How Did Black and Hispanic Orthopaedic Applicants and Residents Compare to General Surgery Between 2015 and 2022?

BACKGROUND: Despite the heavy demand for and knowledge of the benefits of diversity, there is a persistent lack of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in orthopaedic surgery. Since the implementation of diversity initiatives, data have shown that general surgery has been one of the top competitive surgical fields and has demonstrated growth in racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, making general surgery a good point of reference and comparison when analyzing racial and ethnic growth in orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What were the growth rates for Black and Hispanic orthopaedic residency applicants and residents between 2015 and 2022? (2) How did the growth rates of Black and Hispanic individuals in orthopaedic surgery compare with those of general surgery? (3) How did applicant recruitment and resident acceptance differ between Black and Hispanic people in orthopaedic surgery? METHODS: Applicant data were obtained from historical specialty-specific data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Service Statistics database between 2018 and 2022, and resident data were obtained from the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book between 2015 and 2021. Between 2018 and 2022, the number of residency applicants totaled 216,677, with 17,912 Black residency applicants and 20,413 Hispanic residency applicants. Between 2015 and 2021, the number of active residents totaled 977,877, with 48,600 Black residents and 62,605 Hispanic residents. Because the applicant and resident data do not overlap throughout all years of observation, a sensitivity analysis of overlapping years (between 2018 and 2021) was conducted to ensure observed trends were consistent and valid throughout the study. All datasets obtained were used to establish the different racial and ethnic proportions of Black and Hispanic residency applicants and residents in four nonsurgical primary care specialties and four surgical subspecialties. A reference slope was created using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education to represent the growth rate for total residency applicants and residents, independently, across all residency specialties reported in each database. This slope was used for comparison among the resident and applicant growth rates for all eight selected specialties. Datapoints were placed into a scatterplot with regression lines, using slope equations to depict rate of growth and R2 values to depict linear fit. Applicant growth corresponded to applicant recruitment and resident growth corresponded to resident acceptance. Chi-square tests were used to compare residents and residency applicants for the Black and Hispanic populations, separately. Two-way analysis of variance with a time-by-specialty interaction term (F-test) was conducted to determine differences between growth slopes. RESULTS: There was no difference in the growth rate of Black orthopaedic surgery applicants between 2018 and 2022, and there was no difference in the growth rate of Hispanic orthopaedic surgery applicants (R2 = 0.43; p = 0.23 and R2 = 0.63; p = 0.11, respectively). However, there was a very slight increase in the growth rate of Black orthopaedic surgery residents between 2015 and 2021, and a very slight increase in the growth rate of Hispanic orthopaedic surgery residents (R2 = 0.73; p = 0.02 and R2 = 0.79; p = 0.01, respectively). There were no differences in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Black applicants between 2018 and 2022 (0.004 applicants/year versus -0.001 applicants/year; p = 0.22), and no differences were found in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Black residents between 2015 and 2021 (0.003 residents/year versus 0.002 residents/year; p = 0.59). Likewise, Hispanic orthopaedic applicant growth rates did not differ between 2018 and 2022 from the rates of general surgery (0.004 applicants/year versus 0.005 applicants/year; p = 0.68), and there were no differences in orthopaedic and general surgery rates of growth for Hispanic residents (0.007 residents/year versus 0.01 residents/year; p = 0.35). Furthermore, growth rate comparisons between Black orthopaedic applicants and residents between 2018 and 2021 showed applicant growth was larger than resident growth, illustrating that the recruitment of Black applicants increased slightly more rapidly than resident acceptance. Growth rate comparisons between Hispanic applicants and residents showed a larger rate of resident growth, illustrating Hispanic resident acceptance increased slightly faster than applicant recruitment during that time. CONCLUSION: We found low acceptance of Black residents compared with the higher recruitment of Black applicants, as well as overall low proportions of Black and Hispanic applicants and residents. Future studies might explore the factors contributing to the higher acceptances of Hispanic orthopaedic residents than Black orthopaedic residents. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We recommend that more emphasis should be placed on increasing Black and Hispanic representation at the department level to ensure cultural considerations remain at the forefront of applicant recruitment. Internal or external reviews of residency selection processes should be considered, and more immersive, longitudinal orthopaedic surgery clerkships and research mentorship experiences should be targeted toward Black and Hispanic students. Holistic reviews of applications and selection processes should be implemented to produce an increased racially and ethnically diverse applicant pool and a diverse residency work force, and implicit bias training should be implemented to address potential biases and diversity barriers that are present in residency programs and leadership.

