Improvements in Quality, Safety and Costs Associated with Use of Implant Registries Within a Health System.

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are intended to enhance quality, safety, and cost reduction using real-world data for a self-improving health system. Starting in 2001, Kaiser Permanente established several medical device CQRs as a quality improvement initiative. This report examines the contributions of these CQRs on improvement in health outcomes, changes in clinical practice, and cost-effectiveness over the past 20 years. METHODS: Eight implant registries were instituted with standardized collection from the electronic health record and other institutional data sources of patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, implant attributes, procedure details, surgical techniques, and outcomes (including complications, revisions, reoperations, hospital readmissions, and other utilization measures). A rigorous quality control system is in place to improve and maintain the quality of data. Data from the Implant Registries form the basis for multiple quality improvement and patient safety initiatives to minimize variation in care, promote clinical best practices, facilitate recalls, perform benchmarking, identify patients at risk, and construct reports about individual surgeons. RESULTS: Following the inception of the Implant Registries, there was an observed (1) reduction in opioid utilization following orthopedic procedures, (2) reduction in use of bone morphogenic protein during lumbar fusion allowing for cost savings, (3) reduction in allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent decrease in organizationwide revision rates, (4) cost savings through expansion of same-day discharge programs for joint arthroplasty, (5) increase in the use of cement fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fracture, and (6) organizationwide discontinuation of an endograft device associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. CONCLUSION: The use of Implant Registries within our health system, along with clinical leadership and organizational commitment to a learning health system, was associated with improved quality and safety outcomes and reduced costs. The exact mechanisms by which such registries affect health outcomes and costs require further study.

Treatment of Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures with Long versus Short Cephalomedullary Nails.

CONTEXT: Prior studies regarding indications for long vs short cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures had limited sample sizes and follow-up, suggesting a need for further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between cephalomedullary nail length and outcomes for the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. DESIGN: Cohort study using Kaiser Permanente's Hip Fracture Registry. A total of 5526 patients who underwent surgical treatment with cephalomedullary nails for an intertrochanteric femur fracture (2009-2014) were identified: 3108 (56.2%) with long nails and 2418 (43.8%) with short nails. Cox proportional hazards model regression was used to evaluate risks of all-cause revision and revision for periprosthetic fracture. Linear regression was used to evaluate operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay. Propensity score weights were used in all models to balance nail groups on patient and device characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause revision surgery. RESULTS: No association was found in risk of all-cause revision (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-1.15) or revision for periprosthetic fracture (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.23-1.48) for long nails compared with short nails. Use of longer nails resulted in 18.80 more minutes of operative time (95% CI = 17.33-20.27 minutes), 41.10 mL more of estimated blood loss (95% CI = 31.71-50.48 mL), and a longer hospitalization (8.4 hours; ß = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12-0.58 hours). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that routine use of short cephalomedullary nails is safe and effective in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.

The Association of Race/Ethnicity and Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes in a Universally Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have documented racial/ethnic disparities in the United States for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes. One factor cited as a potential mediator is unequal access to care. We sought to assess whether racial/ethnic disparities persist in a universally insured TKA population. METHODS: A US integrated health system's total joint replacement registry was used to identify elective primary TKA (2000-2016). Racial/ethnic differences in revision and 90-day postoperative events (readmission, emergency department [ED] visit, infection, venous thromboembolism, and mortality) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: Of 129,402 TKA, 68.8% were white, 16.2% were Hispanic, 8.4% were black, and 6.6% were Asian. Compared to white patients, Hispanic patients had lower risks of septic revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57-0.83) and infection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.30-0.59), but a higher likelihood of ED visit (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.22-1.34). Black patients had higher risks of aseptic revision (HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.42-1.83), readmission (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02-1.24), and ED visit (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.23-1.39). Asian patients had lower risks of aseptic revision (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.83), septic revision (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.60-0.99), readmission (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79-1.00), and venous thromboembolism (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.45-0.78). CONCLUSION: We observed differences in TKA outcome, even within a universally insured population. While lower risks in some outcomes were observed for Asian and Hispanic patients, the higher risks of aseptic revision and readmission for black patients and ED visit for black and Hispanic patients warrant further research to determine reasons for these findings to mitigate disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.