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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity in Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Leadership.

BACKGROUND: Multiple investigations in the past 50 years have documented a lack of racial/ethnic and gender diversity in the orthopaedic surgery workforce when compared with other specialties. Studies in other industries suggest that diversification of leadership can help diversify the underlying workforce. This study investigates changes in racial/ethnic and gender diversity of orthopaedic surgery leadership from 2007 to 2019 and compares leadership diversity to that of other surgical and nonsurgical specialties, specifically in terms of chairpersons and program directors. METHODS: Demographic data were collected from The Journal of the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges. Aggregate data were utilized to determine the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of academic leadership for 8 surgical and nonsurgical specialties in 2007 and 2019. Comparative analysis was conducted to identify changes in diversity among chairpersons between the 2 years. Furthermore, current levels of diversity in orthopaedic leadership were compared with those of other specialties. RESULTS: A comparative analysis of diversity among program directors revealed that orthopaedic surgery had significantly lower minority representation (20.5%) when compared with the nonsurgical specialties (adjusted p < 0.01 for all) and, with the exception of neurological surgery, had the lowest proportion of female program directors overall, at 9.0% (adjusted p < 0.001 for all). From 2007 to 2019, orthopaedic surgery experienced no change in minority representation among chairpersons (adjusted p = 0.73) but a significant increase in female representation among chairpersons, from 0.0% (0 of 102) to 4.1% (5 of 122) (adjusted p = 0.04). Lastly, a significant decrease in minority and female representation was observed when comparing the diversity of 2019 orthopaedic faculty to orthopaedic leadership in 2019/2020 (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Diversity in orthopaedic surgery leadership has improved on some key fronts, specifically in gender diversity among chairpersons. However, a significant decrease in minority and gender representation was observed between 2019 orthopaedic faculty and 2019/2020 orthopaedic leadership (p < 0.05), which was a trend shared by other specialties. These findings may suggest a more pervasive problem in diversity of medical leadership that is not only limited to orthopaedic surgery.

Workplace-related musculoskeletal injury trends in the United States from 1992 to 2018.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of our study is to assess workplace-related musculoskeletal (wrMSK) injury trends by utilizing Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. We hypothesize that trunk injuries are the most commonly reported, injuries occur most frequently in the manufacturing sector, and that injury type occurrence differs according to body region affected. METHODS: This study assessed wrMSK injury data provided by the BLS from 1992 to 2018. The three main body regions analyzed were lower extremity (LE), upper extremity (UE), and trunk. Injury data was also assessed by industrial sector (Agriculture, Manufacturing, Healthcare, and Construction) and injury type (fractures, multiple injuries, sprains/strains/tears, tendonitis, cuts/lacerations, pain/soreness, and bruises). Negative binomial regression and pairwise comparisons with a Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment were utilized to compare calculated incidence rate ratios for wrMSK injuries. Exponentiated beta estimates were used to calculate the estimated annual percent changes of wrMSK injuries within each industrial sector. RESULTS: Occurrence of wrMSK injuries from 1992 to 2018 was significantly lower for LE when compared to both upper extremity and trunk (p < 0.001). Manufacturing is shown to be the industry with the most wrMSK injuries in each of UE, LE, and trunk. wrMSK injuries were shown to decrease in each industrial sector over the timespan assessed, with the greatest percent change occurring in the manufacturing sector. Lacerations and tendonitis were the most common diagnosis types in UE, while pain/soreness and strains/sprains/tears were most common in trunk and bruises were most common in LE. DISCUSSION: From 1992 to 2018, trunk injuries were the most frequently occurring wrMSK injury, but not to a significantly higher degree than upper extremity injuries. wrMSK injury types that may require orthopedic surgical care affect specific body regions to different degrees, with cuts/lacerations and tendonitis most commonly affecting the upper extremity. Thus, it appears that wrMSK injuries in the upper extremity are of particular importance from an orthopedic care perspective.

Establishing Age-calibrated Normative PROMIS Scores for Hand and Upper Extremity Clinic.

The purpose of our study is to investigate differences in normative PROMIS upper extremity function (PROMIS-UE), physical function (PROMIS-PF), and pain interference (PROMIS-PI) scores across age cohorts in individuals without upper extremity disability. METHODS: Individuals without upper extremity disability were prospectively enrolled. Subjects were administered PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI forms. Retrospective PROMIS data for eligible subjects were also utilized. The enrolled cohort was divided into age groups: 20-39, 40-59, and 60-79 years old. ANOVA, ceiling and floor effect analysis, and kurtosis and skewness statistics were performed to assess PROMIS scores trends with age. RESULTS: This study included 346 individuals. In the 20-39 age group, mean PROMIS scores were 56.2 ± 6.1, 59.8 ± 6.9, and 43.1 ± 6.7 for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI, respectively. In the "40-59" age group, mean PROMIS computer adaptive test scores were 53.3 ± 7.5, 55.3 ± 7.6, and 46.6 ± 7.8 for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI, respectively. In the 60-79 age group, mean PROMIS scores were 48.4 ± 7.6, 48.5 ± 5.6, and 48.7 ± 6.9 for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI, respectively. Differences in mean PROMIS scores were significant across all PROMIS domains and age cohorts (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Younger individuals without hand or upper extremity disability show higher normative PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PF scores and lower PROMIS-PI scores, indicating greater function and less pain than older counterparts. A universal reference PROMIS score of 50 appears suboptimal for clinical assessment and decision-making in the hand and upper extremity clinic.

Are orthopaedic providers willing to work overtime to address COVID-19-related patient backlogs and financial deficits?

