Lessons Learned From the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model at an Academic Tertiary Center: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

BACKGROUND: Our institution participated in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model from 2016 to 2020. Here we review lessons learned from a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) care redesign at a tertiary academic center amid changing: (1) CJR rules; (2) inpatient only rules; and (3) outpatient trends. METHODS: Quality, financial, and patient demographic data from the years prior to and during participation in CJR were obtained from institutional and Medicare reconciled CJR performance data. RESULTS: Despite an increase in true outpatients and new challenges that arose from changing inpatient-only rules, there was significant improvement in quality metrics: decreased length of stay (3.48-1.52 days, P < .001), increased home discharge rate (70.2-85.5%, P < .001), decreased readmission rate (17.7%-5.1%, P < .001), decreased complication rate (6.5%-2.0%, P < .001), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Composite Quality Score increased from 4.4 to 17.6. Over the five year period, CMS saved an estimated $8.3 million on 1,486 CJR cases, $7.5 million on 1,351 non-CJR cases, and $600,000 from the voluntary classification of 371 short-stay inpatients as outpatient-a total savings of $16.4 million. Despite major physician time and effort leading to marked improvements in efficiency, quality, and large cost savings for CMS, CJR participation resulted in a net penalty of $304,456 to our institution, leading to zero physician gainsharing opportunities. CONCLUSION: The benefits of CJR were tempered by malalignment of incentives among payer, hospital, and physician as well as a lack of transparency. Future payment models should be refined based on the successes and challenges of CJR.

Outpatient total knee arthroplasty: is it economically feasible in the hospital setting?

BACKGROUND: With the removal of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from the Medicare inpatient-only list, outpatient TKA can now be offered, irrespective of payer, in multiple sites. We compared time- and cost-effectiveness of outpatient TKA performed in a hospital outpatient department (HOPD) to that at an inpatient academic medical center (AMC). METHODS: We reviewed all outpatient TKAs performed at our AMC and our HOPD from August 2018 to July 2019. Time efficiency by phase of care was determined, and cost data were obtained from the hospital financial department. Patient selection for outpatient surgery was identical for each site of care. RESULTS: We identified 21 knees that had surgery at the HOPD and 65 knees that had surgery at the AMC. Demographics were similar in both groups. The AMC group had significantly longer in-facility to operating room (Δ (difference) = 33.5 minute, P = .0003), postanesthesia care unit to discharge (Δ = 158.8 minute, P < .0001) and in-facility to discharge (Δ = 199.3 minute, P < .0001) time periods compared to the HOPD group. The HOPD was significantly more cost-effective for the preoperative period (Δ = $75.7, P < .0001), postoperative period (Δ = $315.1, P < .0001), and total cost (Δ = $241, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient TKAs performed in an HOPD spend significantly less time within the facility than the ones performed in an AMC and cost significantly less. It is expected that approval of Medicare TKAs at ambulatory surgery centers will further improve cost and efficiency.

The Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool Accurately Predicts Discharge Destination After Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool (RAPT) was developed and validated to predict discharge disposition after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). To date, there are no studies evaluating the applicability and accuracy of RAPT for revision THA/TKA. This study aims to determine the predictive accuracy of the RAPT for revision THA/TKA. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from a single tertiary academic medical center were retrospectively analyzed for patients undergoing revision THA/TKA between January 2016 and July 2019. RAPT score was used to predict their postoperative discharge destination and its predictive accuracy was calculated. Patient risk (low, intermediate, and high) for postoperative inpatient rehabilitation facilities or skilled nursing facilities were determined based on the predictive accuracy of each RAPT score. Other factors evaluated included patient-reported discharge expectation, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores. RESULTS: A total of 716 consecutive revision THA/TKA episodes were analyzed. Overall, predictive accuracy of RAPT for discharge disposition was 83%. RAPT scores <3 and >8 were deemed high and low risk of discharge to a post-acute care facility, respectively. RAPT scores of 4 to 7 were still accurate 65%-71% of the time and were deemed to be intermediate-risk. RAPT score and patient-reported discharge expectation had the strongest correlation with actual discharge disposition. CONCLUSION: The RAPT has high predictive accuracy for discharge planning in revision THA/TKA patients. Patient-expected discharge destination is a powerful modulator of the RAPT score and we suggest that it be taken into consideration for preoperative discharge planning.

