Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of psychosocial care within orthopedic trauma centers: a qualitative study with multidisciplinary stakeholders from geographically diverse settings

Surgeon Prioritization of Mental, Social, and Pathophysiological Aspects of Health Among People With Traumatic and Nontraumatic Musculoskeletal Conditions

BACKGROUND

There is mounting evidence that, among musculoskeletal patients, variation in capability has more notable associations with variations in mental and social health factors than with variation in pathophysiology severity. This study sought factors that could limit the integration of this evidence into more comprehensive care models.

METHODS

In two scenario-based experiments, surgeon participants in an international collaborative, the Science of Variation Group, reviewed scenarios of (a) nontraumatic (83 participants) and (b) trauma-related (130 participants) pathophysiologies for which tests and treatments were discretionary. The following demographic, mental, and social health elements were varied randomly: sex, age, race/ethnicity, mindsets, social health aspects, and specific pathophysiologies. For each scenario, participants rated their likelihood to offer surgery (continuous) and their sense of presence of an opportunity to address better mental or social health in treatment (yes or no). Factors associated with each rating were sought in multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Greater likelihood to offer discretionary surgery for nontraumatic pathophysiologies was associated with greater pathophysiology severity, trapeziometacarpal arthritis, and greater distress and unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms. Lateral elbow enthesopathy was associated with a lower likelihood. For trauma-related pathophysiologies, an ankle fracture with slight articular subluxation was associated with greater likelihood to offer surgery, and several other trauma-related pathophysiologies were associated with a lower likelihood. For both nontraumatic and trauma-related pathophysiologies, surgeons noticed unhelpful thinking, distress, and social issues as reasons to consider addressing mental and social health in treatment, relatively independent of pathophysiology.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons seem to recognize opportunities to address mental and social needs but ultimately base their decision to offer discretionary surgery on pathophysiological factors.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Comprehensive, whole-person care for musculoskeletal illness might be supported by strategies for ensuring that aspects of stress and distress that contribute to greater symptom intensity are not misinterpreted as a reflection of greater pathophysiology severity.

Virtual Reality for Subacute Pain After Orthopedic Traumatic Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

Acute orthopedic traumatic musculoskeletal injuries are prevalent, costly, and often lead to persistent pain and functional limitations. Psychological risk factors (eg, pain catastrophizing and anxiety) exacerbate these outcomes but are often overlooked in acute orthopedic care. Addressing gaps in current treatment approaches, this mixed-methods pilot study explored the use of a therapeutic virtual reality (VR; RelieVRx ), integrating principles of mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral therapy, for pain self-management at home following orthopedic injury.

METHODS

We enrolled 10 adults with acute orthopedic injuries and elevated pain catastrophizing or pain anxiety from Level 1 Trauma Clinics within the Mass General Brigham health care system. Participants completed daily RelieVRx sessions at home for 8 weeks, which included pain education, relaxation, mindfulness, games, and dynamic breathing biofeedback. Primary outcomes were a priori feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability, satisfaction, and safety. Secondary outcomes were pre-post measures of pain, physical function, sleep, depression, and hypothesized mechanisms (pain self-efficacy, mindfulness, and coping).

RESULTS

The VR and study procedures met or exceeded all benchmarks. We observed preliminary improvements in pain, physical functioning, sleep, depression, and mechanisms. Qualitative exit interviews confirmed high satisfaction with RelieVRx and yielded recommendations for promoting VR-based trials with orthopedic patients.

DISCUSSION

The results support a larger randomized clinical trial of RelieVRx versus a sham placebo control to replicate the findings and explore mechanisms. There is potential for self-guided VR to promote evidence-based pain management strategies and address the critical mental health care gap for patients following acute orthopedic injuries.

Efficacy and Safety of Stem Cell Therapy for Orthopedic Conditions, Including Osteoarthritis and Bone Defects

INTRODUCTION

Orthopedic conditions like osteoarthritis and bone defects pose significant challenges due to their impact on individuals' quality of life. Traditional treatments often provide only symptomatic relief, necessitating alternative therapies for long-term management. Stem cell therapy has grabbed attention for its regenerative and immunomodulatory properties, offering potential for tissue repair and functional restoration.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy for orthopedic conditions, specifically osteoarthritis and bone defects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed data from patients who underwent stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis or bone defects between January and September 2023. Outcome measures focused on pain and function improvements using tools such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), alongside radiographic assessments. Adverse events, range of motion, quality of life, and demographic factors were also examined. Data were collected from electronic medical records while maintaining patient confidentiality. Descriptive statistics using SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) were employed to analyze patient characteristics, treatment variables, and outcomes, with statistical significance determined using Chi-square test and Independent t-test.

RESULTS

Out of 50 individuals, the majority, i.e., 35 (or 70%), were diagnosed with osteoarthritis, while the remaining 15 (30%) had bone defects. Treatment outcomes showed significant improvements in pain and function, with a decrease in mean VAS and WOMAC scores at the six-month follow-up. Seven participants (28%) reported adverse events, and two participants (8%) experienced serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Stem cell therapy shows promise for treating orthopedic conditions like osteoarthritis and bone defects. While demonstrating efficacy in pain management and functional improvement, safety considerations warrant further investigation and optimization of treatment protocols. Future research should focus on refining stem cell therapy techniques and addressing safety concerns to maximize its therapeutic potential in orthopedic practice.

