Orthopedic Specialty Hospital Reasons for Transfer and Subsequent Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Surgical specialty hospitals provide patients, surgeons, and staff with a streamlined approach to elective surgery but may not be equipped to handle all complications arising postoperatively. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the immediate postoperative and 90-day outcomes of patients who were transferred from a high-volume specialty hospital following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: All patients who were admitted to one orthopedic specialty hospital for primary THA or TKA between January 2015 and December 2019, and subsequently transferred to a tertiary care hospital, were identified and propensity matched to nontransferred patients. Emergency department visits, complications, readmissions, mortality, and revisions within 90 days of surgery were identified for each group. RESULTS: There were 26 TKAs (0.78%) and 20 THAs (0.48%) transferred, representing 0.62% of all primary THAs and TKAs performed over the study duration. Arrhythmia and chest pain were the most common reasons for transfer. Ninety-day readmissions were significantly higher in the transfer group (15.2% vs 4.3%, P = .020) with an odds ratio for readmission after transfer of 3.9 (95% confidence interval 1.3-12.4). Overall complications and orthopedic complications did not differ significantly, although transferred patients had a higher rate of medical complications (13.0% vs 2.2%, P = .008) with an odds ratio of 6.7 (95% confidence interval 1.6-28.2). CONCLUSION: Transfer from a specialty hospital is rarely required following primary TKA and THA. Although not at increased risk for orthopedic complications, these transferred patients are at increased risk for readmissions and medical complications within the first 90 days of their care, necessitating increased vigilance.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes After Total Hip Arthroplasty Between an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital and General Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare perioperative outcomes for total hip arthroplasty (THA) at an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) and a general hospital (GH). METHODS: A retrospective study of all primary THAs was performed at an OSH and GH in 2014. A cohort of GH patients was manually matched to the OSH by clinical and demographic variables blinded to outcome. These matched groups were then unblinded and compared by length of stay (LOS), 90-day readmissions, mortality, reoperations, and inpatient rehabilitation utilization. RESULTS: The 329 THAs at the OSH were matched with 329 THAs at the GH. Average LOS for THA at the OSH was 1.10 ± 0.51 days compared with 1.27 ± 0.93 (P = .004) at the GH. There were 2 OSH readmissions vs 5 GH readmissions (P = .25). There were 3 OSH reoperations vs 4 GH reoperations (P = .70). There were no mortalities. Three OSH patients used inpatient rehabilitation vs 13 GH patients (P = .011). When GH outlier and rehabilitation patients were excluded, the difference in LOS was not significant (1.08 ± 0.47 vs 1.13 ± 0.55 days; t = 1.331; P = .184). Two OSH patients required transfer to a GH postoperatively (angina and gastrointestinal bleed). CONCLUSION: This study found that perioperative outcomes for THA were equally good at the OSH and GH. Rehabilitation utilization was higher at the GH. The LOS at both facilities was lower than the national average of 2.9 days. When rehabilitation patients and outliers were excluded, there was no significant difference in LOS between the two.

Are Preoperative Serologic Type and Screen Tests Necessary for Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients in Specialty Surgical Hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Blood loss during total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been a major concern requiring routine preoperative patient type and screen (T&S); however, with the implementation of blood conserving therapy, a marked decrease for perioperative transfusions has been observed. Many TJAs are now being performed in T&S mandated specialty surgical hospitals (SSHs) that lack on-site blood banks; therefore, the purpose of our study was to determine whether T&S (1) is necessary in SSH for TJA patients and (2) identifies patient risk factors associated with perioperative blood transfusion in SSH. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 1034 consecutive primary TJAs performed between 2013 and 2014 at a 12-bed SSH who all received T&S. Patients were matched (1:1) to 964 inpatient TJA patients performed at a university hospital without routine T&S. Data on surgery type, patient demographics, hemoglobin and hematocrit results, and transfusion rates were collected. Multivariate logistic regression identified perioperative transfusion risk factors. RESULTS: Overall transfusion rates for the matched SSH (1.8% [17/964]) and university hospital populations (2.9% [28/964]) were similar (P = .13), with no emergent transfusions. SSH transfusion rates for simultaneous bilateral THA, simultaneous bilateral TKA, unilateral THA, and unilateral TKA were 21.1% (4/19), 3.1% (4/128), 2.7% (12/439), and 0.0% (0/448), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression identified unilateral THA (P ≤ .001), simultaneous bilateral TJA (P = .001), age (P = .05), and abnormal preoperative hemoglobin (P = .02) as significant transfusion risk factors at SSH. CONCLUSION: Due to low transfusion rates and lack of emergency transfusions, we recommend routinely ordering T&S for bilateral THA but not for unilateral TJA patients, at SSHs.