Do Orthopaedic Virtual Clinic Visits Demonstrate Cost and Time Efficiencies Compared With In-person Visits?

BACKGROUND: There are numerous reasons for the increased use of telemedicine in orthopaedic surgery, one of which is the perception that virtual visits are more cost-effective than in-person visits. However, to our knowledge, no studies have compared the cost and time investment of virtual versus in-person visits using the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) method. Unlike methods that estimate cost based on charges for services rendered, TDABC provides a more precise measurement of costs, which is essential for assessing cost-effective innovations and moving to value-based healthcare. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are virtual visits less costly than analogous in-person visits, as measured by TDABC? (2) Does TDABC yield cost estimates that are lower or higher than the ratio of costs to charges (RCC), which is a simple, frequently used costing method? (3) Do the total time commitments of healthcare personnel, and that of the surgeon specifically, vary between the virtual and in-person settings? METHODS: Patients for this prospective, observational study were recruited from the practices of the highest-volume virtual-visit surgeons of three subspecialties (joints, hand, and sports) in a multihospital, tertiary-care academic institution in a metropolitan area in the Midwestern United States. Each surgeon had at least 10 years of clinical practice. Between June 2021 and September 2021, we analyzed both in-person and virtual return visits with patients who had an established relationship with the surgeon, because this represented the most frequent type of virtual visits and enabled a direct comparison between the two settings. New patients were not included in the study because of the limited availability of new-patient virtual visits; such patients often benefit from in-person physical examinations and on-site imaging. Additionally, patients seen for routine postoperative care were excluded because they were primarily seen in person by a physician assistant. Data were acquired during this period until 90 in-person and 90 virtual visits were collected according to selection criteria; no patients were lost to follow-up. Distinct process maps, which represent the steps involved in a clinic visit used to measure healthcare personnel time invested, were constructed for in-person and virtual clinic visits and used to compare total personnel and surgeon time spent. To calculate TDABC-derived costs, time allocated by personnel to complete each step was measured and used to calculate cost based on each personnel member's yearly salary. From the accounting department of our hospital, we acquired RCC cost data according to the level of service for a return visit. RESULTS: The total median cost, as measured by TDABC, was USD 127 (IQR USD 111 to 163) for an in-person visit and USD 140 (IQR USD 113 to 205) for a virtual visit (median difference USD 13; p = 0.16). RCC overestimated TDABC-calculated direct variable cost in five of six service levels (in-person levels 3, 4, and 5 and virtual levels 3 and 5) by a range of USD 25 to 88. Additionally, we found that virtual visits consumed 4 minutes less of total personnel time (in-person: 17 minutes [IQR 13.5 to 23.5 minutes], virtual: 13 minutes [IQR 11 to 19 minutes]; p < 0.001); however, this difference in personnel time did not equate to cost savings because surgeons spent 2 minutes longer on virtual visit activities than they did on in-person activities (in-person: 6 minutes [IQR 4.5 to 9.5 minutes], virtual: 8 minutes [IQR 5.5 to 13 minutes]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic virtual visits did not deliver cost savings compared with in-person visits because surgeons spent more time on virtual visits and participated in virtual visits at the clinical site. Additionally, as anticipated, RCC overestimated costs as calculated by TDABC. These findings suggest that cost is not a primary advantage of transitioning to virtual visits, and that factors such as patient preference and satisfaction should be considered instead. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic and decision analysis.