Increased prevalence of lower extremity soft tissue injuries and surgeries in patients with anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa

PURPOSE

An abundance of literature exists linking eating disorders and fracture risk. However, no studies, to our knowledge, have investigated the impact of eating disorders on lower extremity soft tissue injury or surgery risk. The purpose of this study was to determine if anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are associated with prevalence of lower extremity soft tissue injuries and surgeries.

METHODS

Patients with anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa over 2010-2020 were identified through the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in the PearlDiver Claims Database. Patients were matched by age, gender, comorbidities, record dates, and region to control groups without anorexia or bulimia. Soft tissue injuries were identified through ICD codes, and surgeries were identified through Current Procedural Terminology codes. Differences in relative prevalence were analyzed using chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with anorexia had a significantly increased prevalence of meniscus tears (RR = 1.57, CI 1.22-2.03, p = 0.001) or deltoid ligament sprains (RR = 1.83, CI 1.10-3.03, p = 0.025), and patients with bulimia had a significantly increased prevalence of meniscus tears (RR = 1.98, CI 1.56-2.51, p < 0.001), medial collateral ligament sprains (RR = 3.07, CI 1.72-5.48, p < 0.001), any cruciate ligament tears (RR = 2.14, CI 1.29-3.53, p = 0.004), unspecified ankle sprains (RR = 1.56, CI 1.22-1.99, p < 0.001), or any ankle ligament sprains (RR = 1.27, CI 1.07-1.52, p = 0.008). Patients with anorexia had a significantly increased prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (RR = 2.83, CI 1.12-7.17, p = 0.037) or any meniscus surgeries (RR = 1.54, CI 1.03-2.29, p = 0.042), and patients with bulimia had a significantly increased prevalence of partial meniscectomies (RR = 1.80, CI 1.26-2.58, p = 0.002) or any meniscus surgeries (RR = 1.83, CI 1.29-2.60, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anorexia and bulimia are associated with increased prevalence of soft tissue injuries and surgeries. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of this risk, and patients presenting to clinics should be informed of the risks associated with these diagnoses and provided with resources promoting recovery to help prevent further injury or surgery.

Breaking the Disability Spiral: A Case Series Report Illustrating the Delivery of a Brief Skills Based Coaching Intervention to Prevent Chronic Dysfunction and Pain After Orthopedic Injury

Orthopedic traumas are common, costly, and burdensome - particularly for patients who transition from acute to chronic pain. Psychosocial factors, such as pain catastrophizing and pain anxiety, increase risk for poor outcomes after injury. The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a novel multi-component mind-body intervention informed by the fear-avoidance model to promote re-engagement in daily activities and prevent transition toward chronic pain and physical dysfunction. The current case series aims to 1) describe the intervention and 2) showcase the treatment course of three TOR completers from diverse geographic locations in the U.S. with distinct injury types and varying personal identities to illustrate how the intervention can be delivered flexibly. Results indicate pre-to-post program improvement in physical function, pain severity, pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, and other relevant outcomes targeted by the intervention (i.e., depression, mindfulness, coping). Experiences of our three TOR completers suggest that integrating TOR with standard orthopedic care may promote physical recovery after injury.

Optimizing the Implementation of a Lifestyle Dementia Prevention Intervention for Older Patients in an Academic Healthcare System

Background

Interventions that promote healthy lifestyles are critical for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD). However, knowledge of the best practices for implementing AD/ADRD prevention in healthcare settings remains limited.

Objective

We aimed to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to implementing a clinical trial of a novel lifestyle intervention (My Healthy Brain) in our medical center for older patients with subjective cognitive decline who are at-risk for AD/ADRD.

Methods

We conducted focus groups with 26 healthcare professionals (e.g., physicians, psychology, nursing) from 5 clinics that treat older patients (e.g., memory care, psychiatry). Our qualitative analysis integrated two implementation frameworks to systematically capture barriers and facilitators to AD/ADRD prevention (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science Research) that impact implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility (Proctor's framework).

Results

We found widespread support for an RCT of My Healthy Brain and AD/ADRD prevention. Participants identified barriers related to patients (stigma, technological skills), providers (dismissiveness of "worried well," doubting capacity for behavior change), clinics (limited time and resources), and the larger healthcare system (underemphasis on prevention). Implementation strategies guided by Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) included: developing tailored materials, training staff, obtaining buy-in from leadership, addressing stigmatized language and practices, identifying "champions," and integrating with workflows and resources.

Conclusions

The results will inform our recruitment, enrollment, and retention procedures to implement the first randomized clinical trial of My Healthy Brain. Our study provides a blueprint for addressing multi-level barriers to the implementation of AD/ADRD prevention for older patients in medical settings.

