Post-operative Patient Portal Messaging is Associated With Return to the Emergency Department After Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery who message their care team via an electronic patient portal (EPP) post-operatively and emergency department (ED) visits within 90 days of surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Secure patient messaging through electronic patient portals has grown over recent years. Despite its frequent utilization by patients to engage with their care team, its association with clinical outcomes remains unknown in spine surgery. METHODS: This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Inclusion criteria were adults who underwent single-stage lumbar spine surgery between January 2016-June 2023. Patients with incomplete information, multi-stage surgeries, and those who died within 90 days of surgery were excluded. Patient sociodemographic, surgical, hospital readmission, and patient-provider engagement data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 13,135 patients were included. A total of 1,711 patients (13%) had a post-operative ED visit, and 4,791 patients (36%) used the patient portal to send a message after surgery. Sending a post-operative patient message after undergoing lumbar spine surgery was associated with an increased likelihood of having an ED visit that does not lead to readmission (1.29 (1.10-1.53), P = 0.002). Patients with high school degrees were more likely to have an ED visit without readmission (1.33 (1.08-1.65), P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Patients at a higher risk of presenting to the ED post-operatively should be identified and may benefit from additional counseling and access to the care team virtually to limit unnecessary healthcare utilization. Focusing on patients who reach out via EPP messaging post-operatively may be a good target patient group to address first. Future research is needed to investigate the possible health literacy and other socioeconomic barriers affecting these patients so that appropriate, more cost-effective resources can be utilized to avoid clinically unnecessary and costly ED visits.

Assessing the variation and drivers of cost in 1-level lumbar fusion: a time-driven activity-based costing analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: As value-based health care arrangements gain traction in spine care, understanding the true cost of care becomes critical. Historically, inaccurate cost proxies have been used, including negotiated reimbursement rates or list prices. However, time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) allows for a more accurate cost assessment, including a better understanding of the primary drivers of cost in 1-level lumbar fusion. PURPOSE: To determine the variation of total hospital cost, differences in characteristics between high-cost and non-high-cost patients, and to identify the primary drivers of total hospital cost in a sample of patients undergoing 1-level lumbar fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective, multicenter (one academic medical center, one community-based hospital), observational study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 383 patients undergoing elective 1-level lumbar fusion for degenerative spine conditions between November 2, 2021 and December 2, 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Total hospital cost of care (normalized); preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative cost of care (normalized); ratio of most to least expensive 1-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing a 1-level lumbar fusion between November 2, 2021 and December 2, 2022 were identified at two hospitals (one quaternary referral academic medical center and one community-based hospital) within our health system. TDABC was used to calculate total hospital cost, which was also broken up into: pre-, intra-, and postoperative timeframes. Operating surgeon and patient characteristics were also collected and compared between high- and non-high-cost patients. The correlation of surgical time and cost was determined. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine factors associated with total hospital cost. RESULTS: The most expensive 1-level lumbar fusion was 6.8x more expensive than the least expensive 1-level lumbar fusion, with the intraoperative period accounting for 88% of total cost. On average. the implant cost accounted for 30% of the total, but across the patient sample, the implant cost accounted for a range of 6% to 44% of the total cost. High-cost patients were younger (55 years [SD: 13 years] vs.63 years [SD: 13 years], p=.0002), more likely to have commercial health insurance (24 out of 38 (63%) vs. 181 out of 345 (52%), p=.003). There was a poor correlation between time of surgery (i.e., incision to close) and total overall cost (ρ: .26, p<.0001). Increase age (RC: -0.003 [95% CI: -0.006 to -0.000007], p=.049) was associated with decreased cost. Surgery by certain surgeons was associated with decreased total cost when accounting for other factors (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A large variation exists in the total hospital cost for patients undergoing 1-level lumbar fusion, which is primarily driven by surgeon-level decisions and preferences (e.g., implant and technology use). Also, being a "fast" surgeon intraoperatively does not mean your total cost is meaningfully lower. As efforts continue to optimize patient value through ensuring appropriate clinical outcomes while also reducing cost, spine surgeons must use this knowledge to lead, or at least be active participants in, any discussions that could impact patient care.

When Do Patients Achieve PROMIS Milestones After Rotator Cuff Repair?

