Resident Participation is Not Associated With Worse Outcomes After TKA.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-half of all US surgical procedures, and one-third of orthopaedic procedures, are performed at teaching hospitals. However, the effect of resident participation and their level of training on patient care for TKA postoperative physical function, operative time, length of stay, and facility discharge are unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are resident participation, postgraduate year (PGY) training level, and number of residents associated with absolute postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-10) global physical function score (PCS), and achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) PCS improvement, after TKA? (2) Are resident participation, PGY, and number of residents associated with increased TKA operative time? (3) Are resident participation, PGY, and number of residents associated with increased length of stay after TKA? (4) Are resident participation, PGY, and number of residents associated with higher odds of patients being discharged to another inpatient facility, rather than to their home (facility discharge)? METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using a longitudinally maintained institutional registry of TKAs that included 1626 patients at a single tertiary academic institution from April 2011 through July 2016. All patients who underwent primary, elective unilateral TKA were included with no exclusions. All patients were included in the operative time, length of stay, and facility discharge models. The PCS model required postoperative PCS score (n = 1417; 87%; mean, 46.4; SD, 8.5) and the MCID PCS model required pre- and postoperative PCS (n = 1333; 82%; 55% achieved MCID). Resident participation was defined as named residents being present in the operating room and documented in the operative notes, and resident PGY level was determined by the date of TKA and its duration since the resident entered the program and using the standard resident academic calendar (July - June). Multivariable regression was used to assess PCS scores, operative time, length of stay, and facility discharge in patients whose surgery was performed with and without intraoperative resident participation, accounting for PGY training level and number of residents. We defined the MCID PCS score improvement as 5 points on a 100-point scale. Adjusting variables included surgeon, academic year, age, sex, race-ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative PCS, and patient-reported mental function, BMI, tobacco use, alcohol use, and postoperative PCS time for the PCS models. We had postoperative PCS for 1417 (87%) surgeries. RESULTS: Compared with attending-only TKAs (5% of procedures), no postgraduate year or number of residents was associated with either postoperative PCS or MCID PCS improvement (PCS: PGY-1 = -0.98, 95% CI, -6.14 to 4.17, p = 0.708; PGY-2 = -0.26, 95% CI, -2.01to 1.49, p = 0.768; PGY-3 = -0.32, 95% CI, -2.16 to 1.51, p = 0.730; PGY-4 = -0.28, 95% CI, -1.99 to 1.43, p = 0.746; PGY-5 = -0.47, 95% CI, -2.13 to 1.18, p = 0.575; two residents = 0.28, 95% CI, -1.05 to 1.62, p = 0.677) (MCID PCS: PGY-1 = odds ratio [OR], 0.30, 95% CI, 0.07-1.30, p = 0.108; PGY-2 = OR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.46-1.62, p = 0.641; PGY-3 = OR, 0.97, 95% CI, 0.49-1.89, p = 0.921; PGY-4 = OR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.39-1.36, p = 0.325; PGY-5 = OR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.39-1.29, p = 0.259; two residents = OR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.80-1.89, p = 0.337). Longer operative times were associated with all PGY levels except for PGY-5 (attending surgeon only [reference] = 85.60 minutes, SD, 14.5 minutes; PGY-1 = 100. 13 minutes, SD, 21.22 minutes, +8.44 minutes, p = 0.015; PGY-2 = 103.40 minutes, SD, 23.01 minutes, +11.63 minutes, p < 0.001; PGY-3 = 97.82 minutes, SD, 18.24 minutes, +9.68 minutes, p < 0.001; PGY-4 = 96.39 minutes, SD, 18.94 minutes, +4.19 minutes, p = 0.011; PGY-5 = 88.91 minutes, SD, 19.81 minutes, -0.29 minutes, p = 0.853) or the presence of multiple residents (+4.39 minutes, p = 0.024). There were no associations with length of stay (PGY-1 = +0.04 days, 95% CI, -0.63 to 0.71 days, p = 0.912; PGY-2 = -0.08 days, 95% CI, -0.48 to 0.33 days, p = 0.711; PGY-3 = -0.29 days, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.09 days, p = 0.131; PGY-4 = -0.30 days, 95% CI, -0.69 to 0.08 days, p = 0.120; PGY-5 = -0.28 days, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.10 days, p = 0.145; two residents = -0.12 days, 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.06 days, p = 0.196) or facility discharge (PGY-1 = OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 0.26-4.08, p = 0.970; PGY-2 = OR, 0.61, 95% CI, 0.31-1.20, p = 0.154; PGY-3 = OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.48-2.02, p = 0.964; PGY-4 = OR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.43-1.57, p = 0.599; PGY-5 = OR, 0.7, 95% CI, 0.41-1.40, p = 0.372; two residents = OR, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.56-1.54, p = 0.766) for any PGY or number of residents. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings should help assure patients, residents, physicians, insurers, and hospital administrators that resident participation, after adjusting for numerous patient and clinical factors, does not have any association with key medical and financial metrics, including postoperative PCS, MCID PCS, length of stay, and facility discharge. Future research in this field should focus on whether residents affect knee-specific patient-reported outcomes such as the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score and additional orthopaedic procedures, and determine how resident medical education can be further enhanced without compromising patient care and safety.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Do Aggregate Socioeconomic Status Factors Predict Outcomes for Total Knee Arthroplasty in a Rural Population?

