Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The goal of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is to improve patient safety. The database has been used by hospitals across the United States to decrease the rate of adverse events and improve surgical outcomes, including dramatic decreases in 30-day mortality, morbidity, and complication rates. However, only a few orthopaedic surgical studies have employed the ACS NSQIP database, all of which have limited their analysis to either single orthopaedic procedures or reported rates of adverse events without considering the effect of patient characteristics and comorbidities. Question/purposes Our specific purposes included (1) investigating the most common orthopaedic procedures and 30-day adverse events, (2) analyzing the proportion of adverse events in the top 30 most frequently identified orthopaedic procedures, and (3) identifying patient characteristics and clinical risk factors for adverse events in patients undergoing hip fracture repair. Methods We used data from the ACS NSQIP database to identify a large prospective cohort of patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery procedures from 2005 to 2011 in more than 400 hospitals around the world. Outcome variables were separated into the following three categories: any complication, minor complication, and major complication. The rate of adverse events for the top 30 orthopaedic procedures was calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine risk factors for each of the outcome variables for hip fracture repair. Results Of the 1,979,084 surgical patients identified in the database, 146,774 underwent orthopaedic procedures (7%). Of the 30 most common orthopaedic procedures, the top three were TKA, THA, and knee arthroscopy with meniscectomy, which together comprised 55% of patients (55,575 of 101,862). We identified 5368 complications within the top 30 orthopaedic procedures, representing a 5% complication rate. The minor and major complication rates were 3.1% (n = 3174) and 2.8% (n = 2880), respectively. The most common minor complication identified was urinary tract infection (n = 1534) and the most common major complication identified was death (n = 850). An American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher was a consistent risk factor for all three categories of complications in patients undergoing hip fracture repair. Conclusions The ACS NSQIP database allows for evaluating current trends of adverse events in selected surgical specialties. However, variables specific to orthopaedic surgery, such as open versus closed injury, are needed to improve the quality of the results.

Background Orthopaedic surgical site infections (SSIs) can delay recovery, add impairments, and decrease quality of life, particularly in patients undergoing spine surgery, in whom SSIs may also be more common. Efforts to prevent and treat SSIs of the spine rely on the identification and registration of these adverse events in large databases. The effective use of these databases to answer clinical questions depends on how the conditions in question, such as infection, are defined in the databases queried, but the degree to which different definitions of infection might cause different risk factors to be identified by those databases has not been evaluated. Questions/purposes The purpose of this study was to determine whether different definitions of SSI identify different risk factors for SSI. Specifically, we compared the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) coding, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria for deep infection, and incision and débridement for infection to determine if each is associated with distinct risk factors for SSI. Methods In this single-center retrospective study, a sample of 5761 adult patients who had an orthopaedic spine surgery between January 2003 and August 2013 were identified from our institutional database. The mean age of the patients was 56 years (± 16 SD), and slightly more than half were men. We applied three different definitions of infection: ICD-9 code for SSI, the CDC criteria for deep infection, and incision and débridement for infection. Three hundred sixty-one (6%) of the 5761 surgeries received an ICD-9 code for SSI within 90 days of surgery. After review of the medical records of these 361 patients, 216 (4%) met the CDC criteria for deep SSI, and 189 (3%) were taken to the operating room for irrigation and débridement within 180 days of the day of surgery. Results We found the Charlson Comorbidity Index, the duration of the operation, obesity, and posterior surgical approach were independently associated with a higher risk of infection for each of the three definitions of SSI. The influence of malnutrition, smoking, specific procedures, and specific surgeons varied by definition of infection. These elements accounted for approximately 6% of the variability in the risk of developing an infection. Conclusions The frequency of SSI after spine surgery varied according to the definition of an infection, but the most important risk factors did not. We conclude that large database studies may be better suited for identifying risk factors than for determining absolute numbers of infections. Level of Evidence Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background More than 15 years ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified medical error as a problem worthy of greater attention; in the wake of the IOM report, numerous changes were made to regulations to limit residents’ duty hours. However, the effect of resident work-hour changes remains controversial within the field of orthopaedics. Questions/purposes We performed a systematic review to determine whether work-hour restrictions have measurably influenced quality-of-life measures, operative and technical skill development, resident surgical education, patient care outcomes (including mortality, morbidity, adverse events, sentinel events, complications), and surgeon and resident attitudes (such as perceived effect on learning and training experiences, personal benefit, direct clinical experience, clinical preparedness). Methods We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Google Scholar using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were any English language peer-reviewed articles that analyzed the effect(s) of orthopaedic surgery resident work-hour restrictions on patient safety, resident education, resident/surgeon quality of life, resident technical operative skill development, and resident surgeon attitudes toward work-hour restrictions. Eleven studies met study inclusion criteria. One study was a prospective analysis, whereas 10 studies were of level IV evidence (review of surgical case logs) or survey results. Results Within our identified studies, there was some support for improved resident quality of life, improved resident sleep and less fatigue, a perceived negative impact on surgical operative and technical skill, and conflicting evidence on the topic of resident education, patient outcomes, and variable attitudes toward the work-hour changes. Conclusions There is a paucity of high-level or clear evidence evaluating the effect of the changes to resident work hours. Future research in this area should focus on objective measures that include patient safety as a primary outcome.