Background: Given the variability of the questions asked, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) computer adaptive test (CAT) Version 2.0 item bank aids in the evaluation of rotator cuff repair (RCR) rehabilitation by determining when recovery milestones are possible based on the quality of patient responses at certain time points. Purpose: To assess the time point at which patients with RCR were able to achieve specific functional milestones, determined as positive responses to the 5 most frequently asked items on the PROMIS UE CAT Version 2.0. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The postoperative PROMIS UE CAT Version 2.0 scores of patients who underwent RCR between February 16, 2017, and July 30, 2019, were reviewed with respect to individual PROMIS item, response, and timing of response. A functional milestone was considered achieved if the patient response was "without any difficulty" or "with a little difficulty" to any of the 5 most frequently asked PROMIS items. The percentage of patients in each monthlong postoperative interval who answered with either response was recorded. The logit generalized estimating equations method was used to analyze the association between milestone achievement for each PROMIS item and predictor variables (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, race, ethnicity, and employment status). Results: A total of 1131 responses from 371 patients were included. The majority of patients attained milestone achievement on 4 of the 5 most frequently asked PROMIS items at time points ranging from 1 to 5 months postoperatively: "Are you able to carry a shopping bag or briefcase?" (by 1 month), "Are you able to put on and take off a coat or jacket?" (by 3 months), "Are you able to pour liquid from a bottle into a glass?" (by 3 months), and "Are you able to carry a heavy object (over 10 pounds/5 kg)?" (by 5 months). For the item "Are you able to put on a shirt or blouse?", the majority of patients did not achieve the milestone by 1 year. Conclusion: These findings support the application of PROMIS UE CAT Version 2.0 milestone achievement in the shared decision-making process and postoperative monitoring, as patients can use this information to determine when they can return to certain activities and providers can apply these standards to identify patients needing additional clinical support.

Are Commonly Used Geographically Based Social Determinant of Health Indices in Orthopaedic Surgery Research Correlated With Each Other and With PROMIS Global-10 Physical and Mental Health Scores?

BACKGROUND: Geographically based social determinants of health (SDoH) measures are useful in research and policy aimed at addressing health disparities. In the United States, the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), Neighborhood Stress Score (NSS), and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) are frequently used, but often without a clear reason as to why one is chosen over another. There is limited evidence about how strongly correlated these geographically based SDoH measures are with one another. Further, there is a paucity of research examining their relationship with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in orthopaedic patients. Such insights are important in order to determine whether comparisons of policies and care programs using different geographically based SDoH indices to address health disparities in orthopaedic surgery are appropriate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among new patients seeking care at an orthopaedic surgery clinic, (1) what is the correlation of the NSS, ADI, and SVI with one another? (2) What is the correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 physical and mental health scores and the NSS, ADI, and SVI? (3) Which geographically based SDoH index or indices are associated with presenting PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores when accounting for common patient-level sociodemographic factors? METHODS: New adult orthopaedic patient encounters at clinic sites affiliated with a tertiary referral academic medical center between 2016 and 2021 were identified, and the ADI, NSS, and SVI were determined. Patients also completed the PROMIS Global-10 questionnaire as part of routine care. Overall, a total of 75,335 new patient visits were noted. Of these, 62% (46,966 of 75,335) of new patient visits were excluded because of missing PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores. An additional 2.2% of patients (1685 of 75,335) were excluded because they were missing at least one SDoH index at the time of their visit (for example, if a patient only had a Post Office box listed, the SDoH index could not be determined). This left 35% of the eligible new patient visits (26,684 of 75,335) in our final sample. Though only 35% of possible new patient visits were included, the diversity of these individuals across numerous characteristics and the wide range of sociodemographic status-as measured by the SDoH indices-among included patients supports the generalizability of our sample. The mean age of patients in our sample was 55 ± 18 years and a slight majority were women (54% [14,366 of 26,684]). Among the sample, 16% (4381of 26,684) of patients were of non-White race. The mean PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores were 43.4 ± 9.4 and 49.7 ± 10.1, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated among the three SDoH indices and between each SDoH index and PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores. In addition, regression analysis was used to assess the association of each SDoH index with presenting functional and mental health, accounting for key patient characteristics. The strength of the association between each SDoH index and PROMIS Global-10 physical and mental health scores was determined using partial r-squared values. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: There was a poor correlation between the ADI and the NSS (ρ = 0.34; p < 0.001). There were good correlations between the ADI and SVI (ρ = 0.43; p < 0.001) and between the NSS and SVI (ρ = 0.59; p < 0.001). There was a poor correlation between the PROMIS Global-10 physical health and NSS (ρ = -0.14; p < 0.001), ADI (ρ = -0.24; p < 0.001), and SVI (ρ = -0.17; p < 0.001). There was a poor correlation between PROMIS Global-10 mental health and NSS (ρ = -0.13; p < 0.001), ADI (ρ = -0.22; p < 0.001), and SVI (ρ = -0.17; p < 0.001). When accounting for key sociodemographic factors, the ADI demonstrated the largest association with presenting physical health (regression coefficient: -0.13 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.12]; p < 0.001) and mental health (regression coefficient: -0.13 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.12]; p < 0.001), as confirmed by the partial r-squared values for each SDoH index (physical health: ADI 0.04 versus SVI 0.02 versus NSS 0.01; mental health: ADI 0.04 versus SVI 0.02 versus NSS 0.01). This finding means that as social deprivation increases, physical and mental health scores decrease, representing poorer health. For further context, an increase in ADI score by approximately 36 and 39 suggests a clinically meaningful (determined using distribution-based minimum clinically important difference estimates of one-half SD of each PROMIS score) worsening of physical and mental health, respectively. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, and other stakeholders looking to address SDoH factors to help alleviate disparities in musculoskeletal care should try to avoid interchanging the ADI, SVI, and NSS. Because the ADI has the largest association between any of the geographically based SDoH indices and presenting physical and mental health, it may allow for easier clinical and policy application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We suggest using the ADI as the geographically based SDoH index in orthopaedic surgery in the United States. Further, we caution against comparing findings in one study that use one geographically based SDoH index to another study's findings that incorporates another geographically based SDoH index. Although the general findings may be the same, the strength of association and clinical relevance could differ and have policy ramifications that are not otherwise appreciated; however, the degree to which this may be true is an area for future inquiry.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function and Global Physical Health Subscale Strongly Correlate and Perform Similarly to the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form.

BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty surgeons use a variety of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess functional well-being, including the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Physical Function short form (KOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PROMIS PF SF 10a), and PROMIS Global-10 Physical Health subscale. However, there is a paucity of literature assessing their concurrent validity and performance. METHODS: Between June 2016 and December 2020, patient visits at an arthroplasty clinic for knee concerns were identified. Patients who completed KOOS-PS, PROMIS PF SF 10a, and PROMIS Global-10, including its physical and mental health subscales, at the same visit were identified. Spearman rho (ρ) correlations were calculated and ceiling and floor effects identified. Overall, 5,303 patient encounters were included. RESULTS: Among physical function domains, strong correlation existed between the KOOS-PS and PROMIS PF SF 10a (ρ = 0.76, P < .001), KOOS-PS and PROMIS Global Physical Health (ρ = 0.71, P < .001), and PROMIS PF SF 10a and PROMIS Global Physical Health (ρ = 0.78, P < .001). No physical function-focused PROM had an appreciable floor effect (ie, at or more than 1%). The KOOS-PS had a small but measurable ceiling effect (n = 105 [2.0%]). CONCLUSIONS: All of the examined PROMs are acceptable to measure the functional status of patients with knee pathology, with the PROMIS Global-10 also being able to capture elements of mental health too. The PROMIS Global-10 may be of most value of the PROMs assessed, as the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services already incorporate the mental health component into new alternative payment models.

PROMIS Global Physical Health Subscale Strongly Correlates and Performs Similarly to the QuickDASH in Hand and Upper Extremity Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) is a validated, static hand and upper extremity patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) commonly used. However, with the growth of PROM implementation across orthopedic and plastic surgery clinics, it is beneficial to determine whether a more general PROM can be used to capture the same insights. This would ease implementation broadly. There is a paucity of literature assessing whether the QuickDASH and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 are correlated and perform similarly. METHODS: Between June 2016 and December 2020, hand and upper extremity patients seeking care at clinics associated with a single quaternary academic medical center were identified. Those who completed the PROMIS Global-10 and QuickDASH as part of routine care were identified. The PROMIS Global-10 is divided into the PROMIS Global Physical Health and PROMIS Global Mental Health subscores. Spearman rho (ρ) correlations were calculated across PROMs, and ceiling and floor effects were determined. RESULTS: Across the 18 744 included patients, there was a strong correlation and strong-moderate correlation found between the QuickDASH and PROMIS Global Physical Health (ρ = 0.70, P < .001) and PROMIS Global Mental Health (ρ = 0.69, P < .001), respectively. Although small, QuickDASH demonstrates the worst floor effect (2.6%, [n = 478]), whereas PROMIS Global Mental Health demonstrated a much more notable ceiling effect (11%, [n = 2034]). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS Global-10 can be used to assess the functional status of patients presenting for hand and upper extremity concerns, while also capturing aspects of mental health. The PROMIS Global-10 may ease PROM implementation broadly.

