An Assessment of Presentation Slide Quality at a National Hand Surgery Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Effective information transfer relies on the proper use of educational tools. Evaluating the quality of presentations permits us to improve educational materials in plastic surgery. Our specific aims were to assess the quality of presentations at a national hand surgery meeting using a checklist of presentation standards from the literature and to identify areas of improvement. METHODS: Our sample included presentations from the Clinical Papers Sessions at the 2020 American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) Annual Meeting. A modified checklist based on the literature was used to assess the presentations. Two members of the research team extracted data from the included presentations and disagreements were reviewed collaboratively. RESULTS: A total of 96 presentations were included in this sample. The mean number of deficiencies per slide set was approximately nine. Misused graphics, ambiguous content (undefined abbreviations, undefined symbols, etc.), and overdetermined slides were the most common deficiencies identified in our sample. One-way ANOVA analysis of presenter role found a significant difference in the mean number of deficiencies (F (2, 93) = 7.36, p = 0.001) among different types of presenters with surgeon presenters exhibiting more deficiencies than students and other healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: The use of a checklist to evaluate a presentation helps in cultivating more effective presentations in national meetings. A collaborative peer-review process incorporating feedback from multiple trainees, audience members, and colleagues facilitates effective information transfer through presentations.

Representation of Ethics in the Plastic Surgery Literature: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A 2009 systematic review demonstrated that ethical discourse was underrepresented in the plastic surgery literature; approximately one in 1000 articles contained ethical discussions. In the decade since, advances in plastic surgery and continued social progress have created new ethical dilemmas. However, it is unclear whether these developments have augmented the representation of ethics in the plastic surgery literature. A review of publications over the past decade can assess whether progress has been made and identify where deficits persist. METHODS: The authors searched eight bibliographic databases to identify peer-reviewed articles discussing ethical issues in plastic surgery over the past decade. Independent reviewers extracted characteristics and ethical principles from included articles. RESULTS: A total of 7097 articles were identified from the initial search and 531 articles were included for analysis. The principle of autonomy, present in 87.9 percent of articles, had the greatest representation, followed by beneficence (74.4 percent), nonmaleficence (72.3 percent), and justice (51.2 percent). Informed consent and face transplantation were the most prevalent topics discussed. Aesthetic surgery was the subdiscipline of plastic surgery with the greatest ethical discourse, representing 29.8 percent of all included articles. CONCLUSIONS: In the past decade, there was approximately a five-fold increase in plastic surgery publications that include ethical discourse, indicating a growing awareness of ethical implications by the plastic surgery community. However, representation of ethical principles remained uneven, and specific subdisciplines of plastic surgery were substantially underrepresented. Plastic surgeons should adopt a more comprehensive approach when framing ethical implications in clinical and research settings.

Quality Metrics in Hand Surgery: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 placed an emphasis on measuring the quality of care. However, the issue of how best to measure quality remains in question. Although some surgical specialties frequently rely on quality measures such as the mortality rate, measuring quality in hand surgery necessitates the use of metrics beyond this traditional scope. A review was performed of the potential quality metrics used in the hand surgery literature published after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, to identify current trends in quality measurement and guide efforts to improve the quality of care in hand surgery. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify original research articles within hand surgery to assess how care is being measured. Data extracted from the articles included study characteristics, quality metrics, and the domain(s) of quality. RESULTS: A total of 7,308 articles were identified, and 63 prospective and retrospective articles were included in the analysis. The most common quality measure reported in the hand surgery literature was an outcome measure (100%) and the least common was a structure measure (30.2%). The most common metrics were pain (44.4%) and patient-reported measures (41.3%). Effectiveness (42.9%) was the most frequently assessed domain of quality, whereas efficiency (3.2%) was the least studied. CONCLUSIONS: We identified quality measures used in contemporary hand surgery literature and found a substantial variation in the representation of quality metrics. Structure and process measures can be leveraged to provide a more holistic assessment of the quality of care in hand surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although outcome measurements are critical to understanding effectiveness, structure and process measures should be considered and reported as necessary, because these metrics may influence treatment outcomes and the development of quality measures.

Industry Funding and Self-Declared Conflict of Interest in Hand Surgery Publications.

PURPOSE: Accurate financial disclosure is essential to prevent bias in scientific reporting. We aimed (1) to document the extent of industry financial payments to hand surgery literature authors and (2) to uncover discrepancies in author self-declared conflict of interest (COI). METHODS: We screened all scientific and review articles published in 2017 from the American editions of 4 peer-reviewed journals (Journal of Hand Surgery [JHS], Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [JBJS], Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [PRS], and Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [JAAOS]) to identify authors of hand, wrist, elbow, and peripheral nerve topics. We compared self-reported disclosures with industry-reported payments on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database (OPD) for 3 years prior to publication or per journal policy. We individually examined each for relevance of the corporate payer to the article's subject matter. RESULTS: We found 630 eligible authors from 395 articles. The total amount of industry-reported payments over 3 years prior to publication was $24,396,607.80. The median total payments per author per year was $118.40, with interquartile range from $0 to $1,364; 68% of authors received some industry payment; the most common being food and beverage (66% of authors). Senior authors received significantly more industry payments (median, $2,985.67/y) than first and middle authors ($70.27 and $113.17, respectively). Of all authors examined, 58% had undisclosed payments, but only 14% were relevant to the article subject matter. Authors in JAAOS & JBJS, senior authors, and those receiving more than $500,000 from industry were less likely to accurately report all payments. CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to hand surgery authors were lower than those reported to other orthopedic specialties and tended to be concentrated in a few authors receiving large amounts. Relevant COI disclosure inaccuracies are infrequent within hand surgery literature. Uniform policies of complete disclosure across journals may remove author judgment regarding payment relevance to published material and help eliminate remaining COI errors. Authors may reference the OPD prior to submitting disclosures to prevent potential discrepancies and identify errors within the database. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Relationships with industry offer opportunities for innovation, education, and research, but overlooking COI self-reporting may erode confidence in the academic integrity of the hand surgery literature.

High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care: Iterative Systems-Based Interventions to Reduce Unnecessary Laboratory Testing.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate testing contributes to soaring healthcare costs within the United States, and teaching hospitals are vulnerable to providing care largely for academic development. Via its "Choosing Wisely" campaign, the American Board of Internal Medicine recommends avoiding repetitive testing for stable inpatients. We designed systems-based interventions to reduce laboratory orders for patients admitted to the wards at an academic facility. METHODS: We identified the computer-based order entry system as an appropriate target for sustainable intervention. The admission order set had allowed multiple routine tests to be ordered repetitively each day. Our iterative study included interventions on the automated order set and cost displays at order entry. The primary outcome was number of routine tests controlled for inpatient days compared with the preceding year. Secondary outcomes included cost savings, delays in care, and adverse events. RESULTS: Data were collected over a 2-month period following interventions in sequential years and compared with the year prior. The first intervention led to 0.97 fewer laboratory tests per inpatient day (19.4%). The second intervention led to sustained reduction, although by less of a margin than order set modifications alone (15.3%). When extrapolating the results utilizing fees from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there was a cost savings of $290,000 over 2 years. Qualitative survey data did not suggest an increase in care delays or near-miss events. CONCLUSIONS: This series of interventions targeting unnecessary testing demonstrated a sustained reduction in the number of routine tests ordered, without adverse effects on clinical care.