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.

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.

Many patients fail to achieve MCID for PROMIS upper extremity and pain interference following nonoperative management of rotator cuff tears.

Background: Efficacy of nonoperative treatment for rotator cuff tears has been debated, especially for full-thickness tears. The purpose of this study was to a) define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of nonoperative treatment with regard to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) and upper extremity (UE), and b) determine the proportion of patients with both partial and full-thickness tears (PTRCT, FTRCT) who achieve this improvement following initial nonoperative treatment. We hypothesized that >75% of PTRCT and FTRTC patients would achieve MCID for PROMIS PI and UE. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating nonoperatively managed patients with image-confirmed PTRCT and FTRCT. Treatment modalities and follow-up PROMIS scores at least 6 months after their initial visit were recorded. Using a distribution technique, MCID was calculated. Results: A total of 111 FTRCT and 68 PTRCT patients were included with at least 6 months of follow-up. At 6 months from initial presentation, the MCID for PROMIS UE was 3.75 and 3.95 for FTRCT and PTRCT patients, respectively. For PROMIS PI, the MCID was 3.35 and 3.90 for FTRCT and PTRCT, respectively. In total, 41% of FTRCT and 41% of PTRCT achieved MCID for PROMIS UE. Thirty-four percent of FTRCT and 35% of PTRCT achieved MCID for PROMIS PI. Conclusion: The majority of patients undergoing nonoperative treatment for supraspinatus/infraspinatus rotator cuff tears did not achieve MCID at 6 months for PROMIS PI (34% for FTRCT and 35% for PTRCT) or UE (41% for FTRCT and 41% for PTRCT).

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.

Pre-Visit Digital Messaging Improves Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Participation Prior to the Orthopaedic Ambulatory Visit: Results from a Double-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are metrics that assess physical health, mental health, pain, and satisfaction. However, PROM collection in orthopaedic clinics presents numerous logistical and financial challenges. These challenges are reduced when PROMs are completed before clinic encounters, relieving the workflow constraints of in-office PROM collection. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of 3 different methods with respect to pre-visit electronic PROM completion. METHODS: Consecutive adult orthopaedic patients with no previous PROM participation were enrolled. Patients who registered with the electronic medical record (EMR) patient portal (MyChart) and with active e-mail addresses were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms: control (no pre-visit messages), MyChart (EMR patient portal pre-visit messages), and e-mail (e-mail pre-visit messages). The primary outcome measure was pre-visit PROM completion rates in orthopaedic patients, and the secondary outcome measures were time to pre-visit PROM form completion and PROM form completion rates according to patient demographic characteristics. By default, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms were available for completion through the portal by 7 days before scheduled visits. Pre-visit messages were sent 7 days prior to the scheduled visit except in the control group, with reminders sent 3 days prior if still not completed. The patients in each arm who completed all assigned forms were labeled as having total PROM completion, and those who completed at least 1 completed form were considered as having partial PROM completion. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess differences in PROM completion rates between study arms. Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to compare the date of the form completion. RESULTS: A total of 291 patients were included. The pre-visit total completion rates for assigned PROMs were higher in the MyChart arm (49% of 97 patients; p = 0.005) and the e-mail arm (52% of 100 patients; p = 0.002) in comparison with the control arm (30% of 94 patients). Male patients were more likely than female patients to have partial pre-visit PROM completion (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; p = 0.03), and Caucasian patients were more likely to have partial pre-visit PROM completion than African American patients (OR, 2.28; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic patients receiving either e-mail or patient portal messages demonstrated higher pre-visit PROM completion rates. Pre-visit messaging appears to be a useful strategy for increasing PROM completion rates and limiting the clinical workflow strain imposed by in-clinic PROM administration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Accurately Determines Bundle Cost for Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost of the episode of care for primary rotator cuff repair (RCR) from day of surgery to 90 days postoperatively using the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) method. The secondary purpose of this study was to identify the main drivers of cost for both phases of care. METHODS: This retrospective case series study used the TDABC method to determine the bundled cost of care for an RCR. First, a process map of the RCR episode of care was constructed in order to determine drivers of fixed (i.e., rent, power), direct variable (i.e., healthcare personnel), and indirect costs (i.e., marketing, building maintenance). The study was performed at a Midwestern tertiary care medical system, and patients were included in the study if they underwent an RCR from January 2018 to January 2019 with at least 90 days of postoperative follow-up. In this article, all costs were included, but we did not account for fees to provider and professional groups. RESULTS: The TDABC method calculated a cost of $10,569 for a bundled RCR, with 76% arising from the operative phase and 24% from the postoperative phase. The main driver of cost within the operative phase was the direct fixed costs, which accounted for 35% of the cost in this phase, and the largest contributor to cost within this category was the cost of implants, which accounted for 55%. In the postoperative phase of care, physical therapy visits were the greatest contributor to cost at 59%. CONCLUSION: In a bundled cost of care for RCR, the largest cost driver occurs on the day of surgery for direct fixed costs, in particular, the implant. Physical therapy represents over half of the costs of the episode of care. Better understanding the specific cost of care for RCR will facilitate optimization with appropriately designed payment models and policies that safeguard the interests of the patient, physician, and payer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, therapeutic case series.

Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference and significant clinical benefit in PROMIS computer adaptive test domains in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has emerged as a valid and efficient means of collecting outcomes in patients with rotator cuff tears. The purpose of this study was to establish threshold score changes to determine minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in PROMIS computer adaptive test (CAT) scores following rotator cuff repair (RCR). Additionally, we sought to identify potential risk factors for failing to achieve MCID and SCB. METHODS: Patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR were identified over a 24-month period. Only patients who completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT assessments were included in this cohort. PROMIS CAT forms for upper extremity physical function (PROMIS-UE), pain interference (PROMIS-PI), and depression (PROMIS-D) were used with a minimum of 1.5-year follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed to determine threshold score changes to determine anchor-based MCID and SCB, as well as risk factors for failure to achieve significant clinical improvement following surgery. RESULTS: Of 198 eligible patients, 168 (84.8%) were included in analysis. ΔPROMIS-UE values of 5.8 and 9.7 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.906 and 0.949, respectively) and ΔPROMIS-PI values of -11.4 and -12.9 (AUC = 0.875 and 0.938, respectively) were identified as threshold predictors of MCID and SCB achievement. On average, 81%, 65%, and 55% of patients achieved MCID for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D whereas 71%, 61%, and 38% of patients in the cohort, respectively, achieved SCB. MCID achievement in PROMIS-UE significantly differed according to risk factors, including smoking status (likelihood ratio [LR]: 9.8, P = .037), tear size (LR: 10.4, P < .001), distal clavicle excision (LR: 6.1, P = .005), and prior shoulder surgery (LR: 19.2, P < .001). Factors influencing SCB achievement for PROMIS-UE were smoking status (LR: 9.3, P = .022), tear size (LR: 8.0, P = .039), and prior shoulder surgery (11.9, P < .001). Significantly different rates of MCID and SCB achievement in PROMIS-PI for smoking status (LR: 7.0, P = .030, and LR: 5.2, P = .045) and prior shoulder surgery (LR: 9.1, P = .002, and LR: 7.4, P = .006) were also identified. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The majority of patients showed clinically significant improvements that exceeded the established MCID for PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PI following RCR. Patients with larger tear sizes, a history of prior shoulder surgery, tobacco users, and those who received concomitant distal clavicle excision were at risk for failing to achieve MCID in PROMIS-UE. Additionally, smokers and patients who underwent prior shoulder surgery demonstrated significantly lower improvements in pain scores following surgery.

Online access to spine care: do institutions advertise themselves as multidisciplinary?