Are the Affordable Care Act Restrictions Warranted? A Contemporary Statewide Analysis of Physician-Owned Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act placed a moratorium on physician-owned hospital (POH) expansion. Concern exists that POHs increase costs and target healthier patients. However, limited historical data support these claims and are not weighed against contemporary measures of quality and patient satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality, costs, and efficiency across hospital types. METHODS: One hundred forty-five hospitals in a single state were analyzed: 8 POHs; 16 proprietary hospitals (PHs); and 121 general, full-service acute care hospitals (ACHs). Multiyear data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Cost Report and the statewide Health Care Cost Containment Council were analyzed. RESULTS: ACHs had a higher percentage of Medicare patients as a share of net patient revenue, with similar Medicare volume. POHs garnered significantly higher patient satisfaction: mean Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems summary rating was 4.86 (vs PHs: 2.88, ACHs: 3.10; P = .002). POHs had higher average total episode spending ($22,799 vs PHs: $18,284, ACHs: $18,856), with only $1435 of total spending on post-acute care (vs PHs: $3867, ACHs: $3378). Medicare spending per beneficiary and Medicare spending per beneficiary performance rates were similar across all hospital types, as were complication and readmission rates related to hip or knee surgery. CONCLUSION: POHs had better patient satisfaction, with higher total costs compared to PHs and ACHs. A focus on efficiency, patient satisfaction, and ratio of inpatient-to-post-acute care spending should be weighted carefully in policy decisions that might impact access to quality health care.

Reasons for transfer and subsequent outcomes among patients undergoing elective spine surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital.

Objective: To evaluate the reasons for transfer as well as the 90-day outcomes of patients who were transferred from a high-volume orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) following elective spine surgery. Materials and Methods: All patients admitted to a single OSH for elective spine surgery from 2014 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Ninety-day complications, readmissions, revisions, and mortality events were collected and a 3:1 propensity match was conducted. Results: Thirty-five (1.5%) of 2351 spine patients were transferred, most commonly for arrhythmia (n = 7; 20%). Thirty-three transferred patients were matched to 99 who were not transferred, and groups had similar rates of complications (18.2% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.228), readmissions (3.0% vs. 4.0%; P = 1.000), and mortality (6.1% vs. 0%; P = 0.061). Conclusion: Overall, this study demonstrates a low transfer rate following spine surgery. Risk factors should continue to be optimized in order to decrease patient risks in the postoperative period at an OSH.

