Increased Virtual Visits to Physicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Estimated Impact on Physician Compensation: The Case of Lung and Colorectal Cancers, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases, and Heart Failure in Alberta, Canada.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic started in Alberta in March 2020 and significantly increased telehealth service use and provision reducing the risk of virus transmission. We examined the change in the number and proportion of virtual visits by physician specialty and condition (chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases [COPD], heart failure [HF], colorectal and lung cancers), as well as associated changes in physician compensation. Methods: A population-based design was used to analyze all processed physician claims comparing the number and proportion of virtual visits and associated physician billings relative to in-person between pre- (2019/2020) and intra-pandemic (2020/2021). Physician compensations were the claim amounts paid by the health insurance. Results: Pre-pandemic (intra-), there were 8,981 (8,897) lung cancer, 9,245 (9,029) colorectal, 37,558 (36,292) HF, and 68,270 (52,308) COPD patients. Each patient had totally 2.3-4.7 (of which 0.4-0.6% were virtual) general practitioner (GP) visits and 0.9-2.3 (0.2-0.7% were virtual) specialist visits per year pre-pandemic. The average number and proportion of per-patient virtual visits to GPs and specialists grew significantly pre- to intra-pandemic by 2,138-4,567%, and 2,201-7,104%, respectively. Given the lower fees of virtual compared with in-person visits, the reduction in physician compensation associated with the increased use of virtual care was estimated at $3.85 million, with $2.44 million attributed to specialist and $1.41 million to GP. Discussion: Utilization of telehealth increased significantly, while the physician billings per patient and physician compensation declined early in the pandemic in Alberta for the four chronic diseases considered. This study forms the basis for future study in understanding the impact of virtual care, now part of the fabric of health care delivery, on quality of care and patient safety, overall health service utilization (such as diagnostic imaging and other investigations), as well as economic impacts to patients, health care systems, and society.

Delivery and Prioritization of Surgical Care in Canada During COVID-19: An Environmental Scan.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 healthcare systems had to make concessions to make room for the surge of COVID-19 patients requiring hospital and intensive care. Postponing surgeries was a common strategy; however, it is unclear how surgical care was delivered during this time of constraint. The objective of this study was to understand how surgical care was delivered and prioritized during the COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: This was an environmental scan following the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health methodology. This study was conducted in Canada; a universal, publicly funded healthcare system. Evidence sources on policies pertaining to the provision of surgical care between January 2020 and October 2022 were obtained from ministries of health, health services agencies and publicly funded hospitals across all 10 provinces and three territories. We synthesized the evidence sources using framework analysis. RESULTS: We identified 205 evidence sources that described six themes about the provision of surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic: the cycle of postponement and resumption; guidelines for triaging and prioritizing surgical cases; Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC), and safety measures for surgical care during COVID-19, patient-centred care, and looking forward (recovery planning, leadership, and decision-making). CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive understanding of how surgical care was disrupted and innovated during COVID-19 which can inform future strategies for providing effective and efficient surgical care during times of healthcare constraint.

Expected Cost Savings From Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scan Screening for Lung Cancer in Alberta, Canada.

Introduction: The expensive modern therapeutic regimens for advanced lung cancer (LC) stages have been recently approved. We evaluated whether low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) LC screening of high-risk Albertans is cost saving. Methods: We used a decision analytical modeling technique with a health system perspective and a time horizon of 3 years to compare benefits associated with reduced health service utilization (HSU) from earlier diagnosis to the costs of screening. Using patient-level data, HSU costs by stage of disease were estimated for patients with LC, including inpatient, outpatient, and physician services, and costs for prescription drugs and cancer treatments. Results: Of 101,000 people aged 55 to 74 years eligible for screening, an estimated 88,476 scans would be performed in Alberta in 3 years. Given LDCT sensitivity and specificity of 90.5% and 93.1%, respectively, we estimated that a stage shift toward earlier diagnosis would be expected whereby 43% more patients would be identified at stage 1 or 2 as compared with without screening. The estimated cost of screening is $35.6 million (M), whereas the stage shift associated with screening would avoid $42M in HSU costs. The net cost avoidance associated with screening is therefore $6.65M. The probability for the screening to be cost saving is estimated at 72%. Conclusions: This study has revealed that LDCT LC screening is likely to be cost saving in Alberta. Adoption of this program into the provincial health care system is worth considering provided constraints in the system related to surgical capacity and CT wait times could be addressed.

