Increasing Brace Treatment for Pediatric Distal Radius Buckle Fractures: Using Quality Improvement Methodology to Implement Evidence-based Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized trials have showed equivalent outcomes and improved patient/family satisfaction using a removable brace to treat pediatric distal radius buckle fractures (DRBF). We tested the hypothesis that we could use quality improvement (QI) methodology to increase the proportion of patients with DRBF treated with removable braces at 2 tertiary care orthopaedic clinics from a baseline of 34.8% to 80%. METHODS: Clinic billing records were reviewed monthly to determine treatment (brace vs. cast) of DRBF and tracked using control charts (p-chart). Balance measures including correct application of the diagnostic criteria and algorithm were monitored. Process measures including the number of follow-up visits, radiographs obtained, and total cost of treatment were collected. Baseline data were obtained over a 3-month period, followed by a 12-month period of interventions using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles targeting both individuals and groups of providers. RESULTS: The proportion of DRBF treated in a brace increased from a combined baseline of 34.8% to a combined 84% at the end of the study period. Following intervention, 83% (15/18) of providers began using braces for a majority of patients (defined as >67%), with only 1 provider continuing to use casts 100% of the time. Patient preference was cited as the most common reason for use of cast treatment. There was a significant decrease in the number of radiographs obtained at 1 of 2 institutions. The charges for brace treatment averaged $630 less per patient than for cast treatment, leading to an estimated medical-cost savings of $205,000 following intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of brace treatment for pediatric DRBF using QI methodology resulted in a shift toward brace treatment in the majority of patients, leading to substantial medical and nonmedical cost savings. Although patient preference was cited as the most common reason for persistent cast treatment, the data show the use of cast treatment to be more dependent upon individual provider preference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-therapeutic.

A Bundled Payment Model for Pediatric Distal Radius Fractures: Defining an Episode of Care.

BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures are the most common fracture of childhood, occurring in ∼1 per 100 children annually. Given the high incidence of these fractures, we explored feasibility of a bundled payment model. We determined the total treatment costs for each child and identified components of fracture management that contributed to variations in cost. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all hospital and physician costs related to the treatment of closed distal radius fractures at a large academic children's hospital. We included all children age 2 to 15 years treated by an orthopaedic surgeon for an isolated closed distal radius fracture between 2013 and 2015. We compared total treatment costs by fracture management approach. We then estimated the contribution of each component of fracture management to total treatment costs using linear regression. RESULTS: We identified 5640 children meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 4602 (81.6%) received closed treatment without manipulation, 922 (16.3%) underwent closed reduction in the clinic, emergency department, or radiology procedure suite, and 116 (2.1%) underwent treatment in the operating room. The median cost for closed treatment without manipulation was $1390 [interquartile range (IQR) 1029 to 1801], compared with $4263 (IQR, 3740 to 4832) for closed reduction and $9389 (IQR, 8272 to 11,119) for closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (P<0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, fracture management approach and use of the operating room environment were the largest cost drivers (P<0.001, R=0.88). Closed reduction in the clinic or emergency department added $894 (95% confidence interval, 819-969) to treatment costs, while closed reduction in the operating room added $5568 (95% confidence interval, 5224-6297). Location of the initial clinical evaluation, number of radiographic imaging series obtained, and number of orthopaedic clinic visits also contributed to total costs. CONCLUSIONS: Closed pediatric distal radius fractures treated without manipulation show small variations in treatment costs, making them well suited for bundled payment. Bundled payments for these fractures could reduce costs by encouraging adoption of existing evidence-based practices. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-therapeutic.

Limitations of the radiocapitellar line for assessment of pediatric elbow radiographs.

BACKGROUND: The radiocapitellar line (RCL) is recommended for evaluating radiocapitellar alignment in skeletally immature elbows, yet its parameters have not been clearly defined. This study systematically assesses the RCL relationship in normal elbows, investigating the impacts of radiographic view, choice of anatomic landmarks, patient age, forearm position, and observer bias on the manner in which the RCL intersects the capitellum. METHODS: On radiographs of 20 normal elbows (age range, 1 to 8 y), 3 pediatric orthopaedic surgeons, blinded to clinical history, drew lines (RCLs) on anteroposterior and lateral projections, along the radial shaft and neck, and with and without the capitellum visible. Line placement was repeated 2 weeks later. The relationship of each RCL to the capitellum was assessed continuously using the perpendicular distance to the center of the capitellum, normalized to capitellar width [line-capitellar distance (LCD)], and categorically as passing through the middle third, outer two-thirds, or outside the capitellum. RESULTS: Of the 480 RCLs drawn, 23 (5%) missed the capitellum and 224 (47%) missed the middle third. More radial neck than shaft lines intersected the middle third on both anteroposterior and lateral views (P < 0.05, Fisher exact test), with the lowest LCD values for neck lines on the lateral view (P < 0.05, analysis of variance (ANOVA)). More RCLs intersected the middle third when the capitellum was visible than when it was obscured (P = 0.03, Fisher exact test), suggesting an effect of observer bias. Patient age correlated inversely with LCD (P < 0.001). The angle between the neck and shaft lines correlated positively with LCD (P < 0.001), suggesting an impact of forearm rotation position. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability was moderate-to-substantial (κ = 0.40-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The RCL best defines normal radiocapitellar alignment when the line is drawn along the radial neck on the lateral view, although this relationship is affected by bias, patient age, and forearm rotation position. The RCL does not reliably intersect the middle third of the capitellum, arguing against its sufficiency for assessing precise radiocapitellar alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level 3.