The effect of an orthopedic specialty hospital on operating room efficiency in shoulder arthroplasty

Reimbursement of Lumbar Fusion at an Orthopaedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the differences in Medicare reimbursement for lumbar fusion performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH) and a tertiary referral center and to elucidate drivers of Medicare reimbursement differences.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

To provide more cost-efficient care, appropriately selected patients are increasingly being transitioned to OSHs for lumbar fusion procedures. There are no studies directly comparing reimbursement of lumbar fusion between tertiary referral centers (TRC) and OSHs.

METHODS

Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an orthopaedic specialty hospital were compiled through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Any patient with lumbar fusions between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified. OSH patients were matched to TRC patients by demographic and surgical variables. Outcomes analyzed were reimbursement data, procedure data, 90-day complications and readmissions, operating room times, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients were included in the final cohort. The tertiary referral center had higher post-trigger ($13,554 vs. $8,541, P <0.001) and total episode ($49,973 vs. $43,512, P <0.010) reimbursements. Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH was predictive of shorter OR time (β=0.77, P <0.001), shorter procedure time (β=0.71, P <0.001), and shorter LOS (β=0.53, P <0.001). There were no significant differences in complications (9.21% vs. 15.8%, P =0.353) or readmission rates (3.95% vs. 7.89%, P =0.374) between the 2 hospitals; however, our study is underpowered for complications and readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH, compared with a tertiary referral center, is associated with significant Medicare cost savings, shorter perioperative times, decreased LOS, and decreased utilization of post-acute resources.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Specific Factors Affecting Operating Room Efficiency: An Analysis of Case Time Estimates

PURPOSE

Operating room (OR) efficiency has an impact on surgeon productivity and patient experience. Accuracy of case duration estimation is important to optimize OR efficiency. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with inaccurate case time estimates in outpatient hand surgery. A better understanding of these findings may help to improve OR efficiency and scheduling.

METHODS

All outpatient hand surgical cases from 2018 to 2019 were reviewed. Poorly-estimated cases (i.e., poor scheduling accuracy) were defined as those cases where the actual operative time differed from the predicted time by >50% (either quicker by >50% or slower by >50% than the predicted time). The percentages of poorly-estimated cases were analyzed, categorized, and compared by surgeon, procedure type, and scheduled case length.

RESULTS

A total of 6,620 cases were identified. Of 1,107 (16.7%) cases with poorly estimated case durations, 75.2% were underestimated. There was no difference in the likelihood of poor estimation related to start time. Well-estimated cases tended to have longer scheduled case duration, but shorter realized case duration and surgical time. Our systems analysis identified specific surgeons and procedures as predictable outliers. Cases scheduled for 15-30 minutes frequently were inaccurate, whereas cases scheduled for 30-45 and 106-120 minutes had accurate estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of case time estimations in a standard outpatient hand surgery practice is highly variable. Nearly one-fifth of outpatient hand surgery case durations are poorly estimated, and inaccurate case time estimation can be predicted based on surgeon, procedure type, and case time.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Maximizing OR efficiency should be a priority for surgeons and hospital systems. With multiple surgeries done per day, the efficiency of the OR has an impact on surgeon productivity and patient experience.

Prediction of total healthcare cost following total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing machine learning

BACKGROUND

Given the increase in demand in treatment of glenohumeral arthritis with anatomic total (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), it is imperative to improve quality of patient care while controlling costs as private and federal insurers continue its gradual transition toward bundled payment models. Big data analytics with machine learning shows promise in predicting health care costs. This is significant as cost prediction may help control cost by enabling health care systems to appropriately allocate resources that help mitigate the cause of increased cost.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was accessed in 2018. The database was queried for all primary aTSA and RTSA by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) procedure codes: 0RRJ0JZ and 0RRK0JZ for aTSA and 0RRK00Z and 0RRJ00Z for RTSA. Procedures were categorized by diagnoses: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), avascular necrosis (AVN), fracture, and rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA). Costs were calculated by utilizing the total hospital charge and each hospital's cost-to-charge ratio. Hospital characteristics were included, such as volume of procedures performed by the respective hospital for the calendar year and wage index, which represents the relative average hospital wage for the respective geographic area. Unplanned readmissions within 90 days were calculated using unique patient identifiers, and cost of readmissions was added to the total admission cost to represent the short-term perioperative health care cost. Machine learning algorithms were used to predict patients with immediate postoperative admission costs greater than 1 standard deviation from the mean, and readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 49,354 patients were isolated for analysis, with an average patient age of 69.9 ± 9.6 years. The average perioperative cost of care was $18,843 ± $10,165. In total, there were 4279 all-cause readmissions, resulting in an average cost of $13,871.00 ± $14,301.06 per readmission. Wage index, hospital volume, patient age, readmissions, and diagnosis-related group severity were the factors most correlated with the total cost of care. The logistic regression and random forest algorithms were equivalent in predicting the total cost of care (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

After shoulder arthroplasty, there is significant variability in cumulative hospital costs, and this is largely affected by readmissions. Hospital characteristics, such as geographic area and volume, are key determinants of overall health care cost. When accounting for this, machine learning algorithms may predict cases with high likelihood of increased resource utilization and/or readmission.

