CEOs from Orthopaedic Centers Worldwide Meet to Discuss Common Challenges: 2010 Annual Meeting of the International Society of Orthopaedic Centers

The International Society of Orthopaedic Centers was formed in 2006 as a think tank that would bring together thought leaders in orthopaedic surgery from major orthopaedic academic centers around the world. The Society’s mission is to share knowledge and strategies, improve patient care, and foster clinical, educational, and scientific collaboration. As the Society’s agendas developed, the members recognized that many of their aims intersected with those of hospital leadership. Thus, CEOs from member centers were invited to join their physician colleagues at the 2010 meeting in Bologna, Italy in order to explore solutions to administrative challenges related to patient care, volume growth, and costs. This paper describes the dialogue that took place at the meeting

Hospital characteristics and patient populations served by physician owned and non physician owned orthopedic specialty hospitals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The emergence of physician owned specialty hospitals focusing on high margin procedures has generated significant controversy. Yet, it is unclear whether physician owned specialty hospitals differ significantly from non physician owned specialty hospitals and thus merit the additional scrutiny that has been proposed. Our objective was to assess whether physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals and non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals differ with respect to hospital characteristics and patient populations served.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a descriptive study using Medicare data of beneficiaries who underwent total hip replacement (THR) (N = 10,478) and total knee replacement (TKR) (N = 15,312) in 29 physician owned and 8 non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals during 1999–2003. We compared hospital characteristics of physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals including procedural volumes of major joint replacements (THR and TKR), hospital teaching status, and for profit status. We then compared demographics and prevalence of common comorbid conditions for patients treated in physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals. Finally, we examined whether the socio-demographic characteristics of the neighborhoods where physician owned and non physician owned specialty hospitals differed, as measured by zip code level data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Physician owned specialty hospitals performed fewer major joint replacements on Medicare beneficiaries in 2003 than non physician owed specialty hospitals (64 vs. 678, P < .001), were less likely to be affiliated with a medical school (6% vs. 43%, P = .05), and were more likely to be for profit (94% vs. 28%, P = .001). Patients who underwent major joint replacement in physician owned specialty hospitals were less likely to be black than patients in non physician owned specialty hospitals (2.5% vs. 3.1% for THR, P = .15; 1.8% vs. 6.3% for TKR, P < .001), yet physician owned specialty hospitals were located in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of black residents (8.2% vs. 6.7%, P = .76). Patients in physician owned hospitals had lower rates of most common comorbid conditions including heart failure and obesity (P < .05 for both).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals differ significantly from non physician owned specialty orthopedic hospitals and may warrant the additional scrutiny policy makers have proposed.</p

Disparities in the use of ambulatory surgical centers: a cross sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) provide outpatient surgical services more efficiently than hospital outpatient departments, benefiting patients through lower co-payments and other expenses. We studied the influence of socioeconomic status and race on use of ASCs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From the 2005 State Ambulatory Surgery Database for Florida, a cohort of discharges for urologic, ophthalmologic, gastrointestinal, and orthopedic procedures was created. Socioeconomic status was established at the zip code level. Logistic regression models were fit to assess associations between socioeconomic status and ASC use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to the lowest group, patients of higher socioeconomic status were more likely to have procedures performed in ASCs (OR 1.07 CI 1.05, 1.09). Overall, the middle socioeconomic status group was the most likely group to use the ASC (OR 1.23, CI 1.21 to 1.25). For whites and blacks, higher status is associated with increased ASC use, but for Hispanics this relationship was reversed (OR 0.84 CI 0.78, 0.91).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients of lower socioeconomic status treated with outpatient surgery are significantly less likely to have their procedures in ASCs, suggesting that less resourced patients are encountering higher cost burdens for care. Thus, the most economically vulnerable group is unnecessarily subject to higher charges for surgery.</p

