Self-Reported Recovery Likelihood Predicts Higher Physician Ratings: A Survey of Patients After Orthopaedic Surgery

Physician-Rating Websites and Social Media Usage: A Global Survey of Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons: AOA Critical Issues

The relationship between orthopaedic surgeons and the internet is complicated. Social media allows surgeons to educate their patients while marketing to them at the same time. Conversely, patients are able to better communicate with their surgeons while anonymously rating their service and expertise. This study aims to look at the complex relationship between surgeons and social media use.

Patient Satisfaction Is Improved With Exposure to Trauma Recovery Services

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of Trauma Recovery Services (TRS), a program facilitating engagement and recovery on satisfaction after orthopaedic trauma.

METHODS

Two hundred ninety-four patients with surgically managed extremity fractures were prospectively surveyed. Satisfaction was assessed after 12 months using a 13-question telephone survey, rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (with five being excellent). TRS resource utilization during and after hospitalization was recorded. Eighty-eight patients (30%) used TRS.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction was high with a mean score of 4.32. Although no differences were observed between the control group and patients with TRS utilization in age, sex, race, insurance, smoking history, or employment status, TRS patients sustained more high-energy mechanisms (81% versus 56%) and had more associated psychiatric illness (33% versus 17%), both P < 0.01. Multivariable regression indicated general exposure to TRS to be an independent predictor of higher overall care ratings (B = 1.31; P = 0.03).

DISCUSSION

Utilization of TRS was the greatest predictor of better overall care ratings. This study builds on existing evidence demonstrating the positive impact of Trauma Survivor Network programming. We conclude that a hospital-wide program supporting patient education and engagement can effectively increase patient satisfaction after traumatic injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II.

Patient-related Factors and Perioperative Outcomes Are Associated with Self-Reported Hospital Rating after Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Since 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has tied a portion of hospitals' annual reimbursement to patients' responses to the Hospital Consumer Assessment and Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which is given to a random sample of inpatients after discharge. The most general question in the HCAHPS survey asks patients to rate their overall hospital experience on a scale of 0 to 10, with a score of 9 or 10 considered high, or "top-box." Previous work has suggested that HCAHPS responses, which are meant to be an objective measure of the quality of care delivered, may vary based on numerous patient factors. However, few studies to date have identified factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients undergoing spine surgery, and those that have are largely restricted to surgery of the lumbar spine. Consequently, patient and perioperative factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients receiving surgery across the spine have not been well elucidated.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Among patients undergoing spine surgery, we asked if a "top-box" rating on the overall hospital experience question on the HCAHPS survey was associated with (1) patient-related factors present before admission; (2) surgical variables related to the procedure; and/or (3) 30-day perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Among 5517 patients undergoing spine surgery at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2017 and who were sent an HCAHPS survey, 27% (1480) returned the survey and answered the question related to overall hospital experience. A retrospective, comparative analysis was performed comparing patients who rated their overall hospital experience as "top-box" with those who did not. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical variables associated with a top-box hospital rating. Additional multivariate logistic regression analyses controlling for these variables were performed to determine the association of any adverse event, major adverse events (such as myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism), and minor adverse events (such as urinary tract infection, pneumonia); reoperation; readmission; and prolonged hospitalization with a top-box hospital rating.

RESULTS

After controlling for potential confounding variables (including patient demographics), comorbidities that differed in incidence between patients who rated the hospital top-box and those who did not, and variables related to surgery, the patient factors associated with a top-box hospital rating were older age (compared with age ≤ 40 years; odds ratio 2.2, [95% confidence interval 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001 for 41 to 60 years; OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.9]; p < 0.001 for 61 to 80 years; OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.1]; p = 0.036 for > 80 years), and being a man (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.028). Further, a non-top-box hospital rating was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists Class II (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.024), Class III (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.020), or Class IV (OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.003). The only surgical factor positively associated with a top-box hospital rating was cervical surgery (compared with lumbar surgery; OR 1.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.9]; p = 0.016), while nonelective surgery (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.8]; p = 0.004) was associated with a non-top-box hospital rating. Controlling for the same set of variables, a non-top-box rating was associated with the occurrence of any adverse event (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.7]; p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.023), and prolonged hospital stay (OR, 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying patient factors present before surgery that are independently associated with HCAHPS scores underscores the survey's limited utility in accurately measuring the quality of care delivered to patients undergoing spine surgery. HCAHPS responses in the spine surgery population should be interpreted with caution and should consider the factors identified here. Given differing findings in the literature regarding the effect of adverse events on HCAHPS scores, future work should aim to further characterize this relationship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Implementing psychosocial programming at a level 1 trauma center: results from a 5-year period

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of the present study is to describe the psychosocial support services provided at our institution and the evolution of such programming through time. This study will also report the demographics and injury patterns of patients using available resources.