Trends in operative duration of total shoulder arthroplasty from 2008 to 2018: a national database study

Background

As total shoulder arthroplasty has emerged as the fastest growing joint replacement performed, optimizing surgical efficiency and patient outcomes is essential. The goals of the current study were to identify trends and factors affecting the operative time of total shoulder arthroplasty over a 10-year period.

Methods

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was analyzed to determine the operative time and 30-day complications of total shoulder arthroplasty from 2008 to 2018. Factors affecting total shoulder arthroplasty operative time were also assessed. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze operative time over years studied while controlling for patient demographics and comorbidities.

Results

A total of 20,587 total shoulder arthroplasty cases from 2008 to 2018 were included. Mean operative time in 2008 was 139.0 min, while in 2018, mean operative time decreased to 105.6 min (P < .001). Male sex, outpatient surgery, increased body mass index, and low preoperative hematocrit were associated with longer operative times, while elevated international normalized ratio, resident involvement, and elective surgeries were associated with decreased operative duration.

Discussion

Operative time for total shoulder arthroplasty has decreased from 2008 to 2018. Patient factors and comorbidities are associated with operative time, and such factors are important to consider in operative planning to ensure appropriate patient and surgeon expectations.

Comparing Dermabond PRINEO versus Dermabond or staples for wound closure: a randomized control trial following total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The method of surgical incision closure after total shoulder arthroplasty is an important factor to consider, as it affects operating room time, procedure cost, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. The optimal method of wound management is unknown, but should be cost-effective, reproducible, and provide a reliable clinical result. This study aimed to compare the following wound closure methods after total shoulder arthroplasty: staples, Dermabond, and Dermabond PRINEO. We hypothesized that wound closure time for Dermabond PRINEO would be faster than Dermabond and comparable to that of staples, and Dermabond PRINEO would be more cost-effective than Dermabond and staples, and provide equal or superior closure outcomes to Dermabond and staples.

METHODS

A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing wound closure time and cost for 2 surgeons' traditional technique with that of Dermabond PRINEO was conducted. This study included at least 18 subjects in each group. Surgeon 1's patients were randomized to traditional Dermabond or Dermabond PRINEO, whereas surgeon 2's patients were randomized to staples or Dermabond PRINEO. Cosmetic outcomes and satisfaction scores were collected at 6 weeks and 3 months, postoperatively. Incisions were photographed, at both the 6-week and 3-month visits, and subsequently evaluated by a plastic surgeon blinded to the treatment method.

RESULTS

The wound closure time for surgeon 1 was significantly faster for Dermabond PRINEO vs. Dermabond, and surgeon 2 closed significantly faster with staples vs. Dermabond PRINEO. The mean cost of closure was significantly less with Dermabond PRINEO compared with Dermabond, whereas the mean cost of staples was significantly less than Dermabond PRINEO. For both surgeons 1 and 2, there were no significant differences in patient satisfaction at 6 weeks or 3 months. In addition, the wound closure methods did not produce differing cosmetic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although significant, the closing time for each method did not differ by a clinically relevant amount. Staples were the most cost-effective closing method, followed by Dermabond PRINEO. As neither method was superior over the other in terms of patient satisfaction, adverse events, and cosmetic outcomes, cost-effectiveness may be the greatest differentiator between the 3 methods.

The impact of case order and intraoperative staff changes on spine surgical efficiency

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Despite concerted efforts toward quality improvement in high-volume spine surgery, there remains concern that increases in case load may compromise the efficient and safe delivery of surgical care. There is a paucity of evidence to describe the effects of spine case order and operating room (OR) team structure on measures of intraoperative timing and OR efficiency.

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine if intraoperative staff changes and surgical case order independently predict extensions in intraoperative timing after spinal surgery for spondylotic diseases.

STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING

Retrospective cohort analysis PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients over age 18 who underwent primary or revision decompression and/or fusion for degenerative spinal diseases between 2017 to 2019 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Exclusion criteria included absence of descriptive data and intraoperative timing parameters as well as surgery for traumatic injury, infection, and malignancy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Intraoperative timing metrics including total theater time, wheels in to induction, induction start to cut, cut to close, and close to wheels out. Postoperative outcomes included length of hospital stay and 90-day hospital readmissions.