What are the Minimum Clinically Important Difference Values for the PROMIS and QuickDASH After Carpal Tunnel Release? A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: To better define the clinical significance of patient-reported outcomes, the concept of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) exists. The MCID is the minimum change that a patient will perceive as meaningful. Prior attempts to determine the MCID after carpal tunnel release are limited by methodologic concerns, including the lack of a true anchor-based MCID calculation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To address previous methodologic concerns in existing studies, as well as establish a clinically useful value for clinicians, we asked: What are the MCID values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), and the QuickDASH after carpal tunnel release? METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at an urban, Midwest, multihospital, academic health system. One hundred forty-seven adult patients undergoing unilateral carpal tunnel release between September 2020 and February 2022 were identified. PROMIS UE, PI, and QuickDASH scores were collected preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. We also collected responses to an anchor-based question: "Since your treatment, how would you rate your overall function?" (much worse, worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, improved, or much improved). Patients who did not respond to the 3-month postoperative surveys were excluded. A total of 122 patients were included in the final analysis (83% response proportion [122 of 147]). The mean age was 57 years (range 23 to 87 years), and 68% were women. The MCID was calculated using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Although anchor-based calculations are generally considered more clinically relevant because they consider patients' perceptions of improvement, an estimation of the minimum detectable change (which represents measurement error) relies on a distribution-based calculation. We determined a range of MCID values to propose a final MCID value for all three instruments. A negative MCID value for the PROMIS PI instrument represents a decrease in pain, whereas a positive value for the PROMIS UE instrument represents an improvement in function. A negative value for the QuickDASH instrument represents an increase in function. RESULTS: The final proposed MCID values were 6.2 (interquartile range [IQR] 5.4 to 9.0) for the PROMIS UE, -7.8 (IQR -6.1 to -8.5) for the PROMIS PI, and -18.2 (IQR -13.3 to -34.1) for the QuickDASH. CONCLUSION: We recommend that clinicians use the following values as the MCID after carpal tunnel release: 6 for the UE, -8 for the PI, and -18 for the QuickDASH. Surgeons may find these values useful when counseling patients postoperatively regarding improvement. Future studies could examine whether a single MCID (or small range) for PROMIS instruments is applicable to a variety of conditions and interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Decision Aid on Orthopedic Virtual Care: Patient Preferences in Orthopedic Hand Clinic.

Introduction: The objectives of this study are to develop a decision aid for orthopedic patients to decide between virtual or in-person care and assess patient preferences for these modalities in hand clinic. Methods: An orthopedic virtual care decision aid was developed alongside orthopedic surgeons and a virtual care expert. Subject participation involved 5 steps: Orientation, Memory, and Concentration Test (OMCT), knowledge pretest, decision aid, postdecision aid questionnaire, and Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) assessment. Patients presenting to hand clinic were initially provided the OMCT to assess decision-making capacity, with those failing excluded. Subjects were then administered a pretest to assess their understanding of virtual and in-person care. Subsequently, the validated decision aid was provided to patients, after which a postdecision aid questionnaire and DCS assessment were administered. Results: This study enrolled 124 patients. Pre- to postdecision aid knowledge test scores increased by 15.3% (p < 0.0001), and the average patient DCS score was 18.6. After reading the decision aid, 47.6% of patients believed that virtual and in-person care provided similar physician interaction, 46.0% felt little difference in effectiveness between the modalities, and 39.5% had no preference for either. Most patients understood their options (79.8%) and were ready to make a care modality decision (65.4%) following decision aid administration. Conclusion: Significant improvements in knowledge scores, strong DCS scores, and high levels of understanding and decision-making readiness support decision aid validity. Hand patients appear to have no consensus preferences for care modality, emphasizing the need for a decision aid to help determine individual care preferences.

Scapholunate Interosseous Ligament Anatomy and Biomechanics.

Injury to the scapholunate interosseous ligament is one of the most common causes of carpal instability and can impart considerable compromise to the patient's hand function. However, the management of scapholunate ligament injuries remains a dynamic concept, especially with regard to the multitude of options and techniques that exist for its surgical treatment. We present a thorough review of scapholunate anatomy and morphology, and the role of the scapholunate articulations in the kinetics and pathomechanics of wrist instability. We also review the current literature on the biomechanical properties of the scapholunate ligament and its subcomponents. A sound understanding of the anatomy and biomechanics of the scapholunate ligament can clarify its instability and may better orient current reconstructive procedures or pioneer better future techniques.