Pattern of Violence Among Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care Government Hospital and a Multi-Specialty Private Hospital in Sagar, India: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background Workplace violence in hospitals is an occupational hazard that affects healthcare workers (HCWs) negatively in many aspects and causes deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship, resulting in providence of substandard healthcare. This study was conducted to compare the pattern of violence in a tertiary care government teaching hospital and a multi-specialty private trust hospital in Sagar district, Madhya Pradesh, India. Methodology After ethical clearance of this cross-sectional, observational study, participants (frontline healthcare workers, including doctors and nurses) were asked about the type, frequency, department, and place of violence, etc., along with its perceived causes, solutions, and arrangements made by hospitals for dealing with it using a pretested, semi-structured questionnaire. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Categorical variables were described using frequency and percentages, and inferential analysis was conducted using the chi-square/Fisher's exact test. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Among the 113 participants, 67 (59.3%) were female, 53 (46.9%) were doctors, and 60 (53.1%) were nurses. The mean age of participants was 30.9±7.3 years. Predominantly verbal, emotional, and physical violence were present in 96.5%, 43.4%, and 6.2% of participants, respectively. Violent incidents against healthcare workers were more frequent in government hospitals as compared to private hospitals. Most healthcare workers (87.6%) tried to resolve violent incidents peacefully, and 1.8% tried to fight back. The most perceived cause of violence in both setups was a lack of morality and literacy among patients and their relatives (i.e., 83.2%), followed by a lack of proper facilities and a lack of trust in healthcare workers. Conclusion Both setups faced a substantial amount of violence. The loopholes in both setups, considering resources, security, and other facilities, are clearly visible, and specific steps must be adopted to protect both systems from violence.

Spine Infections Reduced at Dedicated Orthopaedics and Spine Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies stratified postoperative infection risk by patient comorbidities. However, it is unclear whether the incidence varies by surgical approach in a specialized orthopaedic setting. This study aims to compare infection rates and microbiologic characteristics of postoperative spine infections requiring return to the operating room for debridement by hospital setting: a dedicated orthopaedic and spine hospital versus a general hospital serving multiple surgical specialties. METHODS: The study is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Procedures performed between March 2006 and August 2008 at the multispecialty university hospital were compared with cases at an orthopaedic specialty hospital from September 2008 through August 2016. The surgeons, residents, and patients were similar, but the operative venue changed in 2008. RESULTS: The overall general university hospital infection rate was 2.03%, higher than the overall infection rate at the dedicated orthopaedic and spine hospital of 1.31% (P < .0104). The general university infection rate was 2.27% in the final years of practice, compared with 0.91% at the dedicated orthopaedic and spine hospital (P < .0001) during a recent 2-year time frame. Demographic variables did not significantly differ between the 2 settings. The overall proportion of Gram-negative infection rates was not statistically different (21.7% vs 18.6%), despite an increased proportion of Gram-negative infections at the general university hospital following surgery from an anterior approach. Most of the organisms isolated in both facilities were Staphylococcus species. There was no difference in the seasonality of postoperative spine infections in either setting. CONCLUSIONS: In transitioning from a multispecialty university hospital to a dedicated orthopaedic hospital, the incidence of postoperative spine infections was significantly reduced to 0.91%. Despite the change in venue, the proportion of Gram-negative infections (∼20%) following spine surgery did not significantly change. These results suggest improved infection rates during the course of the last 10 years with consistent proportions of Gram-negative infections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The persistent problem of integrated care in English NHS hospitals.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine whether some aspects of the distinctive Mayo Clinic care model could be translated into English National Health Service (NHS) hospital settings, to overcome the fragmented and episodic nature of non-emergency patient care. Design/methodology/approach The authors used a rapid review to assess the literature on integrated clinical care in hospital settings and critical analysis of links between Mayo Clinic's care model and the organisation's performance and associated patient outcomes. Findings The literature directly concerned with Mayo Clinic's distinctive ethos and approach to patient care is limited in scope and largely confined to "grey" sources or to authors and institutions with links to Mayo Clinic. The authors found only two peer-reviewed articles which offer critical analysis of the contribution of the Mayo model to the performance of the organisation. Research limitations/implications Mayo Clinic is not the only organisation to practice integrated, in-hospital clinical care; however, it is widely regarded as an exemplar. Practical implications There are barriers to implementing a Mayo-style model in English NHS hospitals, but they are not insurmountable and could lead to much better coordination of care for some patients. Social implications The study shows that there is an appetite among NHS patients and staff for better coordinated, multi-specialty care within NHS hospitals. Originality/value In the English NHS integrated care generally aims to improve coordination between primary, community and secondary care, but problems remain of fragmented care for non-emergency hospital patients. Use of a Mayo-type care model, within hospital settings, could offer significant benefits to this patient group, particularly for multi-morbid patients.