METHODS

Surgical case order and intraoperative changes in staff (circulator and surgical scrub nurse or technician) were determined. Patient demographics, surgical factors, intraoperative timing and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Extensions in each operative stage were determined as a ratio of the actual duration of the parameter divided by the predicted duration of the parameter. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare outcomes within case order and staff change groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1,108 patients met the inclusion criteria. First, second, and third start cases differed significantly in intraoperative extensions of total theater time, wheels in to induction, induction start to cut, cut to close, and close to wheels out. On regression, decreasing case order predicted extension in wheels in to induction time. Surgeries with intraoperative staff changes were associated with increases in total theater time, induction start to cut time, cut to close time, close to wheels out time, and length of hospital stay. Switch in primary circulator predicted extended theater time and cut to close time. Relief of primary circulator or scrub predicted extended total theater time, induction start to cut time, cut to close time, and close to wheels out time.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative staff change in spine surgery independently predicted extended operative duration. However, higher case order was not significantly associated with procedural time.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Decompression at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in Medicare reimbursement for one- to three-level lumbar decompression procedures performed at a tertiary referral center versus an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar decompression surgery is one of the most commonly performed spinal procedures. Lumbar decompression also comprises the largest proportion of spinal surgery that has transitioned to the outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a primary one- to three- level lumbar decompression were retrospectively identified. Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an OSH were compiled through Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Demographic data, surgical characteristics, and time cost data were collected through chart review. Multivariate regression models were used to determine independent factors associated with total episode of care cost, operating room (OR) time, procedure time, and length of stay (LOS), and to determine independent predictors of having the decompression performed at the OSH.

RESULTS

Total episode of care, facility, and non-facility payments were significantly greater at the tertiary referral center than the OSH, as were OR time for one- to three-level procedures, procedure time of all pooled levels, and LOS for one- and two-level procedures. Three-level procedure was independently associated with increased OR time, procedure time, and LOS. Age and two-level procedure were also associated with increased LOS. Procedure at the OSH was associated with decreased OR time and LOS. Charlson Comorbidity Index was a negative predictor of decompression being performed in the OSH setting.

CONCLUSION

Significant financial savings to health systems can be expected when performing lumbar decompression surgery at a specialty hospital as opposed to a tertiary referral center. Patients who are appropriate candidates for surgery in an OSH can in turn expect faster perioperative times and shorter LOS.Level of Evidence: 3.

Identifying surgeon and institutional drivers of cost in total shoulder arthroplasty: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Despite rapid increases in the demand for total shoulder arthroplasty, data describing cost trends are scarce. We aim to (1) describe variation in the cost of shoulder arthroplasty performed by different surgeons at multiple hospitals and (2) determine the driving factors of such variation.

METHODS

A standardized, highly accurate cost accounting method, time-driven activity-based costing, was used to determine the cost of 1571 shoulder arthroplasties performed by 12 surgeons at 4 high-volume institutions between 2016 and 2018. Costs were broken down into supply costs (including implant price and consumables) and personnel costs, including physician fees. Cost parameters were compared with total cost for surgical episodes and case volume.

RESULTS

Across 4 institutions and 12 surgeons, surgeon volume and hospital volume did not correlate with episode-of-care cost. Average cost per case of each institution varied by factors of 1.6 (P = .47) and 1.7 (P = .06) for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), respectively. Implant (56% and 62%, respectively) and personnel costs from check-in through the operating room (21% and 17%, respectively) represented the highest percentages of cost and highly correlated with the cost of the episode of care for TSA and RSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in episode-of-care total costs for both TSA and RSA had no association with hospital or surgeon case volume at 4 high-volume institutions but was driven primarily by variation in implant and personnel costs through the operating room. This analysis does not address medium- or long-term costs.

Variation in the Cost of Care for Different Types of Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Lower-extremity arthroplasty constitutes the largest burden on health-care spending of any Medicare diagnosis group. Demand for upper extremity arthroplasty also continues to rise. It is necessary to better understand costs as health care shifts toward a bundled-payment accounting approach. We aimed (1) to identify whether variation exists in total cost for different types of joint arthroplasty, and, if so, (2) to determine which cost parameters drive this variation.

METHODS

The cost of the episode of inpatient care for 22,215 total joint arthroplasties was calculated by implementing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) at a single orthopaedic specialty hospital from 2015 to 2018. Implant price, supply costs, personnel costs, and length of stay for total knee, total hip, anatomic total shoulder, reverse total shoulder, total elbow, and total ankle arthroplasty were analyzed. Individual cost parameters were compared with total cost and volume.

RESULTS

Higher implant cost appeared to correlate with higher total costs and represented 53.8% of the total cost for an inpatient care cycle. Total knee arthroplasty was the least-expensive and highest-volume procedure, whereas total elbow arthroplasty had the lowest volume and highest cost (1.65 times more than that of total knee arthroplasty). Length of stay was correlated with increased personnel cost but did not have a significant effect on total cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Total inpatient cost at our orthopaedic specialty hospital varied by up to a factor of 1.65 between different fields of arthroplasty. The highest-volume procedures-total knee and hip arthroplasty-were the least expensive, driven predominantly by lower implant purchase prices.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We are not aware of any previous studies that have accurately compared cost structures across upper and lower-extremity arthroplasty with a uniform methodology. The present study, because of its uniform accounting process, provides reliable data that will allow clinicians to better understand cost relationships between different procedures.