Background: The primary aim of our study is to assess the extent to which healthcare systems advertise their spine care programs as multidisciplinary and furthermore clarify whether these institutions accurately reflect this description in their online access to spine care. The secondary aim of our study is to determine what proportion of institutions enable patients to self-schedule appointments online and select providers. Methods: Newsweek's 2021 list entitled "Best Hospitals 2021-United States" was utilized to obtain an extensive list of top-rated hospitals in the country. Institutions were considered to be advertising themselves as multidisciplinary if they used this term or similar wording (such as "care encompassing broad range of specialties", "interdisciplinary", "multidisciplinary"). Each institution's website was additionally assessed for the existence of: (I) a standard overview website or multiple individual sites for respective spine-focused divisions (i.e., orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation, anesthesiology); (II) online self-scheduling; (III) triage questions prior to requesting appointments; and (IV) selection choice for specific providers. Results: In total, 334 institutions were included in analysis, with 66% utilizing multidisciplinary terminology in describing their institution on their website. However, most institutions only had a standard overview website with no separate websites for respective divisions (54%). Institutions described as multidisciplinary were more likely to have a link on a central page to each division (31% vs. 4%, P<0.001). No significant differences were found between institutions described as multidisciplinary and those not described as such when considering triage questions, online self-scheduling, and choice of provider. Conclusions: Though the majority of spine care centers are described as multidisciplinary, the patient experience when navigating websites online does not always meet this standard. Further progress in website design, automated triaging, and online scheduling are needed to truly achieve multidisciplinary care.

Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Exist Between Day of Surgical Scheduling and Day of Surgery.

PURPOSE: To examine trends in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores among orthopedic sports medicine patients undergoing surgery who completed PROMIS forms both in the ambulatory (preoperative) setting at the time of surgical scheduling, as well as on the day of surgery (perioperative) prior to their procedure. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing various sports medicine-related surgeries were recruited. Patients were included if they were scheduled for surgery and completed preoperative PROMIS on the day of surgical scheduling and on the day of surgery. Patients were excluded if they refused the questionnaire or had been administered perioperative anesthesia, which would interfere with questionnaire completion. Paired samples t-tests were run between preoperative and perioperative PROMIS scores to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: 153 patients were included with an average age of 46.5 years. The average (SD) time between completion of PROMIS questionnaires was 46.5 (44.4) days. The absolute value change in scores between preoperative and perioperative visits was 4.09 for PROMIS UE, 3.59 for PROMIS PF, 3.67 for PROMIS PI, and 4.13 for PROMIS D. The overall net change of scores between preoperative and perioperative visits were -.57 for PROMIS UE CAT, .16 points for PROMIS PF CAT, -.85 points for PROMIS PI CAT, and -2.14 points for PROMIS D CAT. Statistically significant differences in preoperative and perioperative PROMIS PI (P =.042) and PROMIS D (P =.004) scores were found. CONCLUSIONS: Health states-as measured by PROMIS CAT forms completed among patients undergoing orthopedic surgery-can either improve or worsen preoperatively between the time of administration in both the ambulatory and perioperative setting. Despite the existence of these preoperative trends, it is important to consider patient and surgery-specific causes, such as the anatomic region, type of surgical intervention, and timing of preoperative PROMIS administration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prognostic.

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.

Older, Male Orthopaedic Surgeons From Southern Geographies Prescribe Higher Doses of Post-Operative Narcotics Than do their Counterparts: A Medicare Population Study.

PURPOSE: We wanted to evaluate opioid prescribing patterns among orthopaedic surgeons and to identify demographics that may be associated with more extensive opioid prescribing habits that could be candidates for targeted education policies. METHODS: Medicare Part D prescriber and prescription information for the most recent available year, 2017, was accessed via a publicly available database offered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Number of total prescriptions, number of opioid prescriptions, and the total days' supply of opioids prescribed were analyzed for each of 19,219 orthopaedic surgeons. Demographics and board certification status were also recorded. RESULTS: Orthopaedic surgeons who wrote the most opioid prescriptions (>400 per year) also wrote the longest prescription durations (14.1 days/prescription, P < .05 for all comparisons). Surgeons with more than 30 years of experience wrote the longest prescriptions (11.8 days/prescription; P < .001). Male surgeons wrote more opioid prescriptions than female surgeons (151 vs 95, respectively; P < .001). However, female surgeons wrote longer prescriptions than male surgeons (7.5 days/prescription vs 6.1 days/prescription, respectively; P = .01). Surgeons from southern states wrote the most opioid prescriptions (1,386,897) and the longest prescriptions, with an average of 13.0 days per prescription, whereas western states wrote the shortest prescriptions at 10.4 days per prescription (P = .004). CONCLUSION: There are demographic correlations between orthopaedic surgeons and opioid prescribing patterns. In particular, male, older southern surgeons prescribe the highest volumes of opioids. This provides an opportunity for targeted education versus overarching, general policies. Potential directions for future investigation can focus on assessing recent trends in opioid prescriptions among orthopaedic providers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Testing (PROMIS CAT) Scores Predict Achievement of Minimum Clinically Important Difference Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Anchor-Based Methodology.

