Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty are Associated With Lower Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Patient Satisfaction Scores Compared With Primary Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: As rates of primary total joint arthroplasty continue to rise, so do rates of revision. Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are more frequently done at larger centers, are associated with higher morbidity, and may have different patient satisfaction outcomes. This study compares the survey results of Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) between patients who underwent primary versus revision THA or TKA. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent inpatient, elective, primary, and revision THA or TKA at a single institution were selected for retrospective analysis. Patient demographics, comorbidities, functional status, surgical variables, 30-day outcomes, and HCAHPS scores were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to determine correlations between the aforementioned variables and top-box HCAHPS survey scores for primary versus revision THA and TKA. RESULTS: Of 2,707 patients who met the inclusion criteria and had returned the HCAHPS survey, primary THA was documented in 1,075 patients (39.71%), revision THA in 75 (2.77%), primary TKA in 1,497 (55.30%), and revision TKA in 60 (2.22%). Revision THA patients were more functionally dependent, and TKA patients had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score than their primary comparators. Revisions had longer hospital length of stay for both procedures. For THA, revision THA patients demonstrated lower total top-box rates compared withprimary THA patients (71.64% versus 75.67% top-box, P < 0.001) and lower scores on the care from doctors subsection (76.26% versus 85.34%, P < 0.001) of the HCAHPS survey. Similarly, for TKA, revision TKA patients demonstrated lower total top-box rates (76.13% versus 79.22%, P < 0.013) and lower scores on the care from doctors subsection (66.28% versus 83.65%, P < 0.001) of the HCAHPS survey. DISCUSSION: For both THA and TKA, revision procedures were associated with lower total HCAHPS scores and rated care from doctors. This suggests that HCAHPS scores may be biased by factors outside the surgeon's control, such as the complexity associated with revision procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeon Industry Compensation Reported by the Open Payments Database.

Background. The current study aims to characterize and explore trends in Open Payments Database (OPD) payments reported to orthopaedic foot and ankle (F&A) surgeons. OPD payments are classified as General, Ownership, or Research. Methods. General, Ownership, and Research payments to orthopaedic F&A surgeons were characterized by total payment sum and number of transactions. The total payment was compared by category. Payments per surgeon were also assessed. Median payments for all orthopaedic F&A surgeons and the top 5% compensated were calculated and compared across the years. Medians were compared through Mann-Whitney U tests. Results. Over the period, industry paid over $39 million through 29,442 transactions to 802 orthopaedic F&A surgeons. The majority of this payment was General (64%), followed by Ownership (34%) and Research (2%). The median annual payments per orthopaedic F&A surgeon were compared to the 2014 median ($616): 2015 ($505; P = .191), 2016 ($868; P = .088), and 2017 ($336; P = .084). Over these years, the annual number of compensated orthopaedic F&A surgeons increased from 490 to 556. Averaged over 4 years, 91% of the total orthopaedic F&A payment was made to the top 5% of orthopaedic F&A surgeons. The median payment for this group increased from $177 000 (2014) to $192 000 (2017; P = .012). Conclusion. Though median payments to the top 5% of orthopaedic F&A surgeons increased, there was no overall change in median payment over four years for all compensated orthopaedic F&A surgeons. These findings shed insight into the orthopaedic F&A surgeon-industry relationship.Levels of Evidence: III, Retrospective Study.

Impact of Insurance Payer on Type of Breast Reconstruction Performed.

