The Impact of Electronic Medical Record Implementation on Labor Cost and Productivity at an Outpatient Orthopaedic Clinic

The Changing Environment in Postgraduate Education in Orthopedic Surgery and Neurosurgery and Its Impact on Technology-Driven Targeted Interventional and Surgical Pain Management: Perspectives from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and The United States

Personalized care models are dominating modern medicine. These models are rooted in teaching future physicians the skill set to keep up with innovation. In orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery, education is increasingly influenced by augmented reality, simulation, navigation, robotics, and in some cases, artificial intelligence. The postpandemic learning environment has also changed, emphasizing online learning and skill- and competency-based teaching models incorporating clinical and bench-top research. Attempts to improve work-life balance and minimize physician burnout have led to work-hour restrictions in postgraduate training programs. These restrictions have made it particularly challenging for orthopedic and neurosurgery residents to acquire the knowledge and skill set to meet the requirements for certification. The fast-paced flow of information and the rapid implementation of innovation require higher efficiencies in the modern postgraduate training environment. However, what is taught typically lags several years behind. Examples include minimally invasive tissue-sparing techniques through tubular small-bladed retractor systems, robotic and navigation, endoscopic, patient-specific implants made possible by advances in imaging technology and 3D printing, and regenerative strategies. Currently, the traditional roles of mentee and mentor are being redefined. The future orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons involved in personalized surgical pain management will need to be versed in several disciplines ranging from bioengineering, basic research, computer, social and health sciences, clinical study, trial design, public health policy development, and economic accountability. Solutions to the fast-paced innovation cycle in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery include adaptive learning skills to seize opportunities for innovation with execution and implementation by facilitating translational research and clinical program development across traditional boundaries between clinical and nonclinical specialties. Preparing the future generation of surgeons to have the aptitude to keep up with the rapid technological advances is challenging for postgraduate residency programs and accreditation agencies. However, implementing clinical protocol change when the entrepreneur-investigator surgeon substantiates it with high-grade clinical evidence is at the heart of personalized surgical pain management.

A Multi-Disciplinary Review of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Practical Considerations for Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A multi-disciplinary review.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a roadmap for implementing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for spine surgery. This is achieved by organizing and scrutinizing publications in the spine, neurosurgical, and orthopedic literature which utilize TDABC and related methodologies.

METHODS

PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. The articles were selected by two independent researchers. After article selection, data was extracted and summarized into research domains. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) systematic review process was followed.

RESULTS

Of the 524 articles screened, thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Each included article was examined and reviewed to define the primary research question and objective. Comparing different procedures was the most common primary objective. Direct observation along with one other strategy (surveys, interviews, surgical database, or EMR) was most commonly employed during process map development. Across all surgical subspecialties (spine, neurologic, and orthopedic surgery), costs were divided into direct cost, indirect cost, cost to patient, and total costs. The most commonly calculated direct costs included personnel and supply costs. Facility costs, hospital overhead costs, and utilities were the most commonly calculated indirect costs. Transportation costs and parental lost wages were considered when calculating cost to patient. The total cost was a sum of direct costs, indirect costs, and costs to the patient.

CONCLUSION

TDABC provides a common platform to accurately estimate costs of care delivery. Institutions embarking on TDABC for spine surgery should consider the breadth of methodologies highlighted in this review to determine which type of calculations are appropriate for their practice.

The Value of Electronic Health Records Since the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act: Systematic Review

Background

Electronic health records (EHRs) are the electronic records of patient health information created during ≥1 encounter in any health care setting. The Health Information Technology Act of 2009 has been a major driver of the adoption and implementation of EHRs in the United States. Given that the adoption of EHRs is a complex and expensive investment, a return on this investment is expected.

Objective

This literature review aims to focus on how the value of EHRs as an intervention is defined in relation to the elaboration of value into 2 different value outcome categories, financial and clinical outcomes, and to understand how EHRs contribute to these 2 value outcome categories.

Methods

This literature review was conducted using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The initial search of key terms, EHRs, values, financial outcomes, and clinical outcomes in 3 different databases yielded 971 articles, of which, after removing 410 (42.2%) duplicates, 561 (57.8%) were incorporated in the title and abstract screening. During the title and abstract screening phase, articles were excluded from further review phases if they met any of the following criteria: not relevant to the outcomes of interest, not relevant to EHRs, nonempirical, and non–peer reviewed. After the application of the exclusion criteria, 80 studies remained for a full-text review. After evaluating the full text of the residual 80 studies, 26 (33%) studies were excluded as they did not address the impact of EHR adoption on the outcomes of interest. Furthermore, 4 additional studies were discovered through manual reference searches and were added to the total, resulting in 58 studies for analysis. A qualitative analysis tool, ATLAS.ti. (version 8.2), was used to categorize and code the final 58 studies.