PURPOSE: To determine the change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Testing (PROMIS CAT) scores for physical function, pain interference, and depression that constitute minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using an anchor-based technique and to identify pre-operative clinical thresholds in anchor-based MCID that predict likelihood of achieving MCID following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Adult patients aged 18 years or older undergoing ACL reconstruction that completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT assessments and an anchor-based questionnaire were identified over a 23-month period. Anchor-based MCID was determined for PROMIS CAT forms for physical function (PROMIS PF CAT), pain interference (PROMIS PI CAT), and depression (PROMIS D CAT). RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were included for statistical analysis, with pre-operative PROMIS CAT forms completed 27.9 ± 31.2 days before surgery and 492.5 ± 219.9 days postoperatively on average. Statistically significant improvements were observed for all PROMIS CAT domains. PROMIS PF CAT improved from 39.5 ± 8.2 to 55.0 ± 9.7 (P < .0005), PROMIS PI CAT from 59.8 ± 7.2 to 48.2 ± 8.3 (P < .0005), and PROMIS D CAT from 47.9 ± 8.8 to 41.5 ± 8.6 (P < .0005). Anchor-based MCID for each PROMIS CAT form was calculated to be +4.5, -5.4, and -4.1 for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT, respectively. Mean difference between preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT scores exceeded MCID for all domains. The percentage of patients achieving MCID for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT was 85%, 72%, and 55%, respectively. After introduction of 95% specificity cutoffs, the percentage of patients achieving MCID for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT increased to 100% (<35.6 cutoff score), 92% (>65.7 cutoff score), and 83% (>57.5 cutoff score), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to anchor-based analysis of PROMIS CAT MCID, ACL reconstruction is effective in improving physical function, pain interference, and depression symptoms. In addition, preoperative PROMIS CAT scores can predict the likelihood of achieving MCID postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic case series.

Comprehensive Arthroscopic Shoulder Stabilization in the Lateral Decubitus Position.

Arthroscopic shoulder stabilization offers a safe and effective means for restoring glenohumeral mechanics in the setting of shoulder instability. Modern arthroscopic techniques have allowed improved access and efficiency when treating patients with shoulder instability. However, access to certain areas of the labrum and the creation of safe accessory portals can still prove difficult for the arthroscopic surgeon. Currently, there is debate as to the ideal patient position, portal location, equipment, and technique for addressing anterior-inferior labral pathology. The following article presents a safe and effective approach to accessing the labrum for treatment of shoulder instability in the lateral decubitus position. In addition, this paper highlights the use of accessory portals, including a percutaneous "7-o'clock" portal for suture anchor placement, along with multiple types of suture anchor and suture shuttling techniques.

Valproate inhibits glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in beta cells.

Valproate (VPA), an FDA approved anti-epileptic drug with a half-life of 12-18 h in humans, has been shown to perturb the vacuolar proton pump (vH+-ATPase) function in yeasts by inhibiting myo-inositol phosphate synthase, the first and rate-limiting enzyme in inositol biosynthesis, thereby resulting in inositol depletion. vH+-ATPase transfers protons (H+) across cell membranes, which help maintain pH gradients within cells necessary for various cellular functions including secretion. This proton pump has a membrane (V0) and a soluble cytosolic (V1) domain, with C-subunit associated with V1. In secretory cells such as neurons and insulin-secreting beta cells, vH+-ATPase acidifies vesicles essential for secretion. In this study, we demonstrate that exposure of insulin-secreting Min6 cells to a clinical dose of VPA results in inositol depletion and loss of co-localization of subunit C of vH+-ATPase with insulin-secreting granules. Consequently, a reduction of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion is observed following VPA exposure. These results merit caution and the reassessment of the clinical use of VPA.