Multidisciplinary care in surgery: Are team-based interventions cost-effective?

Patient Experiences With a Multidisciplinary Fibroid Program

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Although medical, interventional, and surgical treatment options for fibroids have expanded over the last decade, many patients are not thoroughly counseled about all available therapies. Patients desire a more comprehensive approach with shared decision-making tailored to their health goals. The aim of this study is to assess patient knowledge regarding treatment options before and after consultation with a multidisciplinary fibroid center.

DESIGN

Prospective survey study.

SETTING

Academic medical center in New York, NY.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients who presented for initial consultation with a multidisciplinary fibroid program from July 2021 through January 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were offered same-day office consultation with a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) followed by a telemedicine visit with an interventional radiologist (IR) within 3 weeks of the appointment request. Collaborative discussions were held between providers regarding patient care. Patients were asked to complete the survey following both appointments. Data was collected regarding demographics, prior evaluation of fibroids, knowledge about treatment options, and overall experience.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients completed the survey (response rate 77%). A majority (55.9%) had known about their fibroids for at least 2 years. Most patients sought out the fibroid program for a 2nd (28.4%), 3rd (22.5%) or 4th (7.8%) opinion. Notably, 35.3% of patients who had previously been seen by an obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) were not offered any treatment. Of those who had been offered treatment, 24.5% were counseled on medical management with oral contraceptives, 28.4% on surgical options, and 5.9% on uterine artery embolization. Nearly all patients (86.3%) endorsed that they would not have sought 2 separate consultations had it not been for the program. Patients were overall well-informed after their experience, with 95.1% reporting they were more knowledgeable about their options and none reporting the 2 separate consults created more confusion for them.

CONCLUSION

Many patients with symptomatic fibroids seeking secondary opinions have not been adequately counseled on fibroid management options. A collaborative approach to fibroid management better educates patients, provides an opportunity to be thoroughly counseled by the specialists performing either surgical or interventional procedures, and increases patient knowledge about fibroid treatment options.

Excessive Preoperative Testing in Otolaryngology: A Retrospective Comparison of Primary Care and Perioperative Providers

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between provider type (primary care provider [PCP] or perioperative provider) and excessive preoperative testing.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of adult patients who obtained an outpatient preoperative assessment and underwent surgery in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery during the first 2 weeks of January 2019 (n = 94) were reviewed. Patients receiving preoperative tests beyond those recommended by the guidelines were deemed to have had excessive testing. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Simple and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the association between the outcome and the predictor variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 44.7% of preoperative evaluations had excessive testing. Patients who had their preoperative evaluation performed by a perioperative provider had 89% lower odds of having excessive preoperative testing compared to those evaluated by a PCP (odds ratio = 0.11, 95% confidence interval: [0.03, 0.37], P < .001). Female sex, younger age, and higher risk of major adverse cardiac events were associated with greater odds of excessive testing.

CONCLUSION

Excessive preoperative testing is more commonly performed by PCPs compared to perioperative providers. These results give preliminary evidence in support of a potential shift in the clinical responsibility of preoperative evaluation from PCPs to perioperative providers in order to reduce excessive testing and promote high-value health care. The next steps include validating these findings, identifying reasons for differential guideline concordance, and intervening accordingly.

Positive Patient Postoperative Outcomes with Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review including Perioperative-Specialty Pharmacist Interviews

The influence of pharmacotherapy regimens on surgical patient outcomes is increasingly appreciated in the era of enhanced recovery protocols and institutional focus on reducing postoperative complications. Specifics related to medication selection, dosing, frequency of administration, and duration of therapy are evolving to optimize pharmacotherapeutic regimens for many enhanced recovery protocolized elements. This review provides a summary of recent pharmacotherapeutic strategies, including those configured within electronic health record (EHR) applications and functionalities, that are associated with the minimization of the frequency and severity of postoperative complications (POCs), shortened hospital length of stay (LOS), reduced readmission rates, and cost or revenue impacts. Further, it will highlight preventive pharmacotherapy regimens that are correlated with improved patient preparation, especially those related to surgical site infection (SSI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative ileus (POI), and emergence delirium (PoD) as well as less commonly encountered POCs such as acute kidney injury (AKI) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The importance of interprofessional collaboration in all periprocedural phases, focusing on medication management through shared responsibilities for drug therapy outcomes, will be emphasized. Finally, examples of collaborative care through shared mental models of drug stewardship and non-medical practice agreements to improve operative throughput, reduce operative stress, and increase patient satisfaction are illustrated.