Psychological treatments for the management of pain after musculoskeletal injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Musculoskeletal injury is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide; 35% to 75% of people experience persistent pain for months and years after injury. Psychological treatments can reduce pain, functional impairment, and psychological distress but are not widely used after injury. This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021236807) aimed to synthesize the literature testing psychological treatments for pain after musculoskeletal injury. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL from inception to May 2022. We extracted participant, treatment, and injury characteristics and primary (eg, pain intensity, functional impairment, depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms) and secondary (treatment feasibility and acceptability) outcomes. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials (N = 1966) were included. Immediately posttreatment, people who received psychological treatments (versus any control) reported lower pain intensity (standardized mean differences [SMD] = -0.25, 95% confidence interval [-0.49, -0.02]), functional impairment (SMD = -0.32 [-0.55, -0.09]), and symptoms of depression (SMD = -0.46 [-0.64, -0.29]), anxiety (SMD = -0.34 [-0.65, -0.04]), and PTSD (SMD = -0.43 [-0.70, -0.15]); at 6-month follow-up, only depression symptoms were significantly lower. Included trials varied widely in treatment and injury characteristics. The certainty of evidence was low or very low for most effects and heterogeneity moderate to substantial. Most studies had risk of bias domains judged to be high or unclear. Owing to very low certainty of results, we are unsure whether psychological therapies reduce pain and functional impairment after musculoskeletal injury; they may result in improved depression immediately posttreatment and at follow-up. More research is needed to identify treatments that result in enduring effects.

Patient Experiences and Clinical Outcomes in a Multidisciplinary Perioperative Transitional Pain Service

Siloed pain management across the perioperative period increases the risk of chronic opioid use and impedes postoperative recovery. Transitional perioperative pain services (TPSs) are innovative care models that coordinate multidisciplinary perioperative pain management to mitigate risks of chronic postoperative pain and opioid use. The objective of this study was to examine patients' experiences with and quality of recovery after participation in a TPS. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 26 patients from The Johns Hopkins Personalized Pain Program (PPP) an average of 33 months after their first PPP visit. A qualitative content analysis of the interview data showed that participants (1) valued pain expectation setting, individualized care, a trusting patient-physician relationship, and shared decision-making; (2) perceived psychiatric treatment of co-occurring depression, anxiety, and maladaptive behaviors as critical to recovery; and (3) successfully sustained opioid tapers and experienced improved functioning after PPP discharge. Areas for improved patient-centered care included increased patient education, specifically about the program, continuity of care with pain specialists while tapering opioids, and addressing the health determinants that impede access to pain care. The positive patient experiences and sustained clinical benefits for high-risk complex surgical patient support further efforts to implement and adapt similar models of perioperative pain care.

Clinician Interruptions and Patient-Rated Clinician Empathy in Specialty Visits

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians tend to interrupt patients when they are describing their problem, which may contribute to feeling unheard or misunderstood. Using transcripts of audio and video recordings from musculoskeletal (MSK) specialty visits, we asked what factors are associated with (1) Perceived clinician empathy, including the time a patient spends describing the problem and time to the first interruption, (2) duration of patient symptom description, and (3) duration between the end of greeting and first nonactive listening interruption.

METHODS

We analyzed transcripts of 194 adult patients seeking MSK specialty care with a median age (Interquartile range [IQR]) of 47 (33 to 59) years. Participants completed postvisit measures of perceived clinician empathy, symptoms of depression, accommodation of pain, and health anxiety. A nonactive listening interruption was defined as the clinician unilaterally redirecting the topic of conversation. Factors associated with patient-rated clinician empathy, patient problem description duration, and time until the first nonactive listening interruption were sought in bivariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

The patient's narrative was interrupted at least one time in 144 visits (74%). The duration of each visit was a median of 12 minutes (IQR 9 to 16 minutes). The median time patients spent describing their symptoms was 139 seconds before the first interruption (IQR 84 to 225 seconds). The median duration between the end of the initial greeting and the first interruption was 60 seconds (IQR 30 to 103 seconds). Clinician interruption was associated with shorter duration of symptom description. Greater perceived clinician empathy was associated with greater accommodation of pain (regression coefficient [95% confidence interval] = 0.015 [0.0005-0.30]; P = 0.04).

DISCUSSION

Clinician interruption was associated with shorter symptom presentation, but not with diminished perception of clinician empathy. Although active listening and avoidance of interruption are important communication tactics, other aspects of the patient-clinician relationship may have more effect on patient experience.

When Musculoskeletal Clinicians Respond to Empathetic Opportunities, do Patients Perceive Greater Empathy?

BACKGROUND

Patient use of verbal and nonverbal communication to signal what is most important to them can be considered empathetic opportunities. Orthopaedic surgeons may have mixed feelings toward empathetic opportunities, on one hand wanting the patient to know that they care, and on the other hand fearing offense, prolonged visit duration, or discussions for which they feel ill prepared. Evidence that action about empathetic opportunities does not harm the patient's experience or appreciably prolong the visit could increase the use of these communication tactics with potential for improved experience and outcomes of care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using transcripts from musculoskeletal specialty care visits in prior studies, we asked: (1) Are there factors, including clinician attentiveness to empathetic opportunities, associated with patient perception of clinician empathy? (2) Are there factors associated with the number of patient-initiated empathetic opportunities? (3) Are there factors associated with clinician acknowledgment of empathetic opportunities? (4) Are there factors associated with the frequency with which clinicians elicited empathetic opportunities?

