraging surgical case series authors to comment on changes they made to their practice as a result of their findings would allow the surgical audience to quickly assess potential clinical applicability.

Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS).

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction has been emphasized increasingly in all aspects of medicine, including the imposition of financial penalties for underperformance. Current measures of patient satisfaction, however, do not address aspects specific to the care of operative patients. Therefore, our aim was to examine the recently validated Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (S-CAHPS) to determine which aspects of perioperative care are predictive of satisfaction with the surgeon. METHODS: All patients undergoing a general surgery operation at our institution during a 5-month period were sent a modified S-CAHPS within 3 days of discharge. Patients were then divided into 2 groups: those who rated their surgeon as the best possible and those giving a lower rating. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine predictors of satisfaction with operative care. S-CAHPS results were then compared with other satisfaction measures in a subset of patients. RESULTS: The response rate was 45.3% (456/1,007). The average age was 59 ± 16 years, duration of stay was 4.1 ± 6.6 days, and 23% underwent unscheduled operations. A total of 72% of patients rated their surgeon as the best surgeon possible. On multivariate analysis, preoperative communication and attentiveness on the day of operation were the most important determinants of overall surgeon rating. S-CAHPS scores correlated with other standard measures of satisfaction (HCAHPS scores). CONCLUSION: S-CAHPS is a novel operative satisfaction tool and is feasible to administer to patients undergoing general operative procedures. Surgeon characteristics most predictive of high patient satisfaction are effective preoperative communication and attentiveness on the day of operation.