An Inclusive Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Orthopedic Surgery Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing attention, disparities in outcomes for Black and Hispanic patients undergoing orthopedic surgery are widening. In other racial-ethnic minority groups, outcomes often go unreported. We sought to quantify disparities in surgical outcomes among Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients across multiple orthopedic subspecialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify all surgical procedures performed by an orthopedic surgeon from 2014 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the impact of race and ethnicity on 30-day medical complications, readmission, reoperation, and mortality, while adjusting for orthopedic subspecialty and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Across 1,512,480 orthopedic procedures, all patients who were not White were less likely to have arthroplasty-related procedures (P<.001), and Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian or Alaskan Native patients were more likely to have trauma-related procedures (P<.001). American Indian or Alaskan Native (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.005; 95% CI, 1.001-1.009; P=.011) and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (AOR, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.005-1.014; P<.001) patients had higher odds of major medical complications compared with White patients. American Indian or Alaskan Native patients had higher risk of reoperation (AOR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.002-1.008; P=.002) and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients had higher odds of mortality (AOR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.005; P=.019) compared with White patients. CONCLUSION: Disparities regarding surgical outcome and utilization rates persist across orthopedic surgery. American Indian or Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients, who are under-represented in research, have lower rates of arthroplasty but higher odds of medical complication, reoperation, and mortality. This study highlights the importance of including these patients in orthopedic research to affect policy-related discussions. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):e131-e138.].

National analysis of over and under-triage rates in relation to trauma population risk factors and associated outcomes across various levels trauma centers.

INTRODUCTION: Over and under-triage represent a misallocation of resources that can affect patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate over and under-triage rates in relation to risk factors and associated outcomes of trauma patients nationwide. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program from 2017 to 2020. Multivariable regression models were used to assess predictors of over-triage (activation when unnecessary) and under-triage (limited activation when full activation was necessary). RESULTS: 22.2 % (32,782) of the study population were over-triaged and 20.3 % (29,996) were under-triaged. Most over-triaged patients were Black, with Medicaid, or had a penetrating injury, whereas most under-triaged patients were White, with private/commercial insurance, or had a blunt injury. With covariates adjusted for, Pacific Islander (p = 0.024) and American Indian patients (p = 0.015) were associated with higher odds of over-triage, and Hispanic patients had higher odds of under-triage (p<0.001). Patients with Medicare (p<0.001) had higher odds of over-triage, and patients with private/commercial insurance (p<0.001) had higher odds of under-triage compared to Medicaid patients. Patients in level II (p<0.001) and level III (p<0.001) trauma hospitals were associated with higher odds of over-triage. CONCLUSION: Pacific Islander and American Indian patients, Medicare, and level II and III trauma centers are at increased risk of over-triage rates, while Hispanic and privately insured trauma patients had a higher risk for under-triage. Future studies should further investigate factors contributing to poor outcomes linked to under-triage practices and methods to improve consistency and standardization of triage tools across various levels of trauma centers.

Mechanisms and Severity of Exercise Intolerance Following COVID-19 and Similar Viral Infections: A Comparative Review.

Approximately 19% of the population is suffering from "Long COVID", also known as post-acute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (PASC), which often results in exercise intolerance. As COVID infections continue to be common, studying the long-term consequences of coronavirus disease (COVID) on physical function has become increasingly important. This narrative review will aim to summarize the current literature surrounding exercise intolerance following COVID infection in terms of mechanism, current management approaches, and comparison with similar conditions and will aim to define limitations in the current literature. Multiple organ systems have been implicated in the onset of long-lasting exercise intolerance post-COVID, including cardiac impairment, endothelial dysfunction, decreased VO2 max and oxygen extraction, deconditioning due to bed rest, and fatigue. Treatment modalities for severe COVID have also been shown to cause myopathy and/or worsen deconditioning. Besides COVID-specific pathophysiology, general febrile illness as commonly experienced during infection will cause hypermetabolic muscle catabolism, impaired cooling, and dehydration, which acutely cause exercise intolerance. The mechanisms of exercise intolerance seen with PASC also appear similar to post-infectious fatigue syndrome and infectious mononucleosis. However, the severity and duration of the exercise intolerance seen with PASC is greater than that of any of the isolated mechanisms described above and thus is likely a combination of the proposed mechanisms. Physicians should consider post-infectious fatigue syndrome (PIFS), especially if fatigue persists after six months following COVID recovery. It is important for physicians, patients, and social systems to anticipate exercise intolerance lasting for weeks to months in patients with long COVID. These findings underscore the importance of long-term management of patients with COVID and the need for ongoing research to identify effective treatments for exercise intolerance in this population. By recognizing and addressing exercise intolerance in patients with long COVID, clinicians can provide proper supportive interventions, such as exercise programs, physical therapy, and mental health counseling, to improve patient outcomes.

National Analysis of Health care Related Costs for Health care Workers and Administrators Over the Past Decade: Toward Establishing Sustainable and Cost Effective Health care System.

BACKGROUND: We aim to investigate the costs associated with growth in the administrators, health care staff, and physicians to provide direction to establish a sustainable and cost-effective U.S. health care system. METHODS: Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, particularly the Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, were utilized from 2009 to 2020. Wages and employment of medical and health service managers (administrators), health care practitioners and technical operations (health care staff), and physicians were used to calculate the total cost. RESULTS: Administrator wages have grown similarly to health care staff wages (-4.40 vs -3.01%, P = .454) and physician wages (-4.40 vs -3.29%, P = .672). Additionally, there has been a similar increase in health care staff employment (9.91 vs 14.23%, P = .269) and physician employment (9.91 vs 15.35%, P = .252) compared to administrator employment. Overall, the total growth in administrator cost is similar to the growth in total health care staff cost (6.23 vs 11.80, P = .104) and total physician cost (6.23 vs 13.02%, P = .079). In 2020, physicians had the highest employment growth but the smallest wage increase. CONCLUSION: Although health care staff experienced a greater percent growth in employment and cost per employee than administrators since 2009, the cost per administrator remains greater than that of health care staff. Understanding differences in wages and costs is essential to reduce health care spending without compromising access, delivery, and quality of health care services.