Evaluating and Comparing the Correlation and Performance of PROMIS and FAAM ADL in a Foot and Ankle Patient Population.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature assessing 2 of the commonly used static Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms (PROMIS Global-10 and PROMIS Physical Function Short Form 10a [PF SF 10a]) and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living (FAAM ADL). METHODS: The PROMIS Global-10, PROMIS PF SF 10a, and FAAM ADL were compared among new foot and ankle patients. Spearman rho (ρ) correlations were calculated, and ceiling and floor effects were determined. RESULTS: The FAAM ADL demonstrated strong correlations with PROMIS PF SF 10a, P = .88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-0.90, P < .001, and PROMIS Global-10 Physical Health (P = .75, 95% CI: 0.71-0.78, p < .001). The FAAM ADL and PROMIS Global-10 Mental Health demonstrated a moderate correlation (P = .41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.47, P < .001). No PROM demonstrated an appreciable floor effect. The PROMIS Global-10 Physical Health demonstrated the lowest ceiling effect (n=11 [1.6%]). CONCLUSION: Because the PROMIS Global-10 captures physical health adequately, provides mental health insight, and performs as well (if not better), we recommend the PROMIS Global-10 among the PROMs studied.Level of Evidence: Level III.

Bringing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Into Practice: A Review of the Latest Developments in PROM Use in the Evaluation and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

As health care systems globally shift toward optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full cycle of care, there has been increasing focus on using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to gauge success. Patient-reported outcome measures are validated questionnaires that allow patients to share their health status across several domains (eg, pain or physical function). This trend has been particularly notable in hand surgery, with PROM use investigated for many common hand conditions, including carpal tunnel syndrome, Dupuytren contracture, trigger finger, osteoarthritis, and wrist ganglion. The purpose of this article is to review recent developments in the use of PROM instruments, including the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, for the evaluation and treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. The considerable progress in establishing PROMs for use in carpal tunnel syndrome is reviewed, and future improvements are proposed to standardize PROM use and bring PROMs into day-to-day clinical practice for individualized patient treatment decision-making and counseling.

Operationalizing PROMs at the Musculoskeletal Practice and Policy Levels.

There continues to be growing interest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), especially as value-based healthcare initiatives gain more traction. Although it is well-established that PROMs can be useful in clinical research, how to operationalize PROMs in clinical care and policy initiatives remains a "work in progress." Following the design of a comprehensive PROM administration and routine collection system, orthopaedic surgeons and their patients can reap the benefits of PROMs in practice through improved shared clinical decision-making discussions at the individual patient level and closer symptom monitoring on a large scale, with improved resource allocation at the population health level. Although certain government and payer incentives exist to collect PROMs at present, it is reasonable to assume that future policy initiatives will begin to use the actual PROM scores to assess clinical outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons with interest in this area should prioritize their involvement in policy discussion to ensure PROMs are being used appropriately in novel payment models and policy endeavors so that they are both evaluated and compensated fairly. Specifically, orthopaedic surgeons can help ensure appropriate risk adjustment of patients when this is being done. Undoubtedly, PROMs will only become a larger part of musculoskeletal care moving forward.