Ethnic and gender diversity in hand surgery trainees.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the lack of diversity in plastic and orthopedic surgery persists into hand surgery through assessment of trainee demographics. METHODS: Demographic data were obtained from compilations on graduate medical education by the Journal of the American Medical Association. Ethnic diversity was assessed using the proportions of minority trainees. We analyzed the trends in ethnic diversity in hand, orthopedic, and plastic surgery from 1995 to 2012 by evaluating changes in proportions of African American, Hispanic, and Asian trainees. In addition, we compared the proportions of minority trainees in various surgical specialties during 2009 to 2012. Trends in gender diversity were similarly analyzed using the proportions of female trainees. RESULTS: During 1995 to 2012, the proportions of minority and female trainees increased significantly in the fields of orthopedic, plastic, and hand surgery. To assess the current state of diversity in various specialties, we compared minority and female population proportions using pooled 2009 to 2012 data. The percentage of non-Caucasian trainees in hand surgery was significantly higher than that in orthopedic sports medicine and orthopedic surgery and significantly lower than in general surgery. The percentage of female trainees in hand surgery was significantly higher than that in orthopedic sports medicine and orthopedic surgery and significantly lower than in plastic and general surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic and gender diversity in hand surgery increased significantly between 1995 and 2012. Women constitute a fifth of hand surgery trainees. Efforts to increase diversity should be further pursued using proven strategies and innovating new ones. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Diversity in the medical field has shown to be a beneficial factor in many aspects including research productivity and patient care. Understanding how the field of hand surgery has changed with regard to the diversity of its trainees may aid in providing more equitable and effective health care.

National healthcare initiatives and pursuit of wrist surgery innovations: a report of the 2011-2012 Sterling Bunnell Traveling Fellow.

Every year since 1982, the American Society for Surgery of the Hand has sponsored a young member as its Bunnell Traveling Fellow. Named eponymously for the late physician and father of hand surgery, the Sterling Bunnell Traveling Fellowship enables young hand surgeons to foster national and international relationships that contribute to their higher learning and advance the principles of scholarship by improving treatment of hand and upper extremity disorders. This report is an account of the experiences and insights I gained while exploring national health care initiatives and wrist surgery innovations.

Acetic acid iontophoresis for recalcitrant scarring in post-operative hand patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort comparison. INTRODUCTION: Using acetic acid iontophoresis (AAI) as a treatment modality significantly improved the functionality of hand in patients with recalcitrant scarring. METHODS: Open trigger finger release patients followed up exclusively at a hand clinic between 2009 and 2011 were analyzed. Group I recovered optimal total active range of motion (TAM) after 14 standard of care (SOC) therapy sessions but Group II (10 digits) could only reach optimal recovery after 7 additional AAI sessions. RESULTS: After SOC therapy, Group I's TAM recovery plateaued at 245 and Group II's at 219 (p < 0.01). After undergoing AAI, the TAM of Group II increased from 219 to 239 (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Clinical studies suggest that AAI can modify collagen structure in scars. AAI could be a novel non-surgical treatment for restoring functionality to areas affected by difficult, recalcitrant scars. CONCLUSION: AAI significantly improved the TAM of hand surgical patients who could not recover optimally with SOC therapy alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Odds of Attaining Orthopaedic Leadership Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread acceptance of the importance of diversity in leadership, systemic challenges in leadership attainment in orthopaedic surgery still exist for several groups. We hypothesize that women, underrepresented in medicine groups, and Asians have decreased odds of achieving program director and chairperson positions compared with peers. METHODS: Demographic data were collected from the Association of American Medical Colleges for faculty, program directors, and chairpersons in orthopaedic surgery. Odds ratios were calculated treating race, ethnicity, or sex as the predictor variables and attainment of a leadership position as the outcome, comparing the composition of program directors in 2020 and chairpersons in 2019 with faculty in 2019. RESULTS: Significantly decreased odds were found for women at 0.37 (0.264 to 0.51 [P < 0.0001]) and the Other category at 0.16 (0.065 to 0.3864 [P = 0.0001]) while significantly increased odds were found for White and Black/African American faculty at 1.32 (1.02 to 1.71 [P = 0.0314]) and 1.95 (1.17 to 3.26 [P = 0.011]), respectively, in holding program director positions. Significantly decreased odds of attaining chairpersonship were found for women at 0.17 (0.07 to 0.41 [P = 0.0075]) and Asian faculty at 0.33 (0.14 to 0.75 [P = 0.0062]) while White faculty demonstrated significantly increased odds at 2.43 (1.41 to 4.19 [P = 0.0013]). CONCLUSIONS: Women showed markedly decreased odds of leadership attainment while Black/African American faculty had increased likelihood of becoming program directors but were not markedly more likely to become chairs. Asian faculty were less likely to become program directors and markedly less likely to become chairs. While decreased odds for women were expected based on current literature, decreased odds of Asians becoming chairs and an increased likelihood of Black/African American orthopaedic surgeons becoming program directors but not attaining the role of chairs at the same rate were novel findings, revealing concerning trends for these groups.