Comparing the Treatment Algorithm and Complications for Patients Undergoing an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at a Physician-Owned Specialty Hospital and a University-Owned Tertiary Care Hospital.

The purpose of this case-control study is to compare the treatment algorithm and complication rate for patients who undergo an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a physician-owned specialty hospital to those who undergo surgery at a university-owned tertiary care hospital. Two controls were identified for 77 patients, and no differences in demographic data were identified. The median time between the onset of symptoms and surgery was shorter for patients who had surgery at the tertiary care center than for patients who had surgery at the specialty hospital (26.7 weeks vs 32.7 weeks, P = .0004). Furthermore, a higher percentage of patients who had surgery at the specialty hospital attempted nonoperative treatments than patients who underwent surgery at the tertiary care hospital.

Total Ankle Arthroplasty: Comparing Perioperative Outcomes When Performed at an Orthopaedic Specialty Hospital Versus an Academic Teaching Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The number of total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) performed in the United States has risen significantly in recent years, as has utilization of orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH) to treat healthy patients undergoing elective surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes following TAA at an OSH when compared with a matching population of patients undergoing TAA at an academic teaching hospital (ATH). METHODS: We identified all TAA from January 2014 to December 2014 at the OSH and January 2010 to January 2016 at the ATH. Each OSH patient was manually matched with a corresponding ATH patient by clinical variables. Outcomes analyzed were length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmissions, mortality, reoperation, and inpatient rehabilitation utilization. RESULTS: There were 40 TAA patients in each group. OSH and ATH patients were similar in age, body mass index, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, and gender. Average LOS for TAA at the OSH was 1.28 ± 0.51 compared with 2.03 ± 0.89 (P < .001) at the ATH. There were no OSH patients readmitted within 30 days, compared with 2 ATH patients readmitted (5.0%; P = .15). Two OSH patients (5.0%) and 2 ATH patients (5.0%; P = 1.00) required reoperation. There were no mortalities in either group. There were no OSH patients requiring transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Primary TAA performed at an OSH had significantly shorter LOS when compared with a matched patient treated at an ATH with no significant difference in readmission or reoperation rates and may offer a potential source of significant health care savings. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level III: Retrospective cohort study.

Much ado about nothing? The financial impact of physician-owned specialty hospitals.

The U.S. hospital industry has recently witnessed a number of policy changes aimed at aligning hospital payments to costs and these can be traced to significant concerns regarding selection of profitable patients and procedures by physician-owned specialty hospitals. The policy responses to specialty hospitals have alternated between payment system reforms and outright moratoriums on hospital operations including one in the recently enacted Affordable Care Act. A key issue is whether physician-owned specialty hospitals pose financial strain on the larger group of general hospitals through cream-skimming of profitable patients, yet there is no study that conducts a systematic analysis relating such selection behavior by physician-owners to financial impacts within hospital markets. The current paper takes into account heterogeneity in specialty hospital behavior and finds some evidence of their adverse impact on profit margins of competitor hospitals, especially for-profit hospitals. There is also some evidence of hospital consolidation in response to competitive pressures by specialty hospitals. Overall, these findings underline the importance of the payment reforms aimed at correcting distortions in the reimbursement system that generate incentives for risk-selection among providers groups. The identification techniques will also inform empirical analysis on future data testing the efficacy of these payment reforms.

Healthcare Spending and Performance of Specialty Hospitals: Nationwide Evidence from Colorectal-Anal Specialty Hospitals in South Korea.