Surgeon idiosyncrasy is a key driver of cost in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a time-driven activity-based costing analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delivering high-value orthopedic care requires optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent. Published literature is stippled with inaccurate proxies for cost, including negotiated reimbursement rates, fees paid, or listed prices. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more robust and accurate approach to calculating cost, including shoulder care. In the present study, we sought to determine the drivers of total cost in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) using TDABC. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing aRCR at multiple sites associated with a large urban health care system between January 2019 and September 2021 were identified. Total cost was determined using TDABC methodology. The episode of care was defined by 3 phases: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. Patient, procedure, rotator cuff tear morphology, and surgeon characteristics were collected. Bivariate analysis was performed across all characteristics between high-cost (top decile) and all other aRCRs. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify the key cost drivers. RESULTS: In total, 625 aRCRs performed by 24 orthopedic surgeons and 572 aRCRs performed by 13 orthopedic surgeons were included in the bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses, respectively. By TDABC analysis, total aRCR cost varied 6-fold (5.9×) from least to most costly. Intraoperative costs accounted for 91% of average total cost, followed by preoperative costs and postoperative costs (6% and 3%, respectively). Biologic adjuncts (regression coefficient [RC] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.58, P < .001) and surgeon idiosyncrasy (RC of highest-cost surgeon 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.73, P < .001) were the major cost drivers in aRCR. Patient age, comorbidities, number of rotator cuff tendons torn, and revision surgery were not significantly associated with total cost. The amount of tendon retraction (RC 0.0012, 95% CI 0.000020-0.0024, P = .046), average Goutallier grade (RC 0.029, 95% CI 0.0086-0.049, P = .005), and the number of anchors used (RC 0.039, 95% CI 0.032-0.046, P < .001) were also significantly associated with cost, but with far smaller effect sizes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Episode of care costs vary nearly 6-fold in aRCR and are almost exclusively dictated by the intraoperative phase. Tear morphology and repair technique contribute to cost, although the largest cost drivers of aRCR are the use of biologic adjuncts and surgeon idiosyncrasy, defined as something a surgeon does or does not do that impacts total cost and is not controlled for in the current analysis. Future work should seek to better delineate what these surgeon idiosyncrasies may represent.

Return to Sport in Middle-aged and Older Athletes After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a Mean 10-Year Follow-up: Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Return to sport is essential information when an athlete contemplates surgical intervention. Young athletes, <30 years of age, may undergo complex cartilage procedures or femoral/tibial osteotomies to successfully treat single-compartment knee osteoarthritis. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) may offer an attractive alternative option to middle-aged/older athletes with timely return to the same sport without a lengthy rehabilitation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if athletes are able to return to the same level of vigorous and moderate sports after fixed-bearing intramedullary nonrobotic UKA and the specific sports activities that these athletes continued to participate in at a minimum of 5 years. We hypothesized that UKA in the appropriately selected middle-aged/older athlete would yield high return to sport after UKA with high patient satisfaction. We also hypothesized that UKA would allow athletes to return to their sports of choice. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We identified 245 patients who underwent a UKA by a single surgeon between 2003 and 2017. Athletes were included if they participated in vigorous or moderate sports, as defined by the American College of Sports Medicine, and had minimum 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome was return to vigorous or moderate sports after UKA. Secondary outcomes included the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Activities of Daily Living score, KOOS Sport and Recreation score, Lysholm score, Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) analysis, and radiographic analysis. RESULTS: An overall 169 athletes met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated for return to sports. A total of 98% (165/169) returned to vigorous or moderate sports participation. The mean ± SD time to return to sport was 5.2 ± 2.3 months in the 39- to 50-year-old cohort, 5.8 ± 3.2 months in athletes aged 51 to 64 years, and 5.2 ± 3.0 months in athletes aged ≥65 years. A total of 143 athletes had minimum 5-year clinical and radiographic follow-up (mean, 10 years; range, 5-19 years). Maintenance of vigorous and moderate sport was seen in 99% (142/143) of athletes at a mean 10 years. In athletes who participated in vigorous sports, the mean Lysholm score was 85 ± 17, and 83% reached the PASS for KOOS Sport and Recreation. Radiographic analysis revealed no evidence of implant loosening (ie, subsidence, radiolucency) or osteolysis, and limb alignment and posterior slope of the implant were within normal limits. CONCLUSION: Athletes returned to sport at a mean 5 months after UKA implantation, with 98% (165/169) participating in vigorous or moderate sports. UKA is recommended as an alternative procedure in middle-aged and older athletes with single-compartment osteoarthritis who are contemplating a return to vigorous or moderate sport.