METHODS

This study was a retrospective, secondary analysis of transcripts from prior studies of audio and video recordings of patient visits with musculoskeletal specialists. Three trained observers identified empathetic opportunities in 80% (209 of 261) of transcripts of adult patient musculoskeletal specialty care visits, with any uncertainties or disagreements resolved by discussion and a final decision by the senior author. Patient statements considered consistent with empathetic opportunities included relation of emotion, expression of worries or concerns, description of loss of valued activities or loss of important roles or identities, relation of a troubling psychologic or social event, and elaboration on daily life. Clinician-initiated empathetic opportunities were considered clinician inquiries about these factors. Clinician acknowledgment of empathetic opportunities included encouragement, affirmation or reassurance, or supportive statements. Participants completed post-visit surveys of perceived clinician empathy, symptoms of depression, and health anxiety. Factors associated with perceived clinician empathy, number of empathetic opportunities, clinician responses to these opportunities, and the frequency with which clinicians elicited empathetic opportunities were sought in bivariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as working status and pain self-efficacy scores in the multivariable analysis, no factors were associated with patient perception of clinician empathy, including attentiveness to empathetic opportunities. Patient-initiated empathetic opportunities were modestly associated with longer visit duration (correlation coefficient 0.037 [95% confidence interval 0.023 to 0.050]; p < 0.001). Clinician acknowledgment of empathetic opportunities was modestly associated with longer visit duration (correlation coefficient 0.06 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.09]; p < 0.001). Clinician-initiated empathetic opportunities were modestly associated with younger patient age (correlation coefficient -0.025 [95% CI -0.037 to -0.014]; p < 0.001) and strongly associated with one specific interviewing clinician as well as other clinicians (correlation coefficient -1.3 [95% CI -2.2 to -0.42]; p = 0.004 and -0.53 [95% CI -0.95 to -0.12]; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Musculoskeletal specialists can respond to empathic opportunities without harming efficiency, throughput, or patient experience.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given the evidence that patients prioritize feeling heard and understood, and evidence that a trusting patient-clinician relationship is protective and healthful, the results of this study can motivate specialists to train and practice effective communication tactics.

A multidisciplinary transitional pain service to improve pain outcomes following trauma surgery: a preliminary report

OBJECTIVES

Trauma (i.e., musculoskeletal injury from a blunt or penetrating force) can change the trajectory of a person's life. Patients often experience chronic pain, reduced quality of life, long-term opioid therapy, and psychiatric comorbidities after trauma surgery. This case report presents clinical outcomes of four patients who received postsurgical pain care in a transitional pain service (TPS) that provides long-term coordinated multimodal pain care, opioid tapering plans, and psychiatric care.

METHODS

The Personalized Pain Program (PPP) measures prescription opioid use and patient-reported outcomes: pain severity and pain interference (Brief Pain Inventory), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), insomnia severity (Insomnia Severity Index), physical and mental health functioning (SF-12 pre-COVID-19; SF-36 during COVID-19 pandemic) at initial and subsequent clinic visits.

RESULTS

All four patients reduced their postsurgical opioid use with concurrent reductions in pain and improved functioning while receiving postoperative care in the PPP (average length of treatment: 2.8 years). Psychiatric co-treatment addressed the onset or exacerbation of mental health comorbidities following trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term multidisciplinary pain care may improve post-trauma recovery and reduce risks of long-term opioid therapy and disability. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of TPSs for patients undergoing trauma surgery.

Health disparities in orthopedic trauma: a qualitative study examining providers' perspectives on barriers to care and recovery outcomes

Social workers involved in interdisciplinary orthopedic trauma care can benefit from the knowledge of providers' perspectives on healthcare disparities in this field. Using qualitative data from focus groups conducted on 79 orthopedic care providers at three Level 1 trauma centers, we assessed their perspectives on orthopedic trauma healthcare disparities and discussed potential solutions. Focus groups originally aimed to detect barriers and facilitators of the implementation of a trial of a live video mind-body intervention to aid in recovery in orthopedic trauma care settings (Toolkit for Optimal Recovery-TOR). We used the Socio-Ecological Model to analyze an emerging code of "health disparities" during data analysis to determine at which levels of care these disparities occurred. We identified factors related to health disparities in orthopedic trauma care and outcomes at the Individual (Education- comprehension, health-literacy; Language Barriers; Psychological Health- emotional distress, alcohol/drug use, learned helplessness; Physical Health- obesity, smoking; and Access to Technology), Relationship (Social Support Network), Community (Transportation and Employment Security), and Societal level (Access- safe/clean housing, insurance, mental health resources; Culture). We discuss the implications of the findings and provide recommendations to address these issues, with a specific focus on their relevance to the field of social work in health care.

What Are Orthopaedic Patients' and Clinical Team Members' Perspectives Regarding Whether and How to Address Mental Health in the Orthopaedic Care Setting? A Qualitative Investigation of Patients With Neck or Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Across virtually all orthopaedic subspecialties, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and unhelpful thinking are associated with worse patient-reported satisfaction with orthopaedic treatment and increased postoperative complications. In the orthopaedic community, there is growing interest in patients' mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, but addressing mental health is still not a focus of orthopaedic clinical training. There is a persistent awareness gap about how to address mental health in orthopaedic care in a manner that is simultaneously feasible in a busy orthopaedic practice and acceptable to patients who are presenting for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are orthopaedic patients' and clinical team members' current perceptions and motivators regarding addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (2) What barriers do patients and clinicians face regarding addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (3) What are facilitators for patients and clinicians related to addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (4) What are practical, acceptable implementation strategies to facilitate addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care?