Results

The findings from the literature review indicated a combination of positive and negative impacts of EHRs on financial and clinical outcomes. Of the 58 studies surveyed for this review of the literature, 5 (9%) reported on the intersection of financial and clinical outcomes. To investigate this intersection further, the category “Value–Intersection of Financial and Clinical Outcomes” was generated. Approximately 80% (4/5) of these studies specified a positive association between EHR adoption and financial and clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

This review of the literature reports on the individual and collective value of EHRs from a financial and clinical outcomes perspective. The collective perspective examined the intersection of financial and clinical outcomes, suggesting a reversal of the current understanding of how IT investments could generate improvements in productivity, and prompted a new question to be asked about whether an increase in productivity could potentially lead to more IT investments.

Time and Clerical Burden Posed by the Current Electronic Health Record for Orthopaedic Surgeons

INTRODUCTION

The electronic health record (EHR) has become an integral part of modern medical practice. The balance of benefit versus burden of a required EHR remains inconclusive, with many studies identifying increasing physician burnout and less face-to-face patient contact because of increasing documentation demands. Few studies have investigated EHR burden in orthopaedic surgery practice. This study aimed to characterize and compare EHR usage patterns and time allocation within EHR between orthopaedic surgeons, other surgeons, and medicine physicians at an academic medical center.

METHODS

EHR usage was digitally tracked within a large academic medical center. EHR usage data were compiled for all physicians seeing outpatients from April 2018 to June 2019. The tracking metrics included time spent answering messages, typing notes, reviewing laboratories and imaging, reading notes, and placing orders. Physicians were subdivided between orthopaedic surgeons, other surgeons, and nonsurgeon/medical specialties. Statistical comparisons using a two-sample t-test were done between orthopaedic surgeon EHR usage patterns and other surgeons, in addition to orthopaedic surgeons versus nonsurgeons.

RESULTS

One thousand sixty physicians including 28 full-time orthopaedic surgeons, 134 other surgeons, and 898 nonsurgical medicine physicians met inclusion criteria. Orthopaedic surgeons saw on average 31 patients per office day compared with other surgeons at 18 patients per office day (P < 0.01) and nonsurgeons at 12 patients per office day (P < 0.01). Orthopaedic surgeons received more EHR messages while also being more efficient at answering EHR messages compared with other surgeons and nonsurgeons (P < 0.01). EHR tasks, including answering messages, placing orders, chart review, writing notes, and reviewing imaging, consumed 58% of an orthopaedic surgeon's scheduled office day with the largest contribution from required note writing.

DISCUSSION

In academic orthopaedic practice, EHR use has surpassed face-to-face patient time, consuming 58% of orthopaedic surgeons' clinical days. With the previously shown correlation between EHR burden and physician burnout, targeted interventions to increase efficiency and off-load EHR burden are necessary to sustain a successful orthopaedic practice.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Provides a Lower and More Accurate Assessment of Costs in the Field of Orthopaedic Surgery Compared With Traditional Accounting Methods

PURPOSE

To analyze the implementation and benefits of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) in the field of orthopaedic surgery.

METHODS

We performed a search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase in March 2020, using the following terms: "Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing," "TDABC," "Orthopaedic Surgery," and "Cost." Then we selected the studies that used the TDABC methodology to generate costs for a particular aspect of orthopaedic surgery. The included studies were divided into the following 5 main categories for ease of analysis: joint arthroplasty, trauma, hand, electronic medical record (EMR) implementation, and pediatric. We analyzed the overall ability of TDABC in the field of orthopaedic surgery, compared to the standard costing methods.

RESULTS

We included a total of 19 studies that implemented the TDABC methodology to generate a cost, which was compared to traditional accounting methods. The orthopaedic subspecialty with the most amount of TDABC implementation has been the field of joint arthroplasty. In these studies, the authors have noted that TDABC has provided a more granular breakdown of costs and has calculated a lower cost compared with traditional accounting methods.

CONCLUSION

TDABC is a powerful cost analysis method that has demonstrated benefit over the activity-based costing (ABC) approach in determining a lower and more accurate cost of orthopaedic procedures. Furthermore, the TDABC method generates an average cost reduction of $10,000 and $12,000 for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, respectively.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

TDABC can allow health care administration to better determine and understand the cost drivers of particular orthopaedic procedures at their institutions. With improved estimates on the true cost of an activity, hospital administrators and department chairs can adjust to ensure cost-effective, patient-centered health care.

