Pain Is the Primary Factor Associated With Satisfaction With Symptoms for New Patients Presenting to the Orthopedic Clinic

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to (1) determine the percentage of new orthopedic patients reporting their symptoms to be acceptable at presentation, as measured by the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) question, and (2) evaluate whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) or Upper Extremity, Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (D), or sociodemographic factors are associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation. METHODS: Between February 7, 2020, and March 16, 2020, new orthopedic patients who completed PROMs were identified. Patient records were reviewed for those who also completed the PASS question, a yes/no question about whether a patient\u27s current symptom state is satisfactory. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare patient characteristics, such as area deprivation index (ADI), between those reporting acceptable symptoms and those who did not. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation. RESULTS: A total of 570 patients were included, with one-fourth (n = 143 [25%]) reporting acceptable symptoms at presentation. In multivariable regression analysis, only pain, as measured by the PROMIS PI, was associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation (non-upper extremity patient regression: PROMIS PI: odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.90, P \u3c .01; upper extremity patient regression: PROMIS PI: OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98, P \u3c .01). In both multivariable regression analyses, insurance type (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other), visit subspecialty (sports, hand, joints, foot and ankle, spine, other), PROMIS PF, PROMIS D, and national ADI were not associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation (all P \u3e .05). CONCLUSIONS: One-fourth of new orthopedic patients reported their symptoms to be acceptable at presentation. Of those who considered their symptom state unsatisfactory, pain-not functional status, mental health, or sociodemographic factors-was the primary determinant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic

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 \u3c 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

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 \u3c 0.001). The labor industry demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of WrCTS when compared with the clerical industries (P \u3c 0.001). Within labor industries, the manufacturing industry had the highest incidence of WrCTS over time (P \u3c 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

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 \u3c 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. 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 \u3c 0.001)

PROMIS MCID and SCB Achievement in Rotator Cuff Repair

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). Patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR were identified over a 24-month period. PROMIS CAT forms for upper extremity physical function (PROMIS-UE), pain interference (PROMIS-PI), and depression (PROMIS-D) were utilized. Analysis of variance testing with post hoc least significant difference pairwise comparisons and Tukey’s B subset analysis were used in determining if anchor question responses showed statistically significant differences between answers. These findings were used to establish two clinically significant outcome (CSO) groups, MCID and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Patients were then dichotomized into two separate analyses, no MCID achievement compared with MCID achievement and no SCB achievement compared with SCB achievement. Of the 198 eligible patients, 168 patients (84.8%) were included in analysis. Receiver operating curve analysis determined delta PROMIS-UE values of 5.8 and 9.7 (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.906 and 0.949, respectively) and delta PROMIS-PI values of -11.4 and -12.9 (AUC = 0.875 and 0.938, respectively) to be excellent threshold predictors of MCID and SCB achievement. On average, 81.1%, 65.0%, and 54.5% of patients achieved MCID for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D while 70.7%, 60.7%, and 37.7% of patients in the cohort respectively achieved SCB

Upper-Extremity Injuries are the 2nd Most Common Workplace Injuries from 1992 to 2018

Musculoskeletal injuries occur frequently in the workplace, yet it is unclear whether upper-extremity, lower-extremity, or trunk injuries are the most prevalent. We hypothesize that: (1) trunk injuries are the most common in the overall workplace, and (2) upper-extremity injuries are more common in labor-based industries than non-labor industries. Workplace related injury data from 1992 to 2018 was collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics “Workplace Injuries & Illnesses” database. Occurrence of trunk, upper-extremity, and lower-extremity injuries in major industries (agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and healthcare) were aggregated during this time period and compared. Overall workplace related injury occurrence in major industries from 1992 to 2018 for the following body regions were tabulated as follows: upper-extremity (4,471,340 cases), lower-extremity (3,296,547 cases), and trunk (5,889,940 cases) (p\u3c.05). Upper-extremity injury incidence was observed to be significantly higher than lower-extremity injury incidence in the manufacturing industry (p\u3c.001) and significantly lower than trunk injury incidence in the healthcare industry (p\u3c.001). However, differences between upper-extremity injury incidence and both lower-extremity and trunk injury incidence were not significant for the other industries. When comparing the occurrence of upper-extremity injuries across industries from 1992 to 2018, significant differences were determined between all industries except for healthcare (p\u3c.001). When identifying changes in injury occurrence in each respective industry across this time span, manufacturing was shown to have the largest decrease (x=-5,432, r=-.91) followed by construction (x=-966, r=-.87) and then agriculture (x=-270, r=-.79). Weak correlation was observed for healthcare (x=118, r=.15)

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\u27s 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: II

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\u27 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 (\u3e400 per year) also wrote the longest prescription durations (14.1 days/prescription, P \u3c .05 for all comparisons). Surgeons with more than 30 years of experience wrote the longest prescriptions (11.8 days/prescription; P \u3c .001). Male surgeons wrote more opioid prescriptions than female surgeons (151 vs 95, respectively; P \u3c .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

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\u27s 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\u27s 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\u3c0.001). 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

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 \u3c 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