METHODS

This was a single-center, qualitative study conducted from January through May 2022 in the orthopaedic department of a large, urban, tertiary care academic medical center. Semistructured interviews were conducted with members of two stakeholder groups: orthopaedic patients and orthopaedic clinical team members. We interviewed 30 adult patients (of 85 patients who were eligible and approached) who had presented to our orthopaedic department for management of neck or back pain lasting for 3 or more months. By prescreening clinic schedules, patients were purposively sampled to include representatives from varied sociodemographic backgrounds and with a range of severity of self-reported symptoms of depression and anxiety (from none to severe on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression and Anxiety measures) (mean age 59 ± 14 years, 70% [21 of 30] women, 60% [18 of 30] White, median pain duration 3.3 [IQR 1.8 to 10] years). We also interviewed 22 orthopaedic clinicians and clinical support staff members (of 106 team members who were eligible and 25 who were approached). Team members were purposively sampled to include representatives from the full range of adult orthopaedic subspecialties and early-, mid-, and late-career physicians (11 of 22 were women, 16 of 22 were White, and 13 of 22 were orthopaedic surgeons). Interviews were conducted in person or via secure video conferencing by trained qualitative researchers. The interview guides were developed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model of behavior change. Two study team members used the interview transcripts for coding and thematic analysis, and interviews with additional participants from each stakeholder group continued until two study team members independently determined that thematic saturation of the components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model had been reached. Each participant statement was coded as a perception, motivator, barrier, facilitator, or implementation strategy, and inductive coding was used to identify themes in each category.

RESULTS

In contrast to the perceptions of some orthopaedic clinicians, most patients with orthopaedic conditions expressed they would like their mental well-being to be acknowledged, if not addressed, as part of a thoughtful orthopaedic care plan. Motivation to address mental health was expressed the most strongly among orthopaedic clinical team members who were aware of high-quality evidence that demonstrated a negative impact of symptoms of depression and anxiety on metrics for which they are publicly monitored or those who perceived that addressing patients' mental health would improve their own quality of life. Barriers described by patients with orthopaedic conditions that were related to addressing mental health in the context of orthopaedic care included clinical team members' use of select stigmatizing words and perceived lack of integration between responses to mental health screening measures and the rest of the orthopaedic care encounter. Orthopaedic clinical team members commonly cited the following barriers: lack of available mental health resources they can refer patients to, uncertainty regarding the appropriateness for them to discuss mental health, and time pressure and lack of expertise or comfort in discussing mental health. Facilitators identified by orthopaedic clinical teams and patients to address mental health in the context of orthopaedic care included the development of efficient, adaptable processes to deliver mental health interventions that preferably avoid wasted paper resources; initiation of mental health-related discussion by an orthopaedic clinical team member in a compassionate, relevant context after rapport with the patient has been established; and the availability of a variety of affordable, accessible mental health interventions to meet patients' varied needs and preferences. Practical implementation strategies identified as suitable in the orthopaedic setting to increase appropriate attention to patients' mental health included training orthopaedic clinical teams, establishing a department or institution "mental health champion," and integrating an automated screening question into clinical workflow to assess patients' interest in receiving mental health-related information.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic patients want their mental health to be acknowledged as part of a holistic orthopaedic care plan. Although organization-wide initiatives can address mental health systematically, a key facilitator to success is for orthopaedic clinicians to initiate compassionate, even if brief, conversations with their patients regarding the interconnectedness of mental health and musculoskeletal health. Given the unique challenges to addressing mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, additional research should consider use of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to identify effective methods of addressing mental health that are feasible and appropriate for this clinical setting.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Orthopaedic clinicians who have had negative experiences attempting to address mental health with their patients should be encouraged to keep trying. Our results suggest they should feel empowered that most patients want to address mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, and even brief conversations using nonstigmatizing language can be a valuable component of an orthopaedic treatment plan.

Influence of Race on Utilization and Outcomes in Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that utilization and outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty vary by sociodemographic factors, highlighting disparities in care. This systematic review synthesized all available literature regarding the relationship between utilization and outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty and race/ethnicity.

METHODS

Studies were identified using PubMed, MEDLINE (through Ovid), and CINAHL databases. All English language studies of Level I through IV evidence that specifically evaluated utilization and/or outcomes of hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, or reverse shoulder arthroplasty by race and/or ethnicity were included. Outcomes of interest included rates of utilization, readmission, reoperation, revision, and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Since the 1990s, Black and Hispanic patients have demonstrated a lower utilization rate of shoulder arthroplasty compared with White patients. Although utilization has increased among all racial groups throughout the present decade, the rate of increase is greater for White patients. These differences persist in both low-volume and high-volume centers and are independent of insurance status. Compared with White patients, Black patients have a longer postoperative length of stay after shoulder arthroplasty, worse preoperative and postoperative range of motion, a higher likelihood of 90-day emergency department visits, and a higher rate of postoperative complications including venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and sepsis. Patient-reported outcomes, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon's score, did not differ between Black and White patients. Hispanics had a significantly lower revision risk compared with White patients. One-year mortality did not differ significantly between Asians, Black patients, White patients, and Hispanics.