Does Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Use at New Foot and Ankle Patient Clinic Visits Improve Patient Activation, Experience, and Satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can help predict clinical outcomes and improve shared clinical decision-making discussions. There remains a paucity of research assessing how the use of PROMs may drive improved patient experience and patient activation. METHODS: New foot and ankle patients completed PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression assessments. Patients were then randomized to viewing and discussing their PROMIS scores with their surgeon or not. Following the clinic visit, patients completed a series of Clinician & Group Survey-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) questions and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Responses to the CG-CAHPS questions and PAM were compared between the 2 groups and after clustering on surgeon. Potential interaction effects by social deprivation were also explored. RESULTS: After enrolling patients but removing those lost to follow-up or with missing data, 97 and 116 patients remained in the intervention control cohorts, respectively. No difference was found in CG-CAHPS responses nor PAM scores between the 2 groups (P > .05). All surgeons were highly rated by all patients. When clustered by surgeon, intervention subjects were less likely to indicate "top box" scores for the understanding domain of the CG-CAHPS question (OR 0.51, P < .001) and had decreased odds of high patient activation compared to control subjects (OR 0.67; P = .005). Among the most socially disadvantaged patients, there was no difference in control and intervention subjects in their likelihood of having high patient activation (P = .09). CONCLUSION: Highly rated foot and ankle surgeons who show and discuss PROM results may not improve patient experience or activation and may, in fact, decrease understanding or patient activation in select populations. Future work is needed to determine when PROM discussions are most beneficial and how best to present PROMs data, as we suspect that how the information was presented-and not the use of PROMs-resulted in our findings. Health literacy tools and/or communication training may better engage different patient groups regarding PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Self-Reported Physical Function and Grit Are Not Correlated in Patients Who Undergo Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Distal Radius Fractures.

PURPOSE: "Grit" is defined as the perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Thus, grittier patients may have a better function after common hand procedures; however, this is not well-documented in the literature. Our purpose was to assess the correlation between grit and self-reported physical function among patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for distal radius fractures (DRFs). METHODS: Between 2017 and 2020, patients undergoing ORIF for DRFs were identified. They were asked to complete the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire before surgery and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery. The first 100 patients with at least 1-year follow-up also completed the 8-question GRIT Scale, a validated measure of passion and perseverance for long-term goals measured on a scale of 0 (least grit) to 5 (most grit). The correlation between the QuickDASH and GRIT Scale scores was calculated using Spearman rho (ρ). RESULTS: The average GRIT Scale score was 4.0 (SD, 0.7), with a median of 4.1 (range, 1.6-5.0). The median QuickDASH scores at the preoperative, 6-week postoperative, 6-month postoperative, and 1-year postoperative time points were 80 (range, 7-100), 43 (range, 2-100), 20 (range, 0-100), and 5 (range, 0-89), respectively. No significant correlation was found between the GRIT Scale and QuickDASH scores at any time. CONCLUSIONS: We found no correlation between self-reported physical function and GRIT levels in patients undergoing ORIF for DRFs, suggesting no correlation between grit and patient-reported outcomes in this context. Future studies are needed to investigate the influence of individual differences in character traits other than grit on patient outcomes, which may help better align resources where needed and further the ability to deliver individualized, quality health care. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Coaching for the Orthopedic Surgery Leader.

From the increase in telehealth to the expansion of private investors to the growth of transparency (both price and patient outcomes) and value-based care initiatives, health-care delivery is rapidly changing. At the same time, demand for musculoskeletal care continues to rapidly increase, with more than 1.7 billion people globally suffering from musculoskeletal conditions, yet burnout is a major concern and growing since the onset COVID-19 global pandemic. When taken together, these factors have a major impact on the health-care delivery environment and pose enormous challenges and increased stressors on orthopedic surgeons and their teams. Coaching can help.

Clinical Improvement Following Operative Management of Ankle Fractures Among Patients With and Without Moderate to High Depressive Symptoms: An Analysis Using PROMIS.