The Effect of the Electronic Health Record on Interprofessional Practice: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

 Interprofessional practice and teamwork are critical components to patient care in a complex hospital environment. The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) in the hospital environment has brought major change to clinical practice for clinicians which could impact interprofessional practice.

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of the study is to identify, describe, and evaluate studies on the effect of an EHR or modification/enhancement to an EHR on interprofessional practice in a hospital setting.

METHODS

 Seven databases were searched including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, and ACM Digital Library until November 2021. Subject heading and title/abstract searches were undertaken for three search concepts: "interprofessional" and "electronic health records" and "hospital, personnel." No date limits were applied. The search generated 5,400 publications and after duplicates were removed, 3,255 remained for title/abstract screening. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Risk of bias was quantified using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. A narrative synthesis of the findings was completed based on type of intervention and outcome measures which included: communication, coordination, collaboration, and teamwork.

RESULTS

 The majority of publications were observational studies and of low research quality. Most studies reported on outcomes of communication and coordination, with few studies investigating collaboration or teamwork. Studies investigating the EHR demonstrated mostly negative or no effects on interprofessional practice (23/31 outcomes; 74%) in comparison to studies investigating EHR enhancements which showed more positive results (20/28 outcomes; 71%). Common concepts identified throughout the studies demonstrated mixed results: sharing of information, visibility of information, closed-loop feedback, decision support, and workflow disruption.

CONCLUSION

 There were mixed effects of the EHR and EHR enhancements on all outcomes of interprofessional practice, however, EHR enhancements demonstrated more positive effects than the EHR alone. Few EHR studies investigated the effect on teamwork and collaboration.

Duplicated Reality for Co-located Augmented Reality Collaboration

When two or more users attempt to collaborate in the same space with Augmented Reality, they often encounter conflicting intentions regarding the occupation of the same working area and self-positioning around such without mutual interference. Augmented Reality is a powerful tool for communicating ideas and intentions during a co-assisting task that requires multi-disciplinary expertise. To relax the constraint of physical co-location, we propose the concept of Duplicated Reality, where a digital copy of a 3D region of interest of the users' environment is reconstructed in real-time and visualized in-situ through an Augmented Reality user interface. This enables users to remotely annotate the region of interest while being co-located with others in Augmented Reality. We perform a user study to gain an in-depth understanding of the proposed method compared to an in-situ augmentation, including collaboration, effort, awareness, usability, and the quality of the task. The result indicates almost identical objective and subjective results, except a decrease in the consulting user's awareness of co-located users when using our method. The added benefit from duplicating the working area into a designated consulting area opens up new interaction paradigms to be further investigated for future co-located Augmented Reality collaboration systems.

Sharing the Operating Room: A Descriptive Study of Combined and Collaborative Plastic Surgery Cases

BACKGROUND

Plastic surgeons are often asked for intraoperative assistance by other surgical services. Improvement of a plastic surgery service has been shown to improve patient outcomes, decrease length of stay, and increase hospital revenue, yet plastic surgery's contribution to a hospital tends to be undervalued. The purpose of this study was to quantify the multidisciplinary role the plastic surgery service plays within a single, large pediatric institution.

METHODS

Surgical cases involving both plastic surgery and at least one other team were identified from 2016 to 2019. Each case was categorized as either "combined" or "collaborative" based on whether the two teams worked separately on separate problems or together on the same problem, respectively. Data points collected included combined and collaborative cases, operating room hours, and total hospital charges billed.