CONCLUSION

Shoulder arthroplasty utilization and outcomes vary by race and ethnicity. These differences may be partly due to patient factors such as cultural beliefs, preoperative pathology, and access to care, as well as provider factors such as cultural competence and knowledge of health care disparities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

How Do Orthopaedic Providers Conceptualize Good Patient Outcomes and Their Barriers and Facilitators After Acute Injury? A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Good clinical outcomes in orthopaedics are largely dictated by the biomedical model, despite mounting evidence of the role of psychosocial factors. Understanding orthopaedic providers' conceptualizations of good clinical outcomes and what facilitates and hinders them may highlight critical barriers and opportunities for training providers on biopsychosocial models of care and integrating them into practice.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) How do orthopaedic trauma healthcare providers define good clinical outcomes for their patients after an acute orthopaedic injury? (2) What do providers perceive as barriers to good outcomes? (3) What do providers perceive as facilitators of good outcomes? For each question, we explored providers' responses in a biopsychosocial framework.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, qualitative study, we recruited 94 orthopaedic providers via an electronic screening survey from three Level I trauma centers in geographically diverse regions of the United States (rural southeastern, urban southwestern, and urban northeastern). This study was part of the first phase of a multisite trial testing the implementation of a behavioral intervention to prevent chronic pain after acute orthopaedic injury. Of the 94 participants who were recruited, 88 completed the screening questionnaire. Of the 88 who completed it, nine could not participate because of scheduling conflicts. Thus, the final sample included 79 participants: 48 surgeons (20 attendings, 28 residents; 6% [three of 48] were women, 94% [45 of 48] were between 25 and 55 years old, 73% [35 of 48] were White, and 2% [one of 48] were Hispanic) and 31 other orthopaedic professionals (10 nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and physician assistants; 13 medical assistants; five physical therapists and social workers; and three research fellows; 68% [21 of 31] were women, 97% [30 of 31] were between 25 and 55 years old, 71% [22 of 31] were White, and 39% [12 of 31] were Hispanic). Using a semistructured interview, our team of psychology researchers conducted focus groups, organized by provider type at each site, followed by individual exit interviews (5- to 10-minute debriefing conversations and opportunities to voice additional opinions one-on-one with a focus group facilitator). In each focus group, providers were asked to share their perceptions of what constitutes a "good outcome for your patients," what factors facilitate these outcomes, and what factors are barriers to achieving those outcomes. Focus groups were approximately 60 minutes long. A research assistant recorded field notes during the focus groups to summarize insights gained and disseminate findings to the broader research team. Using this procedure, we determined that thematic saturation was reached for all topics and no additional focus groups were necessary. Three independent coders identified the codes of good outcomes, outcome barriers, and outcome facilitators and applied this coding framework to all transcripts. Three separate data interpreters collaboratively extracted themes related to biomedical, psychological, and social factors and corresponding inductive subthemes.

RESULTS

Although orthopaedic providers' definitions of good outcomes naturally included biomedical factors (bone healing, functional independence, and pain alleviation), they were also marked by nuanced psychosocial factors, including the need for patients to recover from psychological trauma associated with injury and feel heard and understood-not just as outcome facilitators, but also as key outcomes themselves. Regarding perceived barriers to good outcomes, providers interwove psychological and biomedical factors (for example, "if they're a smoker, if they have depression, anxiety…") and discussed how psychological dysfunction (for example, maladaptive avoidance or fear of reinjury) can limit key behaviors during recovery (such as adherence to physical therapy regimens). Unprimed, providers also cited resiliency-related terms from psychological research, including (low) "self-efficacy," "catastrophic thinking," and (lack of) psychological "hardiness" as barriers. Regarding perceived facilitators of good outcomes, various social and socioeconomic factors emerged, including a biosocial connection between recovery, social support, and "privilege" (such as occupation or education). These perspectives emerged across sites and provider types.

CONCLUSION

Although the biomedical model prevails in clinical practice, providers across all sites, in various roles, defined good outcomes and their barriers and facilitators in terms of interconnected biopsychosocial factors without direct priming to do so. Thus, similar Level I trauma centers may be more ready to adopt biopsychosocial care approaches than initially expected.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Providers' perspectives in this study aligned with a growing body of research on the role of biomedical and psychosocial factors in surgical outcomes and risk of transition to chronic pain. To translate these affirming attitudes into practice, other Level I trauma centers could encourage leaders who adopt biopsychosocial approaches to share their perspectives and train other providers in biopsychosocial conceptualization and treatment.

Factors associated with surgeon recognition of mental health care opportunities and inclination to attend to mental health

PURPOSE

A notable percentage of people that die by suicide have had a medical visit within a few months of their death. In a survey-based experiment, we evaluated: 1) whether there are any surgeon, setting, or patient factors associated with surgeon rating of mental health care opportunities, and 2) if there are any surgeon, setting, or patient factors associated with likelihood of mental health referrals.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-four upper extremity surgeons of the Science of Variation Group viewed five scenarios of a person with one orthopedic condition. The following aspects of the scenarios were independently randomized: Social worker or psychologist available, office workload, socioeconomic status, gender, age, mental health factors, mental health clues, and diagnosis.

RESULTS

Accounting for potential confounders, surgeon likelihood of discussing mental health was associated with cancer, disadvantaged socioeconomic status, mental health factors other than being shy, prior suicide attempt, history of physical or emotional abuse, isolation, and when the office is not busy. Factors independently associated with higher likelihood of referring a patient for mental health care included cancer, disadvantaged socioeconomic status, mental health cues, mental health risk factors, and a social worker or psychologist available in the office.