Exploring types of focused factories in hospital care: a multiple case study

Background: Focusing on specific treatments or diseases is proposed as a way to increase the efficiency of hospital care. The definition of "focus" or "focused factory", however, lacks clarity. Examples in health care literature relate to very different organizations.\ud Our aim was to explore the application of the focused factory concept in hospital care, including an indication of its performance, resulting in a conceptual framework that can be helpful in further identifying different types of focused factories. Thus contributing to the understanding of the diversity of examples found in the literature. - \ud \ud Methods: We conducted a cross-case comparison of four multiple-case studies into hospital care. To cover a broad array of focus, different specialty fields were selected. Each study investigated the organizational context, the degree of focus, and the operational performance. Focus was measured using an instrument translated from industry. Data were collected using both qualitative and quantitative methods and included site visits. A descriptive analysis was performed at the case study and cross-case studies level. - \ud \ud Results: The operational performance per specialty field varied considerably, even when cases showed comparable degrees of focus. Cross-case comparison showed three focus domains. The product domain considered specialty based focused factories that treated patients for a single-specialty, but did not pursue a specific strategy nor adapted work-designs or layouts. The process domain considered delivery based focused factories that treated multiple groups of patients and often pursued strategies to improve efficiency and timeliness and adapted work-designs and physical layouts to minimize delays. The product-process domain considered procedure based focused factories that treated a single well-defined group of patients offering one type of treatment. The strategic focusing decisions and the design of the care delivery system appeared especially important for delivery and procedure based focused factories. - \ud \ud Conclusions: Focus in hospital care relates to limitations on the patient group treated and the range of services offered. Based on these two dimensions, we identified three types of focused factories: specialty based, delivery based, and procedure based. Focus could lead to better operational performance, but only when clear strategic focusing decisions are made

Bismarck or Beveridge: a beauty contest between dinosaurs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health systems delivery systems can be divided into two broad categories: National Health Services (NHS) on the one hand and Social Security (based) Health care systems (SSH) on the other hand. Existing literature is inconclusive about which system performs best. In this paper we would like to improve the evidence-base for discussion about pros and cons of NHS-systems versus SSH-system for health outcomes, expenditure and population satisfaction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this study we used time series data for 17 European countries, that were characterized as either NHS or SSH country. We used the following performance indicators: For health outcome: overall mortality rate, infant mortality rate and life expectancy at birth. For health care costs: health care expenditure per capita in pppUS$ and health expenditure as percentage of GDP. Time series dated from 1970 until 2003 or 2004, depending on availability. Sources were OECD health data base 2006 and WHO health for all database 2006. For satisfaction we used the Eurobarometer studies from 1996, 1998 and 1999.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>SSH systems perform slightly better on overall mortality rates and life expectancy (after 1980). For infant mortality the rates converged between the two types of systems and since 1980 no differences ceased to exist.</p> <p>SSH systems are more expensive and NHS systems have a better cost containment. Inhabitants of countries with SSH-systems are on average substantially more satisfied than those in NHS countries.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We concluded that the question 'which type of system performs best' can be answered empirically as far as health outcomes, health care expenditures and patient satisfaction are concerned. Whether this selection of indicators covers all or even most relevant aspects of health system comparison remains to be seen. Perhaps further and more conclusive research into health system related differences in, for instance, equity should be completed before the leading question of this paper can be answered. We do think, however, that this study can form a base for a policy debate on the pros and cons of the existing health care systems in Europe.</p

Why a successful task substitution in glaucoma care could not be transferred from a hospital setting to a primary care setting: A qualitative study

Background: Healthcare systems are challenged by a demand that exceeds available resources. One policy to meet this challenge is task substitution-transferring tasks to other professions and settings. Our study aimed to explore stakeholders' perceived feasibility of transferring hospital-based monitoring of stable glaucoma patients to primary care optometrists.Methods: A case study was undertaken in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) using semi-structured interviews and document reviews. They were inductively analysed using three implementation related theoretical perspectives: sociological theories on professionalism, management theories, and applied political analysis.Results: Currently it is not feasible to use primary care optometrists as substitutes for optometrists and ophthalmic technicians working in a hospital-based gl