BACKGROUND: The impact of insurance and socioeconomic status on breast reconstruction modalities when access to care is controlled is unknown. METHODS: Records for patients who underwent breast reconstruction at an academic medical center between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed and analyzed using chi-square analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred eighty-three breast reconstructions were analyzed. The commercially insured were more likely to undergo microvascular autologous breast reconstruction (44.4 percent versus 31.3 percent; p < 0.001), with an odds ratio of 2.22, whereas patients with Medicare and Medicaid were significantly more likely to receive tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction, with an odds ratio of 1.42 (41.7 percent versus 47.7 percent; p = 0.013). Comparing all patients with microvascular reconstruction, the commercially insured were more likely to receive a perforator flap (79.7 percent versus 55.3 percent versus 43.9 percent), with an odds ratio of 4.23 (p < 0.001). When stratifying patients by median household income, those in the highest income quartile were most likely to receive a perforator flap (82.1 percent) (p < 0.001), whereas those in the lowest income quartile were most likely to receive a muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (36.4 percent) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at the same academic medical center had significantly different breast reconstruction modalities when stratified by insurance and household income. Despite similar access to care, differences in insurance types may favor higher rates of perforator flap breast reconstruction among the commercially insured. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Patient-related Factors and Perioperative Outcomes Are Associated with Self-Reported Hospital Rating after Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has tied a portion of hospitals' annual reimbursement to patients' responses to the Hospital Consumer Assessment and Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which is given to a random sample of inpatients after discharge. The most general question in the HCAHPS survey asks patients to rate their overall hospital experience on a scale of 0 to 10, with a score of 9 or 10 considered high, or "top-box." Previous work has suggested that HCAHPS responses, which are meant to be an objective measure of the quality of care delivered, may vary based on numerous patient factors. However, few studies to date have identified factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients undergoing spine surgery, and those that have are largely restricted to surgery of the lumbar spine. Consequently, patient and perioperative factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients receiving surgery across the spine have not been well elucidated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients undergoing spine surgery, we asked if a "top-box" rating on the overall hospital experience question on the HCAHPS survey was associated with (1) patient-related factors present before admission; (2) surgical variables related to the procedure; and/or (3) 30-day perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Among 5517 patients undergoing spine surgery at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2017 and who were sent an HCAHPS survey, 27% (1480) returned the survey and answered the question related to overall hospital experience. A retrospective, comparative analysis was performed comparing patients who rated their overall hospital experience as "top-box" with those who did not. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical variables associated with a top-box hospital rating. Additional multivariate logistic regression analyses controlling for these variables were performed to determine the association of any adverse event, major adverse events (such as myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism), and minor adverse events (such as urinary tract infection, pneumonia); reoperation; readmission; and prolonged hospitalization with a top-box hospital rating. RESULTS: After controlling for potential confounding variables (including patient demographics), comorbidities that differed in incidence between patients who rated the hospital top-box and those who did not, and variables related to surgery, the patient factors associated with a top-box hospital rating were older age (compared with age ≤ 40 years; odds ratio 2.2, [95% confidence interval 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001 for 41 to 60 years; OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.9]; p < 0.001 for 61 to 80 years; OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.1]; p = 0.036 for > 80 years), and being a man (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.028). Further, a non-top-box hospital rating was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists Class II (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.024), Class III (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.020), or Class IV (OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.003). The only surgical factor positively associated with a top-box hospital rating was cervical surgery (compared with lumbar surgery; OR 1.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.9]; p = 0.016), while nonelective surgery (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.8]; p = 0.004) was associated with a non-top-box hospital rating. Controlling for the same set of variables, a non-top-box rating was associated with the occurrence of any adverse event (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.7]; p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.023), and prolonged hospital stay (OR, 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying patient factors present before surgery that are independently associated with HCAHPS scores underscores the survey's limited utility in accurately measuring the quality of care delivered to patients undergoing spine surgery. HCAHPS responses in the spine surgery population should be interpreted with caution and should consider the factors identified here. Given differing findings in the literature regarding the effect of adverse events on HCAHPS scores, future work should aim to further characterize this relationship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Breast reconstruction patterns and outcomes in academic and community practices within a single institution.

Breast reconstruction is a common procedure that is performed in both community and academic settings. At Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH), both academic (AP) and community-based (CP) plastic surgeons perform breast reconstructions. We aim to compare practice patterns in breast reconstruction between two practice environments within a single institution. A retrospective chart review of all breast reconstructions at YNHH between 2013 and 2018 was performed. Data collected included demographics, preoperative history, and postoperative outcomes. Results were further subdivided by practice setting. A total of 1045 patients (1683 breasts) underwent breast reconstruction during the study period. About 52.8% were performed by AP while 47.2% were performed by CP. CP had higher rates of autologous reconstruction (P < .001) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (P < .0001). Age and BMI were similar between the cohorts. However, patients cared for by AP had 2.6% increased prevalence of diabetes (P = .064), 5.5% greater prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses (P = .004), and 7.1% higher open abdominal surgery rates (P < .001). Outcomes were similar between the groups except for higher infection rates (P = .027) and explant rates (P = .003) in the CP cohort. When evaluating insurance status, the AP cohort had 30.5% fewer patients with commercial insurance, 16.7% more patients with Medicaid and 6.1% more patients with Medicare (P < .001). Within our institution, academic and community-based plastic surgeons perform breast reconstruction with overall similar complication rates. Patients treated by AP have a higher rate of preoperative medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Patients treated by CP have higher rates of infection and implant explant. AP plastic surgeons care for a significantly higher rate of Medicare and Medicaid patients with proportionally fewer patients with commercial insurance.

