Overcoming Resistance to Implementation of Integrated Care Pathways in Orthopaedics

Division of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, 701 North First Street, Springfield, IL 62794. E-mail address for K.J. Saleh: .
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 5.28). 07/2013; 95(14):e1001-6. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01312
Source: PubMed


The future of orthopaedic surgery will be shaped by unprecedented demographic and economic challenges, necessitating movement to so-called "second curve" innovations in the delivery of care. Implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) may be one solution to imminent cost and access pressures facing orthopaedic patients in this era of health-care accountability and reform. ICPs can lower costs and the duration of hospital stay while facilitating better outcomes through enhanced interspecialty communication. As with any innovation at the crossroads of paradigm change, implementation of integrated care pathways for orthopaedics may elicit surgeons' concern on a variety of grounds and on levels ranging from casual questioning to vehement opposition. No single method is always effective in promoting cooperation and adoption, so a combination of strategies offers the best chance of success. With a special focus on total joint replacement, we consider general patterns of resistance to change, styles of conflict, and specific issues that may underlie orthopaedic surgeon resistance to implementation of integrated care pathways. Methods to facilitate and sustain orthopaedic surgeon engagement in implementation of such pathways are discussed.

1 Follower
16 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Modern management of the elderly with a hip fracture is complex and costly. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment-related hospital length of stay (HLOS) before and after implementing a clinical pathway for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. This was a retrospective, before-and-after study. The first period ranged from June 21, 2008 to November 1, 2009 (N = 212), and the second was from January 7, 2010 to July 7, 2011 (N = 314). The electronic hospital system and patients records were reviewed for demographics, HLOS, mortality, complications and readmissions. In the first period 53 % had a femoral neck fracture, of which 57 % were treated with hemiarthroplasty. In the second period this was 46 % and 71 %. Pertrochanteric fractures were treated with a Gamma nail in 85 % in the first period, and in 92 % in the second period. The median HLOS decreased from nine to six days (p < 0.001). For the hemiarthroplasty group HLOS decreased from nine to seven days (p < 0.001); for internal fixation there was no significant difference (five versus six days, p = 0.557) and after Gamma nailing it decreased from ten to six days (p < 0.001). For mortality no statistically significant difference was found (6 % versus 5 %, p = 0.698). Complications decreased for the Gamma nail group (44 % versus 31 %, p = 0.049). Readmissions for the total group were not different (16 % versus 17 %, p = 0.720). Implementing a clinical pathway for hip fractures is a safe way to reduce the HLOS and it improves the quality of care.
    International Orthopaedics 12/2013; 38(5). DOI:10.1007/s00264-013-2218-5 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Morrison argued that demography, economy, and technology drive the evolution of industries from a formative first-generation state ("First Curve") to a radically different way of doing things ("Second Curve") that is marked by new skills, strategies, and partners. The current health-reform movement in the United States reflects these three key evolutionary trends: surging medical needs of an aging population, dramatic expansion of Medicare spending, and care delivery systems optimized through powerful information technology. Successful transition from a formative first-generation state (First Curve) to a radically different way of doing things (Second Curve) will require new skills, strategies, and partners. In a new world that is value-driven, community-centric (versus hospital-centric), and prevention-focused, orthopaedic surgeons and health-care administrators must form new alliances to reduce the cost of care and improve durable outcomes for musculoskeletal problems. The greatest barrier to success in the Second Curve stems not from lack of empirical support for integrated models of care, but rather from resistance by those who would execute them. Porter's five forces of competitive strategy and the behavioral analysis of change provide insights into the predictable forms of resistance that undermine clinical and economic success in the new environment of care. This paper analyzes the components that will differentiate orthopaedic care provision for the Second Curve. It also provides recommendations for future-focused orthopaedic surgery and health-care administrative leaders to consider as they design newly adaptive, mutually reinforcing, and economically viable musculoskeletal care processes that drive the level of orthopaedic care that our nation deserves-at a cost that it can afford.
    The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 07/2014; 96(13):e111. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.M.01067 · 5.28 Impact Factor