PURPOSE: Aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics and performance of colorectal-anal specialty vs. general hospitals for South Korean inpatients with colorectal-anal diseases, and assesses the short-term designation effect of the government's specialty hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nationwide all colorectal-anal disease inpatient claims (n=292158) for 2010-2012 were used to investigate length of stay and inpatient charges for surgical and medical procedures in specialty vs. general hospitals. The patients' claim data were matched to hospital data, and multi-level linear mixed models to account for clustering of patients within hospitals were performed. RESULTS: Inpatient charges at colorectal-anal specialty hospitals were 27% greater per case and 92% greater per day than those at small general hospitals, but the average length of stay was 49% shorter. Colorectal-anal specialty hospitals had shorter length of stay and a higher inpatient charges per day for both surgical and medical procedures, but per case charges were not significantly different. A "specialty" designation effect also found that the colorectal-anal specialty hospitals may have consciously attempted to reduce their length of stay and inpatient charges. Both hospital and patient level factors had significant roles in determining length of stay and inpatient charges. CONCLUSION: Colorectal-anal specialty hospitals have shorter length of stay and higher inpatient charges per day than small general hospitals. A "specialty" designation by government influence performance and healthcare spending of hospitals as well. In order to maintain prosperous specialty hospital system, investigation into additional factors that affect performance, such as quality of care and patient satisfaction should be carried out.

Effects of physician-owned specialized facilities in health care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have investigated physician-owned specialized facilities (specialized hospitals and ambulatory surgery centres). However, the evidence is fragmented and the literature lacks cohesion. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive overview of the effects of physician-owned specialized facilities by synthesizing the findings of published empirical studies. METHODS: Two reviewers independently researched relevant studies using a standardized search strategy. The Institute of Medicine's quality framework (safe, effective, equitable, efficient, patient-centred, and accessible care) was applied in order to evaluate the performance of such facilities. In addition, the impact on the performance of full-service general hospitals was assessed. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the quality of the included studies was satisfactory. Our results show that little evidence exists to confirm the advantages attributed to physician-owned specialized facilities, and their impact on full-service general hospitals remains limited. CONCLUSION: Although data is available on a wide variety of effects, the evidence base is surprisingly thin. There is no compelling evidence available demonstrating the added value of physician-owned specialized facilities in terms of quality or cost of the delivered care. More research is necessary on the relative merits of physician-owned specialized facilities. In addition, their corresponding impact on full-service general hospitals remains unclear. The development of physician-owned specialized facilities should thus be monitored carefully.

An analysis of the inpatient charge and length of stay for patients with joint diseases in Korea: specialty versus small general hospitals.

In 2011, the Korean government designated hospitals with certain structural characteristics as specialty hospitals. This study compared the inpatient charges and length of stay of patients with joint diseases treated at these specialty hospitals with those of patients treated at small general hospitals. In addition, the study investigated whether the designation of certain hospitals as specialty hospitals had an effect on inpatient charges and length of stay. Multi-level models were used to perform regression analyses on inpatient claims data (N=268,809) for 2010-2012 because of the hierarchical structure of the data. The inpatient charge at specialty hospitals was 19% greater than that at small general hospitals, but the length of stay was 21% shorter. After adjusting for patient and hospital level confounders, specialty hospitals had a higher inpatient charge (34.6%) and a reduced length of stay (31.7%). However, the effect of specialty hospital designation on inpatient charge (2.7% higher) and length of stay (2.3% longer) was relatively smaller. Among the patient characteristics, female gender, age, and severity of illness were positively associated with inpatient charge and length of stay. In terms of location, hospitals in metropolitan area had higher inpatient charges (5.5%), but much shorter length of stay (-14%). Several structural factors, such as occupancy rate, bed size, number of outpatients and nurses were positively associated with both inpatient charges and length of stay. However, number of specialists was positively associated with inpatient charges, but negatively associated with length of stay. In sum, this study found that specialty hospitals treating joint diseases tend to incur higher charges but produce shorter length of stay, compared to their counterparts. Specialty hospitals' overcharging behaviors, although shorter length of stay, suggest that policy makers could introduce bundled payments for the joint procedures. To promote a successful specialty hospital system, a broader discussion and investigation that includes quality measures as well as real cost of care should be initiated.