METHODS

Trauma Recovery Services (TRS) is a social and psychological support program that provides services and resources to patients and families admitted to our hospital. It includes a number of different services such as emotional coaching from licensed counselors, educational materials, peer mentorship from trauma survivors, monthly support groups, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening and programming for victims of crime. Patients using services were prospectively recorded by hired staff, volunteers and students who engaged in distributing programming. Demographics and injury characteristics were retrospectively gathered from patient's medical records.

RESULTS

From May of 2013 through December 2018, a total of 4977 discrete patients used TRS at an urban level 1 trauma center. During the study period, 31.4% of the 15 640 admitted adult trauma patients were exposed to TRS and this increased from 7.2% in 2013 to 60.1% in 2018. During the period of 5.5 years, 3317 patients had 'direct contact' (coaching and/or educational materials) and 1827 patients had at least one peer visit. The average number of peer visits was 2.7 per patient (range: 2-15). Of the 114 patients who attended support groups over 4 years, 55 (48%) attended more than one session, with an average of 3.9 visits (range: 2-10) per patient. After the establishment of PTSD screening and Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP) services in 2017, a total of 482 patients were screened for PTSD and 974 patients used VOCARP resources during the period of 2 years, with substantial growth from 2017 to 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital-provided resources aimed at educating patients, expanding support networks and bolstering resiliency were popular at our institution, with nearly 5000 discrete patients accessing services during a period of 5.5 years. Moving forward, greater investigation of program usage, development, and efficacy is necessary.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II therapeutic.

Implementing recovery resources in trauma care: impact and implications

Objectives:

To identify resources that patients perceive as helpful to their recovery and to characterize the impact of the Trauma Survivor Network (TSN), a program committed to enhancing recovery through education and engagement.

Design:

Prospective cohort study.

Setting:

Level 1 trauma center.

Patients/Participants:

Four hundred eighty-five patients with musculoskeletal injuries. Two hundred eleven were exposed to TSN resources (Group 1). One hundred thirty-five patients were treated during the same period with no exposure (Group 2, control). One hundred thirty-nine patients were treated 1 to 3 months prior to TSN implementation (Group 3, control).

Intervention:

TSN resources including educational materials, family classes, peer survivor visits, coaching, online services, and support groups.

Main outcome measure:

A survey to assess hospital experience and perceptions about recovery.

Results:

On a Likert scale from 0 to 5, patients were highly satisfied (mean 4.24), with no differences based on TSN exposure. Patients exposed to TSN programming reported greater perceived likelihood of recovery: mean 3.73 vs 3.41 vs 3.38, Group 1 vs Group 2 vs Group 3 (P = .05) and regarding return to daily activities: 3.69 vs 3.49 vs 3.10, P = .003. Fifty-three percent of Group 1 patients exposed to TSN programming utilized peer relationships and 42% read the educational materials provided. Support groups were also popular, with 26% of patients attending at least 1 session. Patients who recalled utilization of TSN services were overall highly satisfied with these services, mean 4.42.

Conclusion:

Patients were overall highly satisfied with their hospital stay, with those exposed to TSN services reporting greater perceived likelihood of recovery and return to daily activities. Development of nontraditional services, including peer visitation and support groups, appears to enhance expectations about recovery.

Mental illness is associated with more pain and worse functional outcomes after ankle fracture

Objectives

To assess clinical and functional outcomes after ankle fracture in patients with preexisting mental illness.

Design

Retrospective study.

Setting

Level 1 trauma center.

Patients/Participants

One thousand three hundred seventy-eight adult patients treated for ankle fractures; 228 (17%) had preexisting mental illness.

Intervention

Open reduction internal fixation.

Main outcome measure

Rates of complications and reoperations. Functional outcomes were assessed via Foot Function Index (n = 530) and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (n = 530).

Results

Depression was the most common mental illness (63%), followed by anxiety (23%). Mental illness was associated with older age, female sex, and preexisting medical comorbidities, including diabetes and obesity. Mental illness was not associated with specific fracture patterns or open injury. Complications occurred no more often in patients with mental illness, but secondary operations (13% vs 7%) were more likely, particularly implant removals (8% vs 4%), both P < .05. Functional outcomes were worse in mentally ill patients as measured by the Foot Function Index (39 vs 30, P = .006) and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Mobility: 45 vs 35, Bothersome: 35 vs 26 and Dysfunction: 35 vs 26, all P < .01.

Conclusion

Secondary operations were nearly 50% more frequent in patients with mental illness, and functional outcome scores were significantly worse, suggesting that mental illness, unrelated to injury and treatment parameters, has major influence on outcomes. In the future, strategies to identify and treat mental illness prior to and after treatment could improve functional outcomes following ankle fracture.