CONCLUSION

Using random elements in fictitious scenarios we documented that specialist surgeons are aware of and attuned to mental health care opportunities, are motivated to discuss notable cues, and will make mental health referrals, in part influenced by convenience.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives regarding preferred modalities for mental health intervention delivered in the orthopedic clinic: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Although depressive and anxious symptoms negatively impact musculoskeletal health and orthopedic outcomes, a gap remains in identifying modalities through which mental health intervention can realistically be delivered during orthopedic care. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic stakeholders' perceptions regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of digital, printed, and in-person intervention modalities to address mental health as part of orthopedic care.

METHODS

This single-center, qualitative study was conducted within a tertiary care orthopedic department. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2022. Two stakeholder groups were interviewed using a purposive sampling approach until thematic saturation was reached. The first group included adult orthopedic patients who presented for management of ≥ 3 months of neck or back pain. The second group included early, mid, and late career orthopedic clinicians and support staff members. Stakeholders' interview responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding approaches followed by thematic analysis. Patients also performed usability testing of one digital and one printed mental health intervention.

RESULTS

Patients included 30 adults out of 85 approached (mean (SD) age 59 [14] years, 21 (70%) women, 12 (40%) non-White). Clinical team stakeholders included 22 orthopedic clinicians and support staff members out of 25 approached (11 (50%) women, 6 (27%) non-White). Clinical team members perceived a digital mental health intervention to be feasible and scalable to implement, and many patients appreciated that the digital modality offered privacy, immediate access to resources, and the ability to engage during non-business hours. However, stakeholders also expressed that a printed mental health resource is still necessary to meet the needs of patients who prefer and/or can only engage with tangible, rather than digital, mental health resources. Many clinical team members expressed skepticism regarding the current feasibility of scalably incorporating in-person support from a mental health specialist into orthopedic care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although digital intervention offers implementation-related advantages over printed and in-person mental health interventions, a subset of often underserved patients will not currently be reached using exclusively digital intervention. Future research should work to identify combinations of effective mental health interventions that provide equitable access for orthopedic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Does Addressing Mental Health During a Musculoskeletal Specialty Care Visit Affect Patient-rated Clinician Empathy?

BACKGROUND

Unhelpful thoughts and feelings of worry or despair about symptoms account for a notable amount of the variation in musculoskeletal symptom intensity. Specialists may be best positioned to diagnose these treatable aspects of musculoskeletal illness. Musculoskeletal specialists might be concerned that addressing mental health could offend the patient, and avoidance might delay mental health diagnosis and treatment. Evidence that conversations about mental health are not associated with diminished patient experience might increase specialist confidence in the timely diagnosis and initial motivation to treat unhelpful thoughts and feelings of worry or despair.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using transcripts of videotaped and audiotaped specialty care visits in which at least one instance of patient language indicating an unhelpful thought about symptoms or feelings of worry or despair surfaced, we asked: (1) Is clinician discussion of mental health associated with lower patient-rated clinician empathy, accounting for other factors? (2) Are clinician discussions of mental health associated with patient demographics, patient mental health measures, or specific clinicians?

METHODS

Using a database of transcripts of 212 patients that were audio or video recorded for prior studies, we identified 144 transcripts in which language reflecting either an unhelpful thought or feelings of distress (worry or despair) about symptoms was detected. These were labeled mental health opportunities. Patients were invited on days when the researcher making video or audio records was available, and people were invited based on the researcher's availability, the patient's cognitive ability, and whether the patient spoke English. Exclusions were not tracked in those original studies, but few patients declined. There were 80 women and 64 men, with a mean age of 45 ± 15 years. Participants completed measures of health anxiety, catastrophic thinking, symptoms of depression, and perceived clinician empathy. Factors associated with perceived clinician empathy and clinician discussion of mental health were sought in bivariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Greater patient-rated clinician empathy was not associated with clinician initiation of a mental health discussion (regression coefficient 0.98 [95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.1]; p = 0.65). A clinician-initiated mental health discussion was not associated with any factors.

CONCLUSION

The observation that a clinician-initiated mental health discussion was not associated with diminished patient ratings of clinician empathy and was independent from other factors indicates that generally, discussion of mental health does not harm patient-clinician relationship. Musculoskeletal clinicians could be the first to notice disproportionate symptoms or misconceptions and distress about symptoms, and based on the evidence from this study, they can be confident about initiating a discussion about these mental health priorities to avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment. Future studies can address the impact of training clinicians to notice unhelpful thoughts and signs of distress and discuss them with compassion in a specialty care visit; other studies might evaluate the impact of timely diagnosis of opportunities for improvement in mental health on comfort, capability, and optimal stewardship of resources.