Industry Payments to Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: The Open Payments Database (OPD), mandated by the Sunshine Act, is a national registry of physician-industry transactions. Payments are reported as either General, Research, or Ownership payments. The current study aims to investigate trends in OPD General payments reported to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2017. METHODS: General industry payments made to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons (as identified by OPD) were characterized by median payment, payment subtype, and census region. As fewer Research and Ownership payments were made, only payment totals for these categories were determined. General payment data were analyzed for trends using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: For General payments, there was an increase in the number of compensated pediatric orthopaedists from 2014 to 2017 (324 vs. 429). Of those compensated, there was no significant change in median payment per compensated surgeon ($201 vs. $197; P=0.82). However, a large percentage of total General payment dollars in pediatric orthopaedics were made to the top 5% of compensated pediatric orthopaedists each year (average 71% of total General industry compensation). For this top 5% group, median General payment per compensated surgeon increased from 2014 ($14,624) to 2017 ($32,752) (P=0.006). A significant increase in median subtype aggregate payment per surgeon was observed in the education (P<0.001) and royalty/license (P=0.031) subtypes; a significant decrease was observed for travel/lodging payments (P=0.01). Midwest pediatric orthopaedists received the highest median payment across all years studied. Few payments for research and ownership were made to pediatric orthopaedists. Four-year aggregate payment totals were $18,151 and $3,223,554 for Research and Ownership payments, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Many expected payments to surgeons to decrease when put under the public scrutiny of the OPD. Not only was this decrease not observed for General payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons during the 2014 to 2017 period, but also the median General payment to the top 5% increased. These findings are important to note in the current era of increased transparency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Persistent disparities in breast cancer surgical outcomes among hispanic and African American patients.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities among patients who receive breast mastectomy and reconstruction have not been well characterized. METHODS: Records of patients undergoing breast extirpative and reconstructive surgery at a high-volume university-affiliated hospital over 5 consecutive years were reviewed. Patient demographics, breast cancer profiles, reconstructive modality, and outcomes were compared by race. RESULTS: A total of 1045 patients underwent 1678 breast reconstructions during the five-year period. Mean age and standard deviation was 49.8 ±â€¯10.6 years with a BMI of 27.9 ±â€¯6.5. Hispanic and African American patients had significantly higher BMIs (p < 0.001), higher rates of ASA class III or IV (p = 0.025), obesity, diabetes, hypertension (p < 0.001 for these three comparisons), and smoking (p = 0.003), and had more prior abdominal surgeries (p = 0.007). Comparing oncologic characteristics, this population subset had higher rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.036), history of radiation (p = 0.016), and were more likely to undergo modified radical mastectomy (p = 0.002) over nipple-sparing mastectomy (p = 0.035). Reconstructive complications revealed a higher overall complication rate (p = 0.023), higher rates of partial mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.043), as well as arterial (p = 0.009) and venous insufficiency (p = 0.026) during microvascular reconstruction among Hispanic and African American patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other patients, the present study identifies higher comorbidity burdens, higher rates of prior radiation and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and higher post-surgical complication rates among Hispanic and African American patients with breast cancer.

Development and Assessment of Pictorial Guide for Improved Accuracy of Visual Blood Loss Estimation in Cesarean Delivery.

INTRODUCTION: Estimated blood loss for surgical procedures performed via visual estimation is known to be an inaccurate method. Blood loss estimation is further complicated during cesarean delivery (CD) by a large volume loss for a short period as well as the presence of amniotic fluid. We hypothesized that a pictorial guide depicting premeasured blood volumes and materials commonly used in a CD would improve clinician accuracy in estimated blood loss. METHODS: A simulated CD scene was used to assess the ability of clinicians to estimate the amount of blood lost by a CD patient. Accuracy of the estimates was assessed before and after they had access to the pictorial guide created for the study. RESULTS: Before the intervention, 52% of participants estimated more than 25% above or below actual blood loss volume. With use of the guide, clinicians became more accurate at blood loss estimation. After the intervention, the number of participants estimating within 5% of the actual volume increased from 7% before to 24% (P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: An institution-specific pictorial guide is effective at improving the accuracy of visual blood loss estimation in a simulation and may help improve clinical care in CD.

"Are We hurting ourselves?" What is the prevalence of back pain in anesthesia providers?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Back injuries are a highly reported category of occupational injury in the health care setting. The daily clinical activities of an anesthesia provider, including lifting, pushing stretchers, transferring patients, and bending for procedures, are risk factors for developing low back pain. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence of work related low back pain in anesthesia providers. DESIGN/SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of anesthesia providers at an academic institution. PATIENTS: The target population included all 141 clinical anesthesia providers employed by the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Department of Anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: A survey study was conducted using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a validated scoring system for low back pain. Additional questions related to the daily activities of clinical anesthesia practice were also asked. The survey instrument underwent pretesting and clinical sensibility testing to ensure validity and consistent interpretation. MEASUREMENTS: The primary self-reported measures were the prevalence of low back pain in anesthesia providers and an assessment of disability based on the ODI. Secondary functional measures included the impact of low back pain on work flow. MAIN RESULTS: Nearly half (46.6%) of respondents suffer from low back pain attributed to clinical practice. In this subset of respondents, 70.1% reported not having back pain prior to their anesthesia training. Of those with low back pain, 44% alter their work flow, and 9.8% reported missing at least one day of work. Six providers (5.3%) required surgical intervention. Using the ODI score interpretation guidelines, 46% of respondents had a "mild disability" and 2% had a "moderate disability." Respondents reporting feeling "burned out" from their job had a significantly higher average ODI score compared to those who did not (6.8 vs 3.3, respectively; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of all anesthesia providers sampled suffer from low back pain subjectively attributed to their clinical practice. This leads to changes in work flow and missed days of work. The results of this study suggest a deficiency in the effectiveness of anesthesia training programs in teaching proper techniques to prevent musculoskeletal injuries.