Evaluation of the Implementation of Multiple Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathways Across a Provincial Health Care System in Alberta, Canada.

Importance: Engaging multidisciplinary care teams in surgical practice is important for the improvement of surgical outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association of multiple Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways with ERAS guideline adherence and outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study compared a pre-ERAS cohort (2013-2017) with a post-ERAS cohort (2014-2018). All patients were from Alberta Health Services in Alberta, Canada, and had available ERAS and up to 1-year postsurgery administrative data. Data collected included age, sex, body mass index, tobacco and alcohol use, diabetes, comorbidity index, and surgical characteristics. Data analysis was performed from May 7, 2020, to February 1, 2021. Interventions: Implementation of 5 ERAS pathways (colorectal, liver, pancreas, gynecologic oncology, and radical cystectomy) across 9 sites. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to ERAS guidelines was measured by the percentage of patients whose care met the common ERAS pathway care element criteria. Surgical procedures were grouped by complexity; complications were classified by severity. Outcome measures for the pre-post-ERAS cohorts included length of stay (LOS), readmission, complications, and mortality. Results: A total of 7757 patients participated in the study, including 984 in the pre-ERAS cohort (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [53-71] years; 526 [53.5%] female) and 6773 in the post-ERAS cohort (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [53-71] years; 3470 [51.2%] male). In the total cohort, care-element adherence improved from 52% to 76% (P < .001), no significant differences were found in serious complications (from 6.2% to 4.9%; P = .08) or 30-day mortality (from 0.71% to 0.93%; P = .50), 1-year mortality decreased from 7.1% to 4.6% (P < .001), mean (SD) LOS decreased from 9.4 (7.0) to 7.8 (5.0) days (P < .001), and 30-day readmission rates were unchanged (from 13.4% to 11.7%; P = .12). After adjustment for patient characteristics, the LOS mean difference decreased 0.71 days (95% CI, -1.13 to -0.29 days; P < .001), with no significant differences in adjusted 30-day readmission (-3.5%; 95% CI, -22.7% to 20.4%; P = .75), serious complications (1.3%; 95% CI, -26.2% to 39.0%; P = .94), or mortality (30-day mortality: 42% [95% CI, -35.4% to 212.3%]; P = .38; 1-year mortality: 8% [95% CI, -20.5% to 46.8%]; P = .62). The adjusted 1-year readmission rate was -15.6% (95% CI, -27.7% to -1.5%; P = .03) in favor of ERAS, and readmission LOS was shorter by 1.7 days (95% CI, -3.3 to -0.1 days; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this quality improvement study suggest that implementation of ERAS across multiple pathways may improve health care practitioner adherence to ERAS guidelines, LOS, and readmission rates at a system level.

Return on investment of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) multiguideline, multisite implementation in Alberta, Canada.

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a global surgical qualityimprovement initiative. Little is known about the economic effects of implementing multiple ERAS guidelines in both the short and long term. Methods: We performed a return on investment (ROI) analysis of the implementation of multiple ERAS guidelines (for colorectal, pancreas, cystectomy, liver and gynecologic oncology procedures) across multiple sites (9 hospitals) in Alberta using 30-, 180- and 365-day time horizons. The effects of ERAS on health services utilization (length of stay of the primary admission, number of readmissions, length of stay of the readmissions, number of emergency department visits, number of outpatient clinic visits, number of specialist visits and number of general practitioner visits) were assessed by mixed-effect multilevel multivariate negative binomial regressions. Net benefits and ROI were estimated by a decision analytic modelling analysis. All costs were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Results: The net health system savings per patient ranged from $26.35 to $3606.44 and ROI ranged from 1.05 to 7.31, meaning that every dollar invested in ERAS brought $1.05 to $7.31 in return. Probabilities for ERAS to be cost-saving were from 86.5% to 99.9%. The effects of ERAS were found to be larger in the longer time horizons, indicating that if only the 30-day time horizon had been used, the benefits of ERAS would have been underestimated. Conclusion: These results demonstrated that ERAS multiguideline implementation was cost-saving in Alberta. To produce a better ROI, it is important to consider a broad range of health service utilizations, long-term impact, economies of scale, productive efficiency and allocative efficiency for sustainability, scale and spread of ERAS implementations.