Orthopaedic Hand Patient Support Systems Have Valuable Insight to Patient Function and Pain.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical assessment. Research on how patient support systems contribute to physician understanding of patient condition is limited. Thus, insights from significant others may provide value, especially when concerns exist regarding patient response validity. Patients recruited from the pre-operative environment undergoing orthopaedic hand procedures responded to PROMIS-Pain Interference (PI), PROMIS-Upper Extremity (UE), PROMIS-Depression (D), and QuickDASH. They then selected a significant other (SO) to do the same. Patients and SOs were also asked to complete the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI) as a measure of support-related responses. Patient and SO responses were compared, and support-related responses were added in subsequent analyses to examine their effect on SO PRO assessment.

Patients With and Without Double Crush Syndrome Achieve Similar Rates of Clinical Improvement Following Carpal Tunnel Release.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of carpal tunnel release (CTR) in patients with and without double crush syndrome (DCS), defined as concurrent carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and cervical radiculopathy at C5-T1 on preoperative nerve conduction studies. METHODS: Patients with preoperative nerve conduction studies who underwent unilateral, isolated CTR were retrospectively identified. All patients completed preoperative and 3-month postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) and pain interference (PI), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires, and responded to the anchor question: "Since your treatment, how would you rate your overall function?" (much worse, worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, improved, much improved). Preoperative, postoperative, and changes in scores for UE, PI, and QuickDASH were compared, as were the anchor question responses and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Sixty-three patients with DCS and 115 patients with CTS only were included. At 3- to 4-month follow-up, absolute and change in UE, PI, and QuickDASH scores were not statistically different between patients with DCS and CTS. Rates of anchor question response and MCID achievement were comparable for patients with CTS only and DCS on each questionnaire. The MCID achievement ranged from 48.4% to 68.8% in the unmatched cohort and 48.4% to 60% in the matched group. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 to 4 months, patients with DCS experience similar patient-reported symptomatic and functional improvement, and achieve MCID of outcome measures at comparable rates to patients with CTS only. For patients with nerve compression at the carpal tunnel and cervical spine, CTR is a reasonable first step prior to proceeding with cervical spine decompression.

The Impact of Experience Versus Decision Aids on Patient Preference Toward Virtual Care.

Introduction: Virtual care utilization has increased in recent years bringing questions of how to best inform patients regarding their use. Decision aids (DAs) are tools created to assist patients in making informed decisions about their health care. This study seeks to determine whether a DA or previous experience could better educate and influence patient's preference on virtual care. Methods: One hundred fifty participants from an orthopedic clinic of a multi-hospital system were divided into three groups. Group 1 (Virtual Care Cohort) had at least one previous virtual care visit and was surveyed with the Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire (TSQ). Group 2 (In-person with Decision Aid) and Group 3 (In-person without Decision Aid) had no virtual care experience. Group 2 received a validated virtual care DA with a knowledge test. Both groups were also administered the TSQ. Results: After the DA, patients improved their score on 3 of 4 virtual care knowledge questions. Each cohort demonstrated a positive perception of virtual care; however, the specific reasons for their favorable views varied. The DA cohort did not show increased preference toward virtual care compared with the non-DA group and only responded significantly higher regarding encounter comfort. Patients with previous experience in virtual care responded most favorably to the majority of survey questions regarding their virtual care preferences when compared with both virtual care naive cohorts. Discussion and Conclusion: We found that patient experience was the most important factor in influencing patient preference toward virtual care. Although the DA increased their virtual care knowledge it did not increase their preference; therefore, efforts should be placed at encouraging patient to experience virtual care.