Implementing school-wide sexual assault prevention in middle schools: A qualitative analysis of school stakeholder perspectives

Sexual assault and harassment are significant problems that begin early in the lifespan. The current study sought to understand the contextual factors that influence the implementation of school-wide sexual assault prevention programs in middle schools that focus on fostering community norms change. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a menu of constructs arranged across 5 domains that assists stakeholders in assessing and identifying site-specific determinants of successful intervention implementation. In the present study, researchers conducted a series of 10 interviews with middle school stakeholders (i.e., principals, guidance counselors, teachers) to document characteristics inside and outside of the school environment (i.e., cultural norms, relative priority, prior interventions, implementation climate) relevant to the implementation of prevention programming, using the CFIR as a guiding framework for analysis. Whereas schools recognized the importance of implementing violence prevention programming, stakeholders reported several other competing demands (i.e., time, resources) that make it difficult to implement rigorous programming without support from an outside agency/team. Community agencies and research teams hoping to implement violence prevention in middle schools can benefit from using stakeholder interviews grounded in the CFIR model to gain a better awareness of the school- and community-specific factors that are likely to influence successful implementation of violence prevention programs in middle schools.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives regarding preferred modalities for mental health intervention delivered in the orthopedic clinic: A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Although depressive and anxious symptoms negatively impact musculoskeletal health and orthopedic outcomes, a gap remains in identifying modalities through which mental health intervention can realistically be delivered during orthopedic care. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic stakeholders' perspectives regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of digital, printed, and in-person intervention modalities to address mental health as part of orthopedic care.

METHODS

This single-center, qualitative study was conducted within the orthopedic department of a tertiary care center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2022. Two stakeholder groups were interviewed using a purposive sampling approach until thematic saturation was reached. The first group included adult orthopedic patients who presented for management of ≥ 3 months of neck or back pain. The second group included early, mid, and late career orthopedic clinicians and support staff members. Stakeholders' interview responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding approaches followed by thematic analysis. Patients also performed usability testing of one digital and one printed mental health intervention.

RESULTS

Patients included 30 adults out of 85 approached (mean (SD) age 59 (14) years, 21 (70%) women, 12 (40%) non-White). Clinical team stakeholders included 22 orthopedic clinicians and support staff members out of 25 approached (11 (50%) women, 6 (27%) non-White). Clinical team members perceived a digital mental health intervention to be feasible and scalable to implement, and many patients appreciated that the digital modality offered privacy, immediate access to resources, and the ability to engage during non-business hours. However, stakeholders also expressed that a printed mental health resource is still necessary to meet the needs of patients who prefer and/or can only engage with tangible, rather than digital, mental health resources. Many clinical team members expressed skepticism regarding the current feasibility of scalably incorporating in-person mental health support into orthopedic care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although digital intervention offers implementation-related advantages over printed and in-person mental health interventions, a subset of often underserved patients will not currently be reached using exclusively digital intervention. Future research should work to identify combinations of effective mental health interventions that provide equitable access for orthopedic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

"I Still Suffer Every Second of Every Day": A Qualitative Analysis of the Challenges of Living with Chronic Orofacial Pain

Objective

Chronic orofacial pain is prevalent and debilitating. Psychological and social factors place a heavy burden on this population but are often overlooked. Here, we offer the first comprehensive qualitative conceptualization of the challenges of living with chronic orofacial pain through a biopsychosocial perspective to inform multifaceted care for this population.

Design

We employed a qualitative thematic analysis of open text responses using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach and a biopsychosocial framework.

Methods

Two hundred and sixty participants with chronic orofacial pain responded to an open-ended question: "What is the biggest challenge you face in managing your condition?" by typing their responses into a text box as part of an online survey. We mapped responses onto biomedical, psychological, and social themes (deductive) and concurrently identified findings within each theme that emerged directly from the data (inductive).

Results

Subthemes within the biomedical theme included challenges with biomedical pain management, medication side effects, sensory triggers, physical symptoms of stress/tension, and biological functions and related activities of daily living. Subthemes within the psychological theme included anxiety, depression, emotional symptoms of stress, unpredictability/uncertainty of pain, and psychological and cognitive aspects of medication management. Subthemes within the social theme included social relational, experience with providers, socioeconomics and access to care, and roles and responsibilities.

Conclusion

Chronic orofacial pain is associated with multifaceted challenges. Consideration of individuals' experiences of biomedical, psychological, and social challenges in the assessment, referral, and treatment of chronic orofacial pain holds the potential to promote more comprehensive, patient-centered care for this population.

Orthopedic Providers’ Preferences for Education and Training on Psychosocial Clinical Research Initiatives: A Qualitative Investigation

Introduction: Psychosocial factors (e.g., depression, anxiety) increase risk for chronic pain, disability, and other health complications following acute orthopedic traumatic injury. Orthopedic providers lack skills to address these factors. Education around psychosocial factors of recovery and psychosocial clinical and research initiatives could address this gap. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic trauma providers’ preferences for the design and distribution of educational materials to facilitate psychosocial initiative implementation.

Methods: We conducted live-video, semi-structured focus groups with outpatient orthopedic trauma providers across three Level 1 Trauma Centers, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach to analyze qualitative data and extract themes and subthemes characterizing providers’ recommendations for appropriate psychosocial education.

Results: Four themes described providers’ recommendations for receiving educational materials: (1) provide foundational knowledge and tools about psychosocial factors; (2) provide information regarding a psychosocial initiative's purpose and procedures; (3) leverage educational materials to maximize buy-in to psychosocial clinical research initiatives; and (4) deliver information concisely, clearly, and electronically.

Conclusion: Orthopedic providers recommended ways to optimize design and dissemination of education on psychosocial care. Optimizing knowledge of psychosocial factors and clinical and research initiatives facilitates providers’ ability to appropriately target the often-underdressed psychosocial component of recovery in orthopedics.