Contexte: L'initiative de récupération améliorée après la chirurgie (RAAC) est un projet international d'amélioration de la qualité en chirurgie. On en sait peu sur les retombées économiques, tant à court qu'à long terme, de la mise en œuvre de multiples lignes directrices de RAAC. Méthodes: Nous avons réalisé une analyse du rendement sur l'investissement (RSI) visant la mise en œuvre de multiples lignes directrices de RAAC (pour les opérations colorectales, pancréatiques, hépatiques ou d'oncologie gynécologique et la cystectomie) dans 9 hôpitaux albertains sur un horizon temporel de 30, 180 et 365 jours. L'incidence de la RAAC sur l'utilisation des services de santé (durée du séjour à l'hospitalisation initiale, nombre de réadmissions, durée du séjour à la réhospitalisation et nombre de visites à l'urgence, en consultation externe, chez un spécialiste et chez un omnipraticien) a été évaluée à l'aide d'un modèle multiniveau de régressions binomiales négatives à effets mixtes multivariés. Les bénéfices nets et le RSI ont été estimés à l'aide d'un processus de modélisation analytique décisionnelle. Tous les coûts ont été rapportés en dollars canadiens de 2019. Résultats: Les économies nettes du système de santé allaient de 26,35 $ à 3606,44 $ par patient, et le RSI variait de 1,05 à 7,31; chaque dollar investi dans l'initiative de RAAC a donc généré un retour sur l'investissement de 1,05 $ à 7,31 $. Les probabilités d'économie grâce au RAAC allaient de 86,5% à 99,9%. Les retombées générées augmentaient avec un horizon temporel à plus long terme, ce qui suggère que l'utilisation unique d'un horizon temporel de 30 jours aurait mené à une sousestimation des bénéfices. Conclusion: Les résultats montrent que la mise en œuvre de multiples lignes directrices de RAAC a permis des économies en Alberta. En vue d'obtenir un RSI optimal, il est important de tenir compte d'une grande variété d'utilisations des services de santé, des retombées à long terme, des économies d'échelle, de l'efficacité productive et de l'efficience des allocations pour la pérennité, la mise à l'échelle et la diffusion des projets de mise en œuvre de RAAC.

Moving enhanced recovery after surgery from implementation to sustainability across a health system: a qualitative assessment of leadership perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge Translation evidence from health care practitioners and administrators implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care has allowed for the spread and scale of the health care innovation. There is a need to identify at a health system level, what it takes from a leadership perspective to move from implementation to sustainability over time. The purpose of this research was to systematically synthesize feedback from health care leaders to inform further spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS care across a health system. METHODS: Alberta Health Services (AHS) is the largest Canadian health system with approximately 280,000 surgeries annually at more than 50 surgical sites. In 2013 to 2014, AHS used a structured approach to successfully implement ERAS colorectal guidelines at six sites. Between 2016 and 2018, three of the six sites expanded ERAS to other surgical areas (gynecologic oncology, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy/Whipple's, and cystectomy). This research was designed to explore and learn from the experiences of health care leaders involved in the AHS ERAS implementation expansion (eg. surgical care unit, hospital site or provincial program) and build on the model for knowledge mobilization develop during implementation. Following informed consent, leaders were interviewed using a structured interview guide. Data were recorded, coded and analyzed qualitatively through a combination of theory-driven immersion and crystallization, and template coding using NVivo 12. RESULTS: Forty-four individuals (13 physician leaders, 19 leading clinicians and hospital administrators, and 11 provincial leaders) were interviewed. Themes were identified related to Supportive Environments including resources, data, leadership; Champion and Nurse coordinator role; and Capacity Building through change management, education, and teams. The perception and role of leaders changed through initiation and implementation, spread, and sustainability. Barriers and enablers were thematically aligned relative to outcome assessment, consistency of implementation, ERAS care compliance, and the implementation of multiple guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Health care leaders have unique perspectives and approaches to support spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS that are different from site based ERAS teams. These findings inform us what leaders need to do or need to do differently to support implementation and to foster spread, scale and sustainability of ERAS.

Beyond surgery: clinical and economic impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a perioperative management based on multimodality and multidisciplinary work. ERAS has been shown to have important clinical and economic benefits, but its spread remains slow worldwide. DISCUSSION: This manuscript reviews the overall program benefits and focuses on important aspects for implementation well beyond surgery. Implementation of ERAS pathways improves clinical outcomes and induces substantial economic gains. ERAS is the current surgical revolution.