RESULTS

Of the 7564 total plastic surgery cases performed, multidisciplinary cases made up a minority of total cases (16 percent) but required 32 percent of the operating room hours and provided 49 percent of the total charges billed. Collaborative cases alone accounted for 20 percent of the service's operating room hours and 39 percent of total charges billed, while making up only 8 percent of total cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to cases where plastic surgery operates alone, combined and collaborative cases account for a disproportionately high number of operating room hours and provide a disproportionately high amount of charges billed.

The neuropalliative multidisciplinary team-Members and their roles

Neurodegenerative conditions are prominent contributors to both morbidity and mortality worldwide. They pose a significant challenge to health professionals, health systems, and the often unpaid, untrained family members and carers. The many and varied challenges encountered are best managed by a multidisciplinary neuropalliative team, as it is impossible for a single clinician to possess and deliver the wide range of skills and services required to optimally care for these patients. This chapter discusses the assembly, maintenance, and care of such a team, as well as potential difficulties and solutions in domains such as funding, training, geographical remoteness, as well as the potential lack of awareness and acceptance by colleagues. A comprehensive description of the role of all possible team members is discussed. The chapter outlines the concept, content, and potential benefits of a multidisciplinary team in neuropalliative care. Its thesis is twofold: that multidisciplinary care is vital and, second, that the sum of the whole of a team can be greater than the individual parts with respect to organization, planning, experience, and creativity of approach. With all these factors considered, and implemented wherever possible, we may all move closer to optimizing the comfort and care of our shared neuropalliative patients.

Cost-effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Care in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary care has been previously shown to improve outcomes for patients and providers alike, fostering interprofessional collaboration and communication. Many studies have demonstrated the beneficial health care outcomes of interdisciplinary care. However, there has been minimal focus on the cost-effectiveness of such care, particularly in the realm of plastic surgery. This is the first systematic review to examine cost savings attributable to plastic surgery involvement in multidisciplinary care.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of articles published on cost outcomes associated with multidisciplinary teams including a plastic surgeon was performed. Included articles reported on cost outcomes directly or indirectly attributable to a collaborative intervention. Explicitly reported cost savings were totaled on a per-patient basis. Each article was also reviewed to determine whether the authors ultimately recommended the team-based intervention described.

RESULTS

A total of 604 articles were identified in the initial query, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. Three studies reported explicit cost savings from multidisciplinary care, with cost savings ranging from $707 to $26,098 per patient, and 5 studies reported changes in secondary factors such as complication rates and length of stay. All studies ultimately recommended multidisciplinary care, regardless of whether cost savings were achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary plastic surgery care examined both primary cost savings and associated quality outcomes, such as length of stay, complication rate, and resource consumption. Our findings indicate that the inclusion of plastic surgery in team-based care provides both direct and indirect cost savings to all involved parties.

Late Presenting Multi-Suture Craniosynostosis

ABSTRACT

The authors provide the case of a 6-year-old male who presented late with multi-suture craniosynostosis and chronically elevated intracranial pressures (ICPs). He was surgically managed with frontal orbital advancement. This particular case illustrates the significant bleeding and unique bony pathology that can occur in patients with high ICP with concomitant venous collateralization. At 1-month follow-up, he demonstrated significant improvement with maintained expansion and no signs of elevated ICP despite delayed intervention. Frontal orbital advancement serves as an effective method for cranial vault expansion and correction of frontal deformities caused by craniosynostosis.

Shared care in surgery: Practical considerations for surgical leaders

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted limitations in current healthcare systems and needed strategies to increase surgical access. This article presents a team-based integration model that embraces intra-disciplinary collaboration in shared clinical care, professional development, and administrative processes to address this surge in demand for surgical care. Implementing this model will require communicating the rationale for and benefits of shared care, while shifting patient trust to a team of providers. For the individual surgeon, advantages of clinical integration through shared care include decreased burnout and professional isolation, and more efficient transitions into and out of practice. Advantages to the system include greater surgeon availability, streamlined disease site wait lists, and promotion of system efficiency through a centralized distribution of clinical resources. We present a framework to stimulate national dialogue around shared care that will ultimately help overcome system bottlenecks for surgical patients and provide support for health professionals.