The overutilization of resources in patients with acute upper extremity trauma and infection.

PURPOSE: To compare patients with acute upper extremity injuries and infections presenting initially to the emergency department with patients transferred from outside institutions, and to evaluate triage guidelines for the appropriate transfer of these patients. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 1,172 consecutive patients with acute upper extremity injuries or infections presenting to 2 level 1 trauma centers over 3-month periods. We analyzed demographics, transfer details, injury characteristics, intervention received, follow-up, and complications. Triage guidelines were established by a board of academic upper extremity and emergency physicians and retrospectively applied to patient data. RESULTS: Of 1,172 patients, 155 (13%) arrived via transfer from outside facilities. Transferred patients had more complex injuries by our guidelines, but many did not require level 1 emergent care. The receiving emergency department discharged 26% of the transferred patients without upper extremity specialist evaluation, and 24% of the transferred patients received no procedural intervention at any point. Only 10% went to the operating room emergently. Implementing our guidelines for appropriate triage, we found that 53% of transfers did not require emergent transfer to a level 1 facility. These nonemergent transfers spent an average of 15.2 hours from the time of initial evaluation at the outside facility to discharge from the level 1 emergency department, compared with 3.1 hours in patients who arrived primarily. Retrospectively, our triage guidelines had a 2% undertriage rate and a 3% overtriage rate. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the patients transferred with upper extremity injuries and infections for specialized evaluation may be transferred unnecessarily. Guidelines for the care and transfer of patients with acute upper extremity injuries or infections may lead to better use of resources. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic III.

Revenue Generation and Follow-up for a Hand Trauma Program for Emergency Department Patients in an Inner-City Metropolitan Area.

BACKGROUND: Although hand trauma care has proved to be profitable, loss of trauma patients from a system may lead to revenue loss. Our study aimed to (1) elucidate the economic effect of hand trauma programs, (2) quantify the potential fiscal effect of loss of follow-up, and (3) determine factors contributing to leakage of patients from the healthcare system. METHODS: Revenue data were retrospectively extracted for all adult hand trauma patients within a multicenter healthcare system from 2014 to 2018. Demographic and encounter factors were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for differences in continuous variables, Pearson chi square test for categorical variables, and odds ratios. A follow-up model was created using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 56,995 (31% new, 69% established) hand trauma encounters were recorded. Follow-up was markedly affected by many factors, including new vs. established patients. Of the 17,748 new patients, 8638 (48.6%) returned for subsequent care, generating $34M. The patients who did not return may have lost $176M for the system. CONCLUSIONS: Many factors lead to loss of follow-up. Understanding these factors can help target efforts to minimize leakage of hand trauma patients. Hand trauma introduces new patients to hospitals, generating notable revenue. Leakage of hand trauma patients has substantial revenue losses.

AOA Critical Issues Symposium: Deficit Recovery for the Orthopaedic Service Line.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic and the mandated cessation of surgical procedures for a substantial portion of the 2020 year placed tremendous strain, both clinically and financially, on the health-care system in the United States. As a surgical specialty that accounts for nearly a quarter of all hospital net income, the revenue recovery of orthopaedic service lines (OSLs) is of particular importance to the financial recovery of their broader health-care institutions. In this American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) symposium report, the OSL leaders from 4 major academic medical institutions explain and reflect on their approaches to address their revenue deficits. Cost-reduction strategies, such as tightening budgets, adopting remote-work models, and limiting costs of human capital, were vital to stabilizing departmental finances at the onset of the pandemic, while strategies that focused on expanding surgical volume, such as those that improve efficiency in clinical and surgical settings, were important in growing revenue once elective procedures resumed. Institutional policy, payer administrative procedures, and the overall context of an ongoing public health crisis all placed limitations on recovery efforts, but engaging relevant stakeholders and working with available resources helped OSLs overcome these limitations. Due to clear strategic actions that were taken to address their deficits, each OSL represented in this AOA symposium saw substantial improvement in its year-end financial performance compared with its financial status at the end of the period of mandatory cessation of elective surgical cases.