Consensus on Training and Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is widely accepted in current surgical practice due to its positive impact on patient outcomes. The successful implementation of ERAS is challenging and compliance with protocols varies widely. Continual staff education is essential for successful ERAS programmes. Teaching modalities exist, but there remains no agreement regarding the optimal training curriculum or how its effectiveness is assessed. We aimed to draw consensus from an expert panel regarding the successful training and implementation of ERAS. METHODS: A modified Delphi technique was used; three rounds of questionnaires were sent to 58 selected international experts from 11 countries across multiple ERAS specialities and multidisciplinary teams (MDT) between January 2016 and February 2017. We interrogated opinion regarding four topics: (1) the components of a training curriculum and the structure of training courses; (2) the optimal framework for successful implementation and audit of ERAS including a guide for data collection; (3) a framework to assess the effectiveness of training; (4) criteria to define ERAS training centres of excellence. RESULTS: An ERAS training course must cover the evidence-based principles of ERAS with team-oriented training. Successful implementation requires strong leadership, an ERAS facilitator and an effective MDT. Effectiveness of training can be measured by improved compliance. A training centre of excellence should show a willingness to teach and demonstrable team working. CONCLUSIONS: We propose an international expert consensus providing an ERAS training curriculum, a framework for successful implementation, methods for assessing effectiveness of training and a definition of ERAS training centres of excellence.

Patients as partners in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A qualitative patient-led study.

OBJECTIVES: Explore the experience of patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme. Use these experiential data to inform the development of a framework to support ongoing, meaningful patient engagement in ERAS. DESIGN: Qualitative patient-led study using focus groups and narrative interviews. Data were analysed iteratively using a Participatory Grounded Theory approach. SETTING: Five tertiary care centres in Alberta, Canada, following the ERAS programme. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven patients who had undergone colorectal surgery in the last 12 months were recruited through purposive sampling. Seven patients participated in a codesign focus group to set and prioritise the research direction. Narrative interviews were conducted with 20 patients. RESULTS: Patients perceived that an ERAS programme should not be limited to the perioperative period, but should encompass the journey from diagnosis to recovery. Practical recommendations to improve the patient experience across the surgical continuum, and enhance patient engagement within ERAS included: (1) fully explain every protocol, and the purpose of the protocol, both before surgery and while in-hospital, so that patients can become knowledgeable partners in their recovery; (2) extend ERAS guidelines to the presurgery phase, so that patients can be ready emotionally, psychologically and physically for surgery; (3) extend ERAS guidelines to the recovery period at home to avoid stressful situations for patients and families; (4) consider activating a programme where experienced patients can provide peer support; (5) one size does not fit all; personalised adaptations within the standardised pathway are required.Drawing upon these data, and through consultation with ERAS Alberta stakeholders, the ERAS team developed a matrix to guide sustained patient involvement and action throughout the surgical care continuum at three levels: individual, unit and ERAS system. CONCLUSION: This patient-led study generated new insights into the needs of ERAS patients and informed the development of a framework to improve patient experiences and outcomes.

Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: a strategy to transform surgical care across a health system.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to have a positive impact on outcome. The ERAS care system includes an evidence-based guideline, an implementation program, and an interactive audit system to support practice change. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of the Theoretic Domains Framework (TDF) in changing surgical care and application of the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) model to analyze end-to-end implementation of ERAS in colorectal surgery across multiple sites within a single health system. The ultimate intent of this work is to allow for the development of a model for spread, scale, and sustainability of ERAS in Alberta Health Services (AHS). METHODS: ERAS for colorectal surgery was implemented at two sites and then spread to four additional sites. The ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS) was used to assess compliance with the guidelines, length of stay, readmissions, and complications. Data sources informing knowledge translation included surveys, focus groups, interviews, and other qualitative data sources such as minutes and status updates. The QUERI model and TDF were used to thematically analyze 189 documents with 2188 quotes meeting the inclusion criteria. Data sources were analyzed for barriers or enablers, organized into a framework that included individual to organization impact, and areas of focus for guideline implementation. RESULTS: Compliance with the evidence-based guidelines for ERAS in colorectal surgery at baseline was 40%. Post implementation compliance, consistent with adoption of best practice, improved to 65%. Barriers and enablers were categorized as clinical practice (22%), individual provider (26%), organization (19%), external environment (7%), and patients (25%). In the Alberta context, 26% of barriers and enablers to ERAS implementation occurred at the site and unit levels, with a provider focus 26% of the time, a patient focus 26% of the time, and a system focus 22% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Using the ERAS care system and applying the QUERI model and TDF allow for identification of strategies that can support diffusion and sustainment of innovation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery across multiple sites within a health care system.

Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Across a Provincial Healthcare System: The ERAS Alberta Colorectal Surgery Experience.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) colorectal guideline implementation has occurred primarily in standalone institutions worldwide. We implemented the guideline in a single provincial healthcare system, and our study examined the effect of the guideline on patient outcomes [length of stay (LOS), complications, and 30-day post-discharge readmissions] across a healthcare system. METHODS: We compared pre- and post-guideline implementation in consecutive elective colorectal patients, ≥ 18 years, from six Alberta hospitals between February 2013 and December 2014. Participants were followed up to 30 days post discharge. We used summary statistics, to assess the LOS and complications, and multivariate regression methods to assess readmissions and to estimate cost impacts. RESULTS: A total of 1333 patients (350 pre- and 983 post-ERAS) were analysed. Of this number, 55 % were males. Median overall guideline compliance was 39 % in pre- and 60 % in post-ERAS patients. Median LOS was 6 days for pre-ERAS compared to 4.5 days in post-ERAS patients with the longest implementation (p value <0.0001). Adjusted risk ratio (RR) was 1.71, 95 % CI 1.09-2.68 for 30-day readmission, comparing pre- to post-ERAS patients. The proportion of patients who developed at least one complication was significantly reduced, from pre- to post-ERAS, difference in proportions = 11.7 %, 95 % CI 2.5-21.0, p value: 0.0139. The net cost savings attributable to guideline implementation ranged between $2806 and $5898 USD per patient. CONCLUSION: The findings in our study have shown that ERAS colorectal guideline implementation within a healthcare system resulted in patient outcome improvements, similar to those obtained in smaller standalone implementations. There was a significant beneficial impact of ERAS on scarce health system resources.

An economic evaluation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) multisite implementation program for colorectal surgery in Alberta

BACKGROUND: In February 2013, Alberta Health Services established an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementation program for adopting the ERAS Society colorectal guidelines into 6 sites (initial phase) that perform more than 75% of all colorectal surgeries in the province. We conducted an economic evaluation of this initiative to not only determine its cost-effectiveness, but also to inform strategy for the spread and scale of ERAS to other surgical protocols and sites. METHODS: We assessed the impact of ERAS on patients’ health services utilization (HSU; length of stay [LOS], readmissions, emergency department visits, general practitioner and specialist visits) within 30 days of discharge by comparing pre- and post-ERAS groups using multilevel negative binomial regressions. We estimated the net health care costs/savings and the return on investment (ROI) associated with those impacts for post-ERAS patients using a decision analytic modelling technique. RESULTS: We included 331 pre- and 1295 post-ERAS patients in our analyses. ERAS was associated with a reduction in all HSU outcomes except visits to specialists. However, only the reduction in primary LOS was significant. The net health system savings were estimated at $2 290 000 (range $1 191 000–$3 391 000), or $1768 (range $920–$2619) per patient. The probability for the program to be cost-saving was 73%–83%. In terms of ROI, every $1 invested in ERAS would bring $3.8 (range $2.4–$5.1) in return. CONCLUSION: The initial phase of ERAS implementation for colorectal surgery in Alberta is cost-saving. The total savings has the potential to be more substantial when ERAS is spread for other surgical protocols and across additional sites.

Strategic clinical networks in Alberta: Structures, processes, and early outcomes.

In June 2012, Alberta Health Services introduced Strategic Clinical Networks (SCNs) as engines of innovation. The SCNs are collaborative clinical teams, with a provincial strategic mandate and with goals of achieving best outcomes, seeking greatest value for money and engaging clinicians in all aspects of the work. The SCNs are led by clinicians, driven by clinical needs, based on measurement and best evidence, and supported by research expertise, infrastructure, quality improvement, and analytic resources. Eleven SCNs are operational, with five others planned. Early measurable value is demonstrable in each. Examples include improving care and outcomes following stroke, reducing use of anti-psychotics in Long-Term Care (LTC), and improving surgical safety through effective implementation of the Safe Surgery Checklist.

Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17). RESULTS: The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included. CONCLUSIONS: Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Measuring the value of total hip and knee arthroplasty: considering costs over the continuum of care.

