No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
How to implement alternative payment models in your total joint arthroplasty practice
Introduction
Risk factors associated with primary THA readmissions have not yet been thoroughly analyzed when stratified by underlying indication. Given that a majority of THAs are done electively in the context of osteoarthritis (OA), it remains to be explored whether or not THAs performed non-electively in the trauma setting have different readmission patterns. Therefore, the aims of this study were to identify: 1) causes of readmissions; 2) patient-related risk-factors for readmissions; and 3) costs associated with the reasons for readmissions.
Materials and methods
Patients who sustained a femoral neck fracture and underwent primary THA from 2005 to 2014 were identified. Those subsequently readmitted within 90-days following the procedure comprised the study cohort whereas those not readmitted served as the comparison cohort. Primary outcomes included identifying causes of readmissions, identifying patient-related risk-factors associated with readmissions and determining healthcare expenditures associated with the different readmission etiologies. A regression analysis was used to calculate the odds (OR) for readmissions. A p-value less than 0.01 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results
The regression model demonstrated the greatest patient-related risk factors included: electrolyte and fluid disorders (OR: 1.80, p < 0.0001), morbid obesity (OR: 1.60, p < 0.0001), pathologic weight loss (OR: 1.58, p < 0.0001), congestive heart failure (OR: 1.41, p < 0.0001), were the leading risk factors for readmissions. Pulmonary-related causes ($42,357.71) of readmission were the leading driver of costs of care.
Conclusion
Orthopaedic surgeons should identify and optimize pre-operative management of patient-related risk factors that increase readmissions following primary THA for femoral neck fractures. Additionally, pulmonary-related causes of readmission lead to the highest costs of care.
Level of Evidence
III.
The use of global health items permits an efficient way of gathering general perceptions of health. These items provide useful summary information about health and are predictive of health care utilization and subsequent mortality.
Analyses of 10 self-reported global health items obtained from an internet survey as part of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) project. We derived summary scores from the global health items. We estimated the associations of the summary scores with the EQ-5D index score and the PROMIS physical function, pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and social health domain scores.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor model. Global physical health (GPH; 4 items on overall physical health, physical function, pain, and fatigue) and global mental health (GMH; 4 items on quality of life, mental health, satisfaction with social activities, and emotional problems) scales were created. The scales had internal consistency reliability coefficients of 0.81 and 0.86, respectively. GPH correlated more strongly with the EQ-5D than did GMH (r = 0.76 vs. 0.59). GPH correlated most strongly with pain impact (r = -0.75) whereas GMH correlated most strongly with depressive symptoms (r = -0.71).
Two dimensions representing physical and mental health underlie the global health items in PROMIS. These global health scales can be used to efficiently summarize physical and mental health in patient-reported outcome studies.
Although the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative began generating data in January 2013, it may be years before the data can determine if the BPCI Initiative enhances value without decreasing quality. Private insurers have implemented other bundled payment arrangements for the delivery of total joint arthroplasty in a variety of practice settings. It is important for surgeons to review the early results of the BPCI Initiative and other bundled payment arrangements to understand the challenges and benefits of healthcare delivery systems with respect to total joint arthroplasty. In addition, surgeons should understand methods of cost control and quality improvement to determine the effect of the BPCI Initiative on the value-quality equation with respect to total joint arthroplasty.
Background:
A number of provisions exist within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that focus on improving the delivery of health care in the United States, including quality of care. From a total joint arthroplasty perspective, the issue of quality increasingly refers to quantifying patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs). This article describes one hospital's experience in building and maintaining an electronic PROM database for a practice of 6 board-certified orthopedic surgeons.
Methods:
The surgeons advocated to and worked with the hospital to contract with a joint registry database company and hire a research assistant. They implemented a standardized process for all surgical patients to fill out patient-reported outcome questionnaires at designated intervals.
Results:
To date, the group has collected patient-reported outcome metric data for >4500 cases. The data are frequently used in different venues at the hospital including orthopedic quality metric and research meetings. In addition, the results were used to develop an annual outcome report. The annual report is given to patients and primary care providers, and portions of it are being used in discussions with insurance carriers.
Conclusion:
Building an electronic database to collect PROMs is a group undertaking and requires a physician champion. A considerable amount of work needs to be done up front to make its introduction a success. Once established, a PROM database can provide a significant amount of information and data that can be effectively used in multiple capacities.
Background
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly in demand for outcomes evaluation by hospitals, administrators, and policymakers. However, assessing total hip arthroplasty (THA) through such instruments is challenging because most existing measures of hip health are lengthy and/or proprietary. Questions/purposesThe objective of this study was to derive a patient-relevant short-form survey based on the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), focusing specifically on outcomes after THA. Methods
We retrospectively evaluated patients with hip osteoarthritis who underwent primary unilateral THA and who had completed preoperative and 2-year postoperative PROMs using our hospital’s hip replacement registry. The 2-year followup in this population was 81% (4308 of 5351 patients). Of these, 2371 completed every item on the HOOS before surgery and at 2 years, making them eligible for the formal item reduction analysis. Through semistructured interviews with 30 patients, we identified items in the HOOS deemed qualitatively most important to patients with hip osteoarthritis. The original HOOS has 40 items, the four quality-of-life items were excluded a priori, five were excluded for being redundant, and one was excluded based on patient-relevance surveys. The remaining 30 items were evaluated using Rasch modeling to yield a final six-item HOOS, Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR), representing a single construct of “hip health.” We calculated HOOS, JR scores for the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) cohort and validated this new score for internal consistency, external validity (versus HOOS and WOMAC domains), responsiveness to THA, and floor and ceiling effects. Additional external validation was performed using calculated HOOS, JR scores in collaboration with the Function and Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement (FORCE-TJR) nationally representative joint replacement registry (n = 910). ResultsThe resulting six-item PROM (HOOS, JR) retained items only from the pain and activities of daily living domains. It showed high internal consistency (Person Separation Index, 0.86 [HSS]; 0.87 [FORCE]), moderate to excellent external validity against other hip surveys (Spearman’s correlation coefficient, 0.60–0.94), very high responsiveness (standardized response means, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.84–2.22] [FORCE]; and 2.38 [95% CI, 2.27–2.49] [HSS]), and favorable floor (0.6%–1.9%) and ceiling (37%–46%) effects. External validity was highest for the HOOS pain (Spearman’s correlation coefficient, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.86–0.89] [HSS]; and 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84–0.90] [FORCE]) and HOOS activities of daily living (Spearman’s correlation coefficient, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93–0.95] [HSS]; and 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93–0.96] [FORCE]) domains in the HSS validation cohort and the FORCE-TJR cohort. Conclusions
The HOOS, JR provides a valid, reliable, and responsive measure of hip health for patients undergoing THA. This short-form PROM is patient relevant and efficient. Level of EvidenceLevel III, diagnostic study.