AOA Critical Issues: Gender Justice in Academic Medicine: What It Might Look Like in Orthopaedic Surgery.

ABSTRACT: As the number of women entering medicine has increased, so has the number of women entering orthopaedics; however, many orthopaedic programs struggle to create an equitable space for women, particularly in leadership. Struggles experienced by women include sexual harassment and gender bias, lack of visibility, lack of well-being, disproportionate family care responsibilities, and lack of flexibility in the criteria for promotions. Historically, sexual harassment and bias has been a problem faced by women physicians, and often the harassment continues even when the issue has been reported; many women find that reporting it results in negative consequences for their career and training. Additionally, throughout medical training, women are less exposed to orthopaedics and lack the mentorship that is given to their colleagues who are men. The late exposure and lack of support prevent women from entering and advancing in orthopaedic training. Typical surgery culture can also result in women orthopaedic surgeons avoiding help for mental wellness. Improving well-being culture requires systemic changes. Finally, women in academics perceive decreased equality in promotional considerations and face leadership that already lacks representation of women. This paper presents solutions to assist in developing equitable work environments for all academic clinicians.

Racial, Ethnic, and Sex Diversity in Academic Medical Leadership.

Importance: For the past 50 years, significant gaps have existed in gender and racial diversity across various medical specialties, despite the many benefits of a diverse physician workforce. One proposed approach to increasing diversity is top-down diversification, in which diverse leadership results in increased minority and female workforce representation. Objective: To investigate the changes in academic medical leadership diversity from 2007 to 2019 and to assess the recent leadership diversity of various specialties compared with the averages across all specialties. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional analysis of physicians in varying academic roles in 2007, 2019, and 2020. Demographic data were collected via specialized reports from the Association of American Medical Colleges. Included were 4 primary care specialties (internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology [OB/GYN] and 4 surgical specialties (orthopedic surgery, neurologic surgery, otolaryngology [ENT], general surgery). Study participants were faculty, program directors, and chairpersons. Data were analyzed for the years 2007, 2019, and 2020. Intervention: Self-reporting of demographic information to residency programs collected via the Graduate Medical Education Track Survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of each race/ethnicity and sex among cohorts of participants and comparisons between them. Results: The total number of individuals investigated included 186 210 faculty from 2019 (79 441 female [42.7%]), 6417 program directors from 2020 (2392 female [37.3%]), 1016 chairpersons from 2007 (89 female [8.8%]), and 2424 chairpersons from 2019 (435 female [17.9%]). When comparing chairperson diversity from 2007 to 2019, only internal medicine and general surgery experienced significant increases in minority (aggregate category used throughout the investigation to refer to anyone who self-identified as anything other than non-Hispanic White) representation (90% increase [11.7 percentage points, from 13.0% in 2007 to 24.7% in 2019]; P = .01 and 96% increase [13.0 percentage points, from 13.5% in 2007 to 26.5% in 2019]; P < .001), respectively; meanwhile, several specialties saw significant increases in female representation during this period (family medicine by 107.4%, P =.002; pediatrics by 83.1%, P =.006; OB/GYN by 53.2%, P =.045; orthopedic surgery by +4.1 percentage points, P =.04; general surgery by 226.9%, P =.005). In general, surgical specialties had lower leadership diversity than the average diversity of all residency programs, whereas primary care specialties had similar or increased diversity. Conclusions and Relevance: Study results suggest that some specialties have made significant contributions toward bridging diversity gaps whereas others continue to lag behind. Our recommendations to improve academic medical leadership diversity include programs and institutions (1) publishing efforts and outcomes of diversity representation, (2) incorporating a representative demographic for leadership selection committees, and (3) actively promoting the importance of diversity throughout the selection process.