RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of disability in the United States. Limited research exists on the influence of area-level socioeconomic status and outcomes after TBI. This study investigated the correlation between the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and (1) 90-day hospital readmission rates, (2) facility discharge, and (3) prolonged (≥5 days) hospital length of stay (LOS). METHODS: Single-center retrospective review of adult (18 years or older) patients who were admitted for TBI during 2018 was performed. Patients were excluded if they were admitted for management of a chronic or subacute hematoma. We extracted relevant clinical and demographic data including sex, comorbidities, age, body mass index, smoking status, TBI mechanism, and national ADI. We categorized national ADI rankings into quartiles for analysis. Univariate, multivariate, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analyses were performed to assess the relationship between ADI and 90-day readmission, hospital LOS, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were included in final analysis. Patients from neighborhoods in the fourth ADI quartile were more likely to be Black (P = .007), have a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 (P = .03), have a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 (P = .004), and have sustained a penetrating TBI (P = .01). After controlling for confounders in multivariate analyses, being from a neighborhood in the fourth ADI quartile was independently predictive of 90-day hospital readmission (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35 [1.12-1.91], P = .011) (model AUROC: 0.82), discharge to a facility (OR: 1.46 [1.09-1.78], P = .03) (model AUROC: 0.79), and prolonged hospital LOS (OR: 1.95 [1.29-2.43], P = .015) (model AUROC: 0.85). CONCLUSION: After adjusting for confounders, including comorbidities, TBI mechanism/severity, and age, higher ADI was independently predictive of longer hospital LOS, increased risk of 90-day readmission, and nonhome discharge. These results may help establish targeted interventions to identify at-risk patients after TBI.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Understanding the trends and patterns of research funding can aid in enhancing growth and innovation in orthopaedic research. We sought to analyze financial trends in public orthopaedic surgery funding and characterize trends in private funding distribution among orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to explore potential disparities across orthopaedic subspecialties. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of private and public orthopaedic research funding from 2015 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER through the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, respectively. Institutions receiving funds from both the NIH and the private sector were classified separately as publicly funded and privately funded. Research payment characteristics were categorized according to their respective orthopaedic fellowship subspecialties. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were employed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Over the study period, $348,428,969 in private and $701,078,031 in public research payments were reported. There were 2,229 unique surgeons receiving funding at 906 different institutions. The data showed that a total of 2,154 male orthopaedic surgeons received $342,939,782 and 75 female orthopaedic surgeons received $5,489,187 from 198 different private entities. The difference in the median payment size between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was not significant. The top 1% of all practicing orthopaedic surgeons received 99% of all private funding in 2021. The top 20 publicly and top 20 privately funded institutions received 77% of the public and 37% of the private funding, respectively. Private funding was greatest (31.5%) for projects exploring adult reconstruction. CONCLUSION: While the amount of public research funding was more than double the amount of private research funding, the distribution of public research funding was concentrated in fewer institutions when compared with private research funding. This suggests the formation of orthopaedic centers of excellence (CoEs), which are programs that have high concentrations of talent and resources. Furthermore, the similar median payment by gender is indicative of equitable payment size. In the future, orthopaedic funding should follow a distribution model that aligns with the existing approach, giving priority to a nondiscriminatory stance regarding gender, and allocate funds toward CoEs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Securing research funding is vital for driving innovation in orthopaedic surgery, which is crucial for enhancing clinical interventions. Thus, understanding the patterns and distribution of research funding can help orthopaedic surgeons tailor their future projects to better align with current funding trends, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing support for their work.