Arthroplasty Care Redesign Impacts the Predictive Accuracy of the Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool.

BACKGROUND: The Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool (RAPT) is used to predict patient discharge disposition after total joint arthroplasty. Following a comprehensive, multidisciplinary redesign, our institution noticed a trend toward home discharge in patients with RAPT scores that historically predicted discharge to acute care facilities, presenting an opportunity to redefine the predictive ranges for RAPT. METHODS: Retrospectively collected data were analyzed from a single institution in patients undergoing elective primary total joint arthroplasty from January 2016 to April 2017. Predictive accuracy (PA) was calculated for each RAPT score (1-12), RAPT score risk ranges (low, intermediate, and high), as well as overall. Other factors evaluated included patient-reported discharge expectation, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores as related to discharge disposition and the PA of RAPT. RESULTS: Overall PA of RAPT was 88% (n = 1024 patients). Patients were high risk for acute care facility with a RAPT score of 1 to 3 (PA ≥ 83%), intermediate risk 4 to 7 (PA, 52%-79%), and low risk 8 to 12 (PA ≥ 89%). In multivariable analysis, RAPT score and patient-reported discharge expectation had the strongest correlation with actual discharge disposition. CONCLUSION: Our multidisciplinary redesign has impacted the PA of RAPT. The original predictive ranges should be modified to reflect the increasing proportion of patients being discharged home following elective arthroplasty procedures. We have identified patient-expected discharge destination as a powerful modulator of the RAPT score and suggest that it be taken into consideration for discharge planning.

Bundled Payment "Creep": Institutional Redesign for Primary Arthroplasty Positively Affects Revision Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is associated with increased readmissions, complications, and expense compared to primary TJA. Bundled payment methods have been used to improve value of care in primary TJA, but little is known of their impact in revision TJA patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a care redesign for a bundled payment model for primary TJA on quality metrics for revision patients, despite absence of a targeted intervention for revisions. METHODS: We compared quality metrics for all revision TJA patients including readmission rate, use of post-acute care facility after discharge, length of stay, and cost, between the year leading up to the redesign and the 2 years following its implementation. Changes in the primary TJA group over the same time period were also assessed for comparison. RESULTS: Despite a volume increase of 37% over the study period, readmissions declined from 8.9% to 5.8%. Use of post-acute care facilities decreased from 42% to 24%. Length of stay went from 4.84 to 3.92 days. Cost of the hospital episode declined by 5%. CONCLUSION: Our health system experienced a halo effect from our bundled payment-influenced care redesign, with revision TJA patients experiencing notable improvements in several quality metrics, though not as pronounced as in the primary TJA population. These changes benefitted the patients, the health system, and the payers. We attribute these positive changes to an altered institutional mindset, resulting from an invested and aligned care team, with active physician oversight over the care episode.

How Reliable is the Acetabular Cup Position Assessment from Routine Radiographs?

BACKGROUND: Cup position is crucial for optimal outcomes in total hip arthroplasty. Radiographic assessment of component position is routinely performed in the early postoperative period. AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine in a controlled environment if routine radiographic methods accurately and reliably assess the acetabular cup position and to assess if there is a statistical difference related to the rater's level of training. METHODS: A pelvic model was mounted in a spatial frame. An acetabular cup was fixed in different degrees of version and inclination. Standardized radiographs were obtained. Ten observers including five fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons and five orthopaedic residents performed a blind assessment of cup position. Inclination was assessed from anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis and version from cross-table lateral radiographs of the hip. RESULTS: The radiographic methods used showed to be imprecise specially when the cup was positioned at the extremes of version and inclination. An excellent inter-observer reliability (Intra-class coefficient > 0,9) was evidenced. There were no differences related to the level of training of the raters. CONCLUSIONS: These widely used radiographic methods should be interpreted cautiously and computed tomography should be utilized in cases when further intervention is contemplated.