Conceptualising centres of excellence: a scoping review of global evidence

An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Understanding the trends and patterns of research funding can aid in enhancing growth and innovation in orthopaedic research. We sought to analyze financial trends in public orthopaedic surgery funding and characterize trends in private funding distribution among orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to explore potential disparities across orthopaedic subspecialties.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of private and public orthopaedic research funding from 2015 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER through the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, respectively. Institutions receiving funds from both the NIH and the private sector were classified separately as publicly funded and privately funded. Research payment characteristics were categorized according to their respective orthopaedic fellowship subspecialties. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were employed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Over the study period, $348,428,969 in private and $701,078,031 in public research payments were reported. There were 2,229 unique surgeons receiving funding at 906 different institutions. The data showed that a total of 2,154 male orthopaedic surgeons received $342,939,782 and 75 female orthopaedic surgeons received $5,489,187 from 198 different private entities. The difference in the median payment size between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was not significant. The top 1% of all practicing orthopaedic surgeons received 99% of all private funding in 2021. The top 20 publicly and top 20 privately funded institutions received 77% of the public and 37% of the private funding, respectively. Private funding was greatest (31.5%) for projects exploring adult reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

While the amount of public research funding was more than double the amount of private research funding, the distribution of public research funding was concentrated in fewer institutions when compared with private research funding. This suggests the formation of orthopaedic centers of excellence (CoEs), which are programs that have high concentrations of talent and resources. Furthermore, the similar median payment by gender is indicative of equitable payment size. In the future, orthopaedic funding should follow a distribution model that aligns with the existing approach, giving priority to a nondiscriminatory stance regarding gender, and allocate funds toward CoEs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Securing research funding is vital for driving innovation in orthopaedic surgery, which is crucial for enhancing clinical interventions. Thus, understanding the patterns and distribution of research funding can help orthopaedic surgeons tailor their future projects to better align with current funding trends, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing support for their work.

Criteria and Indicators for Centers of Clinical Excellence in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation: A Global Consensus Facilitated by ISRRA

BACKGROUND

The aim of the International Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Alliance is to create a world where worldwide collaboration brings major breakthroughs for the millions of people living with stroke. A key pillar of this work is to define globally relevant criteria for centers that aspire to deliver excellent clinical rehabilitation and generate exceptional outcomes for patients.

OBJECTIVES

This paper presents consensus work conducted with an international group of expert stroke recovery and rehabilitation researchers, clinicians, and people living with stroke to identify and define criteria and measurable indicators for Centers of Clinical Excellence (CoCE) in stroke recovery and rehabilitation. These were intentionally developed to be ambitious and internationally relevant, regardless of a country's development or income status, to drive global improvement in stroke services.

METHODS

Criteria and specific measurable indicators for CoCE were collaboratively developed by an international panel of stroke recovery and rehabilitation experts from 10 countries and consumer groups from 5 countries.

RESULTS

The criteria and associated indicators, ranked in order of importance, focused upon (i) optimal outcome, (ii) research culture, (iii) working collaboratively with people living with stroke, (iv) knowledge exchange, (v) leadership, (vi) education, and (vii) advocacy. Work is currently underway to user-test the criteria and indicators in 14 rehabilitation centers in 10 different countries.

CONCLUSIONS

We anticipate that use of the criteria and indicators could support individual organizations to further develop their services and, more widely, provide a mechanism by which clinical excellence can be articulated and shared to generate global improvements in stroke care.

Requirements for Brazilian Outpatient Centers of Excellence in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Consensus Co-Creative Study

BACKGROUND

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic skin condition. Its complexity and impact on patients highlight the need for multidisciplinary care that can address the physical, psychological, and social aspects. Centers of excellence can ideally provide the necessary infrastructure, resources, and expertise to effectively treat HS. However, there are still no consolidated models of centers of excellence in HS, and establishing their foundations is an intricate research challenge. Purposely, design and co-creation as innovation techniques are helpful approaches to this type of research.

METHODS

In this study, we conducted a co-creation with consensus among HS specialists to propose the criteria and requirements to establish outpatient centers of excellence of HS in Brazil. We followed a linear process with mixed methods in 6 stages.

RESULTS

The process resulted in 10 categories for establishing outpatient centers, including their respective requirements, rationale, and classification. The categories include onboarding and welcoming; infrastructure and procedures; infusion therapy; flows and referrals; staffing; disease management; metrics during diagnosis; metrics during treatment; awareness and advocacy; research and education.

DISCUSSION

The idealized outpatient centers can play a role in the complete multidisciplinary treatment for HS and advancing the science of healthcare services by providing a focus for research, training, and translation of findings into practice.