AIMS: COVID-19-related patient care delays have resulted in an unprecedented patient care backlog in the field of orthopaedics. The objective of this study is to examine orthopaedic provider preferences regarding the patient care backlog and financial recovery initiatives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An orthopaedic research consortium at a multi-hospital tertiary care academic medical system developed a three-part survey examining provider perspectives on strategies to expand orthopaedic patient care and financial recovery. Section 1 asked for preferences regarding extending clinic hours, section 2 assessed surgeon opinions on expanding surgical opportunities, and section 3 questioned preferred strategies for departmental financial recovery. The survey was sent to the institution's surgical and nonoperative orthopaedic providers. RESULTS: In all, 73 of 75 operative (n = 55) and nonoperative (n = 18) providers responded to the survey. A total of 92% of orthopaedic providers (n = 67) were willing to extend clinic hours. Most providers preferred extending clinic schedule until 6pm on weekdays. When asked about extending surgical block hours, 96% of the surgeons (n = 53) were willing to extend operating room (OR) block times. Most surgeons preferred block times to be extended until 7pm (63.6%, n = 35). A majority of surgeons (53%, n = 29) believe that over 50% of their surgical cases could be performed at an ambulatory surgery centre (ASC). Of the strategies to address departmental financial deficits, 85% of providers (n = 72) were willing to work extra hours without a pay cut. CONCLUSION: Most orthopaedic providers are willing to help with patient care backlogs and revenue recovery by working extended hours instead of having their pay reduced. These findings provide insights that can be incorporated into COVID-19 recovery strategies. Level of Evidence: III Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):562-568.

Assessing Orthopedic Patient Preferences for Mandated Virtual Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Elective Virtual Care in Non-Pandemic Circumstances.

The purpose of this study was to compare orthopedic patient preferences for mandated virtual care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and elective virtual care during non-pandemic circumstances. An orthopedic virtual care questionnaire was administered to adult orthopedic patients undergoing their first orthopedic virtual visit between March 15, 2020, and May 18, 2020. The questionnaire had 13 items rated on a 1-to-5 Likert scale ("strongly agree" to "strongly disagree"). Responses were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Patients showed higher preferences for mandated virtual care during the pandemic when compared with elective virtual care during non-pandemic circumstances (2.25±1.31 vs 4.10±1.25, P<.0001) and also preferred virtual visits in other specialties compared with orthopedics (2.17±1.35 vs 2.79±1.42, P<.0001). Patients older than 50 years were more likely to view virtual care as the best option during the pandemic (2.06±1.25 vs 2.48±1.35, P<.0165) and equally as effective as in-person visits in non-pandemic circumstances (2.45±1.36 vs 2.83±1.18, P<.0150). Female patients were more likely to pursue future orthopedic virtual visits (2.61±1.37 vs 3.07±1.45, P<.0203) and view their virtual visit as equally effective as an in-person visit (2.47±1.33 vs 2.87±1.18, P<.0181). Orthopedic patient preference for mandated virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be higher than for elective virtual care during non-pandemic circumstances, and older and female patients appear to favor virtual care. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(4):e471-e476.].

Orthopaedic provider perceptions of virtual care : which providers prefer virtual care?

AIMS: The purpose of our study was to determine which groups of orthopaedic providers favour virtual care, and analyze overall orthopaedic provider perceptions of virtual care. We hypothesize that providers with less clinical experience will favour virtual care, and that orthopaedic providers overall will show increased preference for virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic and decreased preference during non-pandemic circumstances. METHODS: An orthopaedic research consortium at an academic medical system developed a survey examining provider perspectives regarding orthopaedic virtual care. Survey items were scored on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree", 5 = "strongly agree") and compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Providers with less experience were more likely to recommend virtual care for follow-up visits (3.61 on the Likert scale (SD 0.95) vs 2.90 (SD 1.23); p = 0.006) and feel that virtual care was essential to patient wellbeing (3.98 (SD 0.95) vs 3.00 (SD 1.16); p < 0.001) during the pandemic. Less experienced providers also viewed virtual visits as providing a similar level of care as in-person visits (2.41 (SD 1.02) vs 1.76 (SD 0.87); p = 0.006) and more time-efficient than in-person visits (3.07 (SD 1.19) vs 2.34 (SD 1.14); p = 0.012) in non-pandemic circumstances. During the pandemic, most providers viewed virtual care as effective in providing essential care (83.6%, n = 51) and wanted to schedule patients for virtual care follow-up (82.2%, n = 50); only 10.9% (n = 8) of providers preferred virtual visits in non-pandemic circumstances. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic providers with less clinical experience seem to favourably view virtual care both during the pandemic and under non-pandemic circumstances. Providers in general appear to view virtual care positively during the pandemic but are less accommodating towards it in non-pandemic circumstances. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):405-410.

Manufacturing Workers Have a Higher Incidence of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: It is unclear whether clerical or labor-type work is more associated with risk for developing work-related carpal tunnel syndrome (WrCTS). METHODS: National employment, demographic, and injury data were examined from the Bureau of Labor Statistics databases for the years 2003 to 2018. Injuries for clerical and labor industries were compared using linear regression, two-group t test, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis. RESULTS: WrCTS injuries are decreasing over time (B = -1002.62, P < 0.001). The labor industry demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of WrCTS when compared with the clerical industries (P < 0.001). Within labor industries, the manufacturing industry had the highest incidence of WrCTS over time (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed WrCTS injuries have declined over time. Additionally, our findings may suggest that the labor industry has a stronger association with WrCTS than the clerical industry.