BACKGROUND: Controlling escalating costs of hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) without compromising quality of care has created the need for innovative system reorganization to inform sustainable solutions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to inform estimates of the value of THA and TKA by determining: (1) the data sources data required to obtain costs across the care continuum; (2) the data required for different analytical perspectives; and (3) the relative costs across the continuum of care. METHODS: Within the context of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing alternative care pathways, we captured healthcare resource use: (1) 12 months before surgery; (2) inpatient; (3) acute recovery; and (4) long-term recovery 3 and 12 months postsurgery. We established a standardized costing model to reflect both the healthcare payer and patient perspectives. RESULTS: Multiple data sources from regional health authorities, administrative databases, and patient questionnaire were required to estimate costs across the care continuum. Inpatient and acute care costs were approximately 60% of the total with the remaining 40% incurred 12 months presurgery and 12 months postsurgery. Regional health authorities bear close to 60%, and patient costs are approximately 30% of the mean total costs, most of which were incurred after the acute inpatient stay. CONCLUSIONS: To fully understand the value of an orthopaedic intervention such as THA and TKA, a broader perspective than one limited to the payer should be considered using a standardized measurement framework over a relevant time horizon and from multiple viewpoints to reflect the substantial patient burden and support sustainable improvement over the care continuum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analyses study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A study of the effectiveness of performance-focused methodology for improved outcomes in Alberta public healthcare.

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a performance-focused methodology for engaging multidisciplinary, frontline healthcare teams in making behavioural changes that improve patient care and health system efficiency. Results include significant declines in average length of stay in hospital and waiting time for surgery, and a dramatic increase in early patient ambulation. Performance-focused methodology using key performance indicators, targets, measurement, and ongoing feedback, supported by non-monetary incentives, can quickly improve healthcare outcomes.

The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project: a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of clinical pathways.

BACKGROUND: The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project developed a new evidence-based clinical pathway (NCP) for total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement. The aim was to facilitate the delivery of services in a timely and cost-effective manner while achieving the highest quality of care for the patient across the full continuum of care from patient referral to an orthopedic surgeon through surgery, recovery, and rehabilitation. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the study design, rationale, and execution of this project as a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of alternative clinical pathways. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial study design was used to evaluate the NCP compared with the standard of care (SOC) for these procedures. The pragmatic study design was selected as a rigorous approach to produce high quality evidence suitable for informing decisions between relevant interventions in real clinical practice. The NCP was evaluated in three of the nine regional health authorities (RHAs) in Alberta with dedicated central intake clinics offering multidisciplinary care teams, constituting 80 percent of THR and TKR surgeries performed annually in Alberta. Patients were identified in the offices of twenty orthopedic surgeons who routinely performed THR or TKR surgeries. Evaluation outcome measures were based on the six dimensions of the Alberta Quality Matrix for Health (AQMH): acceptability, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and safety. Data were collected prospectively through patient self-completed questionnaires at baseline and 3 and 12 months after surgery, ambulatory and inpatient chart reviews, and electronic administrative data. RESULTS: The trial design was successful in establishing similar groups for rigorous evaluation. Of the 4,985 patients invited to participate, 69 percent of patients consented. A total of 3,434 patients were randomized: 1,712 to SOC and 1,722 to the NCP. The baseline characteristics of patients in the two study arms, including demographics, comorbidity as measured by CDS and exposure to pain medications, and health-related quality of life, as measured by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Short Form-36, were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project demonstrates the feasibility and advantages of applying a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to ascertain comparative effectiveness. This is a model for health technology assessment that incorporates how clinical pathways can be effectively evaluated.

The Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute: creating sustainable accountability through collaboration, relevant measurement and timely feedback.

A robust accountability strategy is at the core of creating a safe, efficient, effective and sustainable system of healthcare. The commitment to be accountable must extend far beyond the providers of care to include every person involved in the funding, administration, delivery and support of patient care (both directly and indirectly). The Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute has fostered a new system that will measure, analyze and give valuable feedback to all stakeholders in all three essential domains of system accountability: access, quality and cost. The Institute has employed four key strategies to create system accountability in a hip and knee pilot project: collaboration between stakeholders in defining goals and measures that matter to them; the use of "world's best evidence" to drive decisions and to establish goals and benchmarks to measure against; collection of useful data and its analysis to inform improvement decisions; and timely feedback of relevant data in domains of interest to stakeholders on system outputs in the key domains. While these strategies have not yet been proven to be effective in creating the desired "culture of accountability," they are having a significant clinical impact and do have potential to lead to that outcome.