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether several preoperative socioeconomic status (SES) variables meaningfully improve predictive models for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) length of stay (LOS), facility discharge, and clinically significant Veterans RAND-12 physical component score (PCS) improvement. METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical data on 2198 TKAs at a high-volume rural tertiary academic hospital from April 2011 through March 2016. SES variables included race and/or ethnicity, living alone, education, employment, and household income, along with numerous adjusting variables. We determined individual SES predictors and whether the inclusion of all SES variables contributed to each 10-fold cross-validated area under the model's area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC). We also used 1000-fold bootstrapping methods to determine whether the SES and non-SES models were statistically different from each other. RESULTS: At least 1 SES predicted each outcome. Ethnic minority patients and those with incomes <$35,000 predicted longer LOS. Ethnic minority patients, the unemployed, and those living alone predicted facility discharge. Unemployed patients were less likely to achieve PCS improvement. Without the 5 SES variables, the AUC values of the LOS, discharge, and PCS models were 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.77, "acceptable"); 0.86 (CI 0.84-0.87, "excellent"); and 0.80 (CI 0.78-0.82, "excellent"), respectively. Including the 5 SES variables, the 10-fold cross-validated and bootstrapped AUC values were 0.76 (CI 0.74-0.79); 0.87 (CI 0.85-0.88); and 0.81 (0.79-0.83), respectively. CONCLUSION: We developed validated predictive models for outcomes after TKA. Although inclusion of multiple SES variables provided statistical predictive value in our models, the amount of improvement may not be clinically meaningful.

Selecting Residents for Predetermined Factors Identified and Thought to be Important for Work Performance and Satisfaction: A Methodology.

OBJECTIVE: The medical profession seeks to hire and train individuals who consistently meet and/or exceed both job and cultural expectations. Resident selection is often not structured to meet this goal. The objective of this quality improvement project was to evaluate a classic unscripted interview process (OI) in conjunction with a structured, scripted interview process (SI) developed using an established hiring methodology from industry not yet utilized in health care. Qualitative questions we sought to answer: (1) Can SI be practically applied to the selection of residents? (2) Is there a significant difference in the relative position of applicants between the OI and SI rank lists? (3) Qualitatively, does SI help the evaluation/discussion of the affective domain? METHODS: Design: Prospective qualitative comparison of OI versus SI. SETTING: Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. PARTICIPANTS: Applicants were assessed by OI and SI. SI factors were selected based on a job profile. Interview scripts were created from validated behavioral and attitudinal questions. Online assessments assessed 2 important attributes - adaptability and values. Rank lists were compared for relative rank position of applicants. Feedback from faculty was obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-two applicants. Critical attributes were self-management, integrator-synthesizer, versatility, communication, and achievement. Absolute mean difference in rank/applicant was 9.8 (standard deviation 8.9, Range 0-36) positions. Comparing the top 20 candidates of each rank list, 40% of those applicants were only on one list. Faculty felt that applicants were given a greater opportunity to show "who they are." CONCLUSIONS: In conjunction with OI, an industry proven methodology was practically applied to define and select for high performance for the authors' specific institution. Comparing OI and SI resulted in substantial differences in rank lists. This initiative seemed to provide a structure to evaluate values and motivations that are inherently difficult to assess. Faculty felt SI in conjunction with OI gave a greater chance for applicants to show "who they are."

Short term patient outcomes after total knee arthroplasty: Does the implant matter?

BACKGROUND: Newer implants for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often gain market share at higher cost with little patient-reported and long-term clinical data. We compared outcomes after TKA using two different implants: DePuy PFC Sigma and Attune. METHODS: Using a prospective data repository from an academic tertiary medical center, we analyzed 2116 TKAs (1603 Sigma and 513 Attune) from April 2011 through July 2016. Outcomes included length of surgery, length of stay, facility discharge, 90-day reoperation, range of motion (ROM) change, and patient-reported physical function (PCS). RESULTS: There was no difference in length of surgery (Attune -2.87 min, P = 0.143). Implant type was not associated with extended LOS (>3 days) (OR 0.80, P = 0.439). There was no difference in facility discharge (OR 0.65, P = 0.103). Unadjusted 90-day reoperations were 0.3% for Sigma and 1.0% for Attune cohorts (P = 0.158). Sigma implants were associated with more ROM improvement in unadjusted analyses (+2.1 degree improvement P = 0.031). Fifty nine percent of the Sigma cohort and 49% of the Attune cohort achieved the minimal clinically important (MCID) change for PCS improvement, although there was no adjusted difference in achieving MCID (Attune OR 0.84, P = 0.435). There was no adjusted difference in absolute PCS improvement (Attune +0.12 score, P = 0.864). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show no difference in physical function and most outcomes between Sigma and Attune. Attune implants had shorter absolute LOS, but there were no differences in extended LOS.