Background There is evidence that feedback from 360-degree surveys—combined with coaching—can improve physician team performance and quality of patient care. The Physicians Universal Leadership-Teamwork Skills Education (PULSE) 360 is one such survey tool that is used to assess work colleagues’ and coworkers’ perceptions of a physician’s leadership, teamwork, and clinical practice style. The Clinician & Group-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CG-CAHPS), developed by the US Department of Health and Human Services to serve as the benchmark for quality health care, is a survey tool for patients to provide feedback that is based on their recent experiences with staff and clinicians and soon will be tied to Medicare-based compensation of participating physicians. Prior research has indicated that patients and coworkers often agree in their assessment of physicians’ behavioral patterns. The goal of the current study was to determine whether 360-degree, also called multisource, feedback provided by coworkers could predict patient satisfaction/experience ratings. A significant relationship between these two forms of feedback could enable physicians to take a more proactive approach to reinforce their strengths and identify any improvement opportunities in their patient interactions by reviewing feedback from team members. An automated 360-degree software process may be a faster, simpler, and less resource-intensive approach than telephoning and interviewing patients for survey responses, and it potentially could facilitate a more rapid credentialing or quality improvement process leading to greater fiscal and professional development gains for physicians. Questions/purposes Our primary research question was to determine if PULSE 360 coworkers’ ratings correlate with CG-CAHPS patients’ ratings of overall satisfaction, recommendation of the physician, surgeon respect, and clarity of the surgeon’s explanation. Our secondary research questions were to determine whether CG-CAHPS scores correlate with additional composite scores from the Quality PULSE 360 (eg, insight impact score, focus concerns score, leadership-teamwork index score, etc). Methods We retrospectively analyzed existing quality improvement data from CG-CAHPS patient surveys as well as from a department quality improvement initiative using 360-degree survey feedback questionnaires (Quality PULSE 360 with coworkers). Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify significant relationships for inclusion of research variables in multivariate linear analyses (eg, stepwise regression to determine the best fitting predictive model for CG-CAHPS ratings). In all higher order analyses, CG-CAHPS ratings were treated as the dependent variables, whereas PULSE 360 scores served as independent variables. This approach led to the identification of the most predictive linear model for each CG-CAHPS’ performance rating (eg, [1] overall satisfaction; [2] recommendation of the physician; [3] surgeon respect; and [4] clarity of the surgeon’s explanation) regressed on all PULSE scores with which there was a significant bivariate relationship. Backward stepwise regression was then used to remove unnecessary predictors from the linear model based on changes in the variance explained by the model with or without inclusion of the predictor. Results The Quality PULSE 360 insight impact score correlated with patient satisfaction (0.50, p = 0.01), patient recommendation (0.58, p = 0.002), patient rating of surgeon respect (0.74, p < 0.001), and patient impression of clarity of the physician explanation (0.69, p < 0.001). Additionally, leadership-teamwork index also correlated with patient rating of surgeon respect (0.46, p = 0.019) and patient impression of clarity of the surgeon’s explanation (0.39, p = 0.05). Multivariate analyses supported retention of insight impact as a predictor of patient overall satisfaction, patient recommendation of the surgeon, and patient rating of surgeon respect. Both insight impact and leadership-teamwork index were retained as predictors of patient impression of explanation. Several other PULSE 360 variables were correlated with CG-CAHPS ratings, but none were retained in the linear models post stepwise regression. Conclusions The relationship between Quality PULSE 360 feedback scores and measures of patient satisfaction reaffirm that feedback from work team members may provide helpful information into how patients may be perceiving their physicians’ behavior and vice versa. Furthermore, the findings provide tentative support for the use of team-based feedback to improve the quality of relationships with both coworkers and patients. The 360-degree survey process may offer an effective tool for physicians to obtain feedback about behavior that could directly impact practice reimbursement and reputation or potentially be used for bonuses to incentivize better team professionalism and patient satisfaction, ie, “pay-for-professionalism.” Further research is needed to expand on this line of inquiry, determine which interventions can improve 360-degree and patient satisfaction scores, and explain the shared variance in physician performance that is captured in the perceptions of patients and coworkers.