Background: Understanding the recovery trajectory following operative management of ankle fractures can help surgeons guide patient expectations. Further, it is beneficial to consider the impact of mental health on the recovery trajectory. Our study aimed to address the paucity of literature focused on understanding the recovery trajectory following surgery for ankle fractures, including in patients with depressive symptoms. Methods: From February 2015 to March 2020, patients with isolated ankle fractures were asked to complete Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression questionnaires as part of routine care at presentation and follow-up time points. Linear mixed effects regression models were used to evaluate the patient recovery pattern, comparing the preoperative time point to <3 months, 3-6 months, and >6 months across all patients. Additional models that included the presence of depression symptoms as a covariate were then used. Results: A total of 153 patients met inclusion criteria. By 3-6 months, PROMIS PF (ß: 9.95, 95% CI: 7.97-11.94, P < .001), PI (ß: -10.30, 95% CI: -11.87 to -8.72, P < .001), and Depression (ß: -5.60, 95% CI: -7.01 to -4.20, P < .001) improved relative to the preoperative time point. This level of recovery was sustained thereafter. When incorporating depressive symptoms into our model as a covariate, the moderate to high depressive symptoms were associated with significantly and clinically important worse PROMIS PF (ß: -4.00, 95% CI: -7.00 to -1.00, P = .01) and PI (ß: 3.16, 95% CI: -0.55 to 5.76, P = .02) scores. Conclusion: Following ankle fracture surgery, all patients tend to clinically improve by 3-6 months postoperatively and then continue to appreciate this clinical improvement. Although patients with moderate to high depressive symptoms also clinically improve following the same trajectory, they tend to do so to a lesser level than those who have low depressive symptoms. Level of Evidence: Level III, case-control study.

Lack of Surgeon Standardization on Implant Selection in Ankle Fracture Fixation May Increase Costs and Decrease Contribution Margin.

BACKGROUND: Surgical standardization has been shown to decrease costs without impacting quality; however, there is limited literature on this subject regarding ankle fracture fixation. Methods. Between October 5, 2015 and September 27, 2017, a total of 168 patients with isolated ankle fractures who underwent open reduction, internal fixation (ORIF) were analyzed. Financial data were analyzed across ankle fracture classification type, implant characteristics, and surgeons. Bivariate analyses were conducted. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare hardware costs across all 5 surgeons. Linear regression analysis was used to determine if hardware cost differed by surgeon when accounting for fracture type. RESULTS: The mean contribution margin was $4853 (SD $6446). There was a significant difference in implant costs by surgeon (range, lowest-cost surgeon: $471 [SD $283] to $1609 [SD $819]; P < .001). There was no difference in the use of a suture button or locking plate by fracture type (P = .13); however, the cost of the implant was significantly higher if a suture button or locking plate was used ($1014 [SD $666] vs $338 [SD $176]; P < .001). There was an association between surgeon 3 (ß = 200.32 [95% CI 6.18-394.47]; P = .043) and surgeon 4 (ß = 1131.07 [95% CI 906.84-1355.30]; P < .001) and higher hardware costs. CONCLUSIONS: Even for the same ankle fracture type, a wide variation in implant costs exists. The lack of standardization among surgeons accounted for a nearly 3.5-fold difference, on average, between the lowest- and highest-cost surgeons, negatively affecting contribution margin. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Evaluation of Clinical Recovery After Surgical Treatment for Hand Ischemia From Vasospastic and Occlusive Disease Using PROMIS.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature describing the recovery trajectory after surgery for upper extremity ischemia. Using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Upper Extremity (UE), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression domains, we aimed to describe the postoperative recovery of such patients. METHODS: We queried our PROMIS database for patients undergoing surgery for vasospastic or occlusive disease over a 4.5-year period. Inclusion criteria were preoperative, early (average 3 weeks) and late (average 6 months) postoperative PROMIS PF and/or UE, PI, and Depression scores. The change in PROMIS scores was calculated for each time point. Changes in PROMIS scores were compared with minimal clinically important difference estimates. RESULTS: We identified 13 patients undergoing 13 surgical interventions that met inclusion criteria. More than one-half of our patients were men (n = 7 [54%]), and more than one-half of the surgeries (n = 7 [54%]) were for isolated occlusive diagnoses, with the remainder for vasospastic disease. At short-term postoperative follow-up, the change in PROMIS PF, UE, PI, and Depression scores was -6.34 (SD: 9.13), -6.81 (SD: 9.61), 3.16 (SD: 5.78), and -3.05 (SD: 8.37), respectively. At mid-term postoperative follow-up, the change in PROMIS PF, UE, PI, and Depression scores was 4.45 (SD: 10.33), 8.04 (SD: 13.84), -7.03 (SD: 7.06), and -12.27 (SD: 10.85), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest patients undergoing surgical treatment for upper extremity ischemia experience a worsening of functional symptoms initially, as expected, followed by notable improvement.