Background So-called “hazardous attitudes” (macho, impulsive, antiauthority, resignation, invulnerable, and confident) were identified by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Canadian Air Transport Administration as contributing to road traffic incidents among college-aged drivers and felt to be useful for the prevention of aviation accidents. The concept of hazardous attitudes may also be useful in understanding adverse events in surgery, but it has not been widely studied. Questions/purposes We surveyed a cohort of orthopaedic surgeons to determine the following: (1) What is the prevalence of hazardous attitudes in a large cohort of orthopaedic surgeons? (2) Do practice setting and/or demographics influence variation in hazardous attitudes in our cohort of surgeons? (3) Do surgeons feel they work in a climate that promotes patient safety? Methods We asked the members of the Science of Variation Group—fully trained, practicing orthopaedic and trauma surgeons from around the world—to complete a questionnaire validated in college-aged drivers measuring six attitudes associated with a greater likelihood of collision and used by pilots to assess and teach aviation safety. We accepted this validation as applicable to surgeons and modified the questionnaire accordingly. We also asked them to complete the Modified Safety Climate Questionnaire, a questionnaire assessing the absence of a safety climate that is based on the patient safety cultures in healthcare organizations instrument. Three hundred sixty-four orthopaedic surgeons participated, representing a 47% response rate of those with correct email addresses who were invited. Results Thirty-eight percent (137 of 364 surgeons) had at least one score that would have been considered dangerously high in pilots (> 20), including 102 with dangerous levels of macho (28%) and 41 with dangerous levels of self-confidence (11%). After accounting for possible confounding variables, the variables most closely associated with a macho attitude deemed hazardous in pilots were supervision of surgical trainees in the operating room (p = 0.003); location of practice in Canada (p = 0.059), Europe (p = 0.021), and the United States (p = 0.005); and being an orthopaedic trauma surgeon (p = 0.046) (when compared with general orthopaedic surgeons), but accounted for only 5.3% of the variance (p < 0.001). On average, 19% of surgeon responses to the Modified Safety Climate Questionnaire implied absence of a safety climate. Conclusions Hazardous attitudes are common among orthopaedic surgeons and relate in small part to demographics and practice setting. Future studies should further validate the measure of hazardous attitudes among surgeons and determine if they are associated with preventable adverse events. We agree with aviation safety experts that awareness of amelioration of such attitudes might improve safety in all complex, high-risk endeavors, including surgery—a line of thinking that merits additional research.

Background Attitudes influence how people make decisions. In an effort to decrease pilot judgment-related accidents, the Federal Aviation Administration teaches new pilots about hazardous attitudes that are believed to be incompatible with safe flight: macho, impulsive, worry, resignation, self-confidence, and antiauthority. If these attitudes are hazardous for pilots and their passengers, they may also be incompatible with the reliable and safe delivery of surgical care. Questions/purposes The purposes of this study were (1) to ascertain to what extent surgeons harbor hazardous attitudes; and (2) to determine their relationship, if any, to reoperation and readmission rates. Methods We selected validated aviation psychology tools that are used to measure these attitudes in pilots. We converted the aviation scenarios to analogous situations for surgeons and invited all surgeons from one academic program to participate in this study. A total of 41 surgeons were eligible to participate; 37 (90%) completed the attitude prevalence protocol and 31 (76%) had complete reoperation and readmission data for the correlation and regression analysis. Attending orthopaedic surgeons completed the Modified Surgeon Hazardous Attitude Scale as well as a series of additional instruments. Results Levels of macho thought to be hazardous in pilots were present in nine (24%) surgeons. Similar, elevated levels of self-confidence were found in three (8%) surgeons. High levels of impulsivity were found in 5% (two surgeons) and high levels of antiauthority were found in 3% (one surgeon). Only one (3%) surgeon reported elevated levels of worry and no surgeon reported hazardous levels of resignation. Thirty percent (11 surgeons) of surgeons harbored at least one elevated attitude level. In a regression model, macho attitude levels predicted 19% of the variation in surgeons’ rate of readmissions and reoperations. Conclusions High levels of hazardous attitudes may not be consistent with the routine delivery of safe surgical care in a teamwork setting where human factors and safe systems are the key to success. Further research is needed to determine if abnormally high levels of these hazardous attitudes impact patient care. Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.