Transformation from a traditional model to a virtual model of care in orthopaedic surgery: COVID-19 experience and beyond

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.

Transformation from a traditional model to a virtual model of care in orthopaedic surgery

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.

The Development and Evaluation of an Electronic Health Record Efficiency Workshop for Providers

BACKGROUND

The electronic health record (EHR) has historically been known to be a source of stress and dissatisfaction, leading to reduced efficiency and productivity for providers. This issue is complicated by constant changes in EHRs that are necessary to keep systems current with evolving functionality. Knowing the existence of this problem, an evidenced-based solution, known as an efficiency workshop, was developed by our information technology training and optimization team for providers as a means of ongoing professional development.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project were to identify EHR optimization needs for providers in various clinical departments and improve their EHR satisfaction. The development of a program focused on provider efficiency tools and personalization was key and, once piloted, how to measure program success.

METHODS

Efficiency workshops comprised members of the IT training team who set up on site training sessions during reserved time with providers during departmental meetings. Sessions focused on reviewing EHR efficiency tools using demonstration of existing system functionality. Participating providers were given continuing medical education (CME) credits upon completion of evaluations used as a quality improvement tool for the program.

RESULTS

Descriptive results showed that providers were satisfied with this method of EHR instruction. Subjective feedback yielded positive themes such as informative, well done, organized, and helpful.

CONCLUSION

This initiative began as a pilot program and successfully expanded across clinical departments at our academic medical center. Future plans are to sustain and further invest in this program by using EHR reporting features to further customize these sessions and evaluate impact on system use.

THE IMPACT OF VIDEO VISITS ON MEASURES OF CLINICAL EFFICIENCY AND REIMBURSEMENT

Introduction

Telehealth is gaining more attention in multiple specialties, including urology. Video visits in particular have shown high satisfaction and cost-saving for patients. However, there has been little investigation into how video visits compare to traditional clinic visits on measures of clinical efficiency and reimbursement.

Methods

Our dataset included 250 video visits of established patients at Michigan Medicine Department of Urology and 250 in-person clinic visits with the same providers completed between July 2016 and July 2017. Information on visit completion and cancellation rates; cycle time (time from check in to check out); reimbursement; and patient out-of-pocket expenses was collected using the electronic medical record and billing data.

Results

Completion rates were similar between video and clinic visits (58% versus 61%, respectively; p=0.24). Average cycle time for video visits was significantly shorter compared to clinic visits (24 min vs 80 min, respectively; p<0.01). Neither average commercial payer reimbursement (p=0.21) nor average out-of-pocket expense (p=0.22) was statistically different between video and traditional visits. More video visits than clinic visits were billed as level 3 encounters (85% and 63%, respectively, p=0.002).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that video visits have the potential to reduce the time patients spend on follow-up care without negatively impacting reimbursement rates. However, these visits could reduce average billing levels. These findings suggest that the incorporation of video visits into practice may be more efficient for patients but may also reduce billing levels.

How are Electronic Health Records Associated with Provider Productivity and Billing in Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous in orthopaedics. Although they offer certain benefits, they have been cited as a factor that can contribute to provider burnout. Little is known about the degree to which EHR adoption is associated with provider and practice characteristics or outpatient and surgical volume.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What was the rate of EHR adoption in orthopaedics and how are physician and practice characteristics associated with adoption? (2) How is EHR adoption related to outpatient productivity? (3) How is EHR adoption associated with surgical volume?

METHODS

We conducted this retrospective analysis by linking three publicly available Medicare databases, which we chose for their reliability in reporting because they are provided by a government-funded entity. We included providers in the 2016 Physician Compare dataset who reported a primary specialty of orthopaedic surgery. The EHR adoption status for these providers between 2011 and 2016 was determined using the Meaningful Use Eligible Professional public use files, which we chose to standardize both adoption and usage of EHRs. Provider characteristics, from the Physician Compare dataset, were compared between non-adopters, early adopters (who adopted EHR in 2011 and 2012), and late adopters (2016) using a multivariate logistic analysis, due to the binary nature of the dependent variable (adoption). To measure productivity and billing, we used the 2012 and 2016 Medicare Utilization and Payment datasets. To measure productivity before and after EHR adoption, we compared the number of services for select Current Procedural Terminology codes between 2012 and 2016 for providers who first adopted EHR in 2013, and performed the same comparison for non-adopters for the same years. Paired t-tests were used where volume in 2012 and 2016 were being compared, and multivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS

By 2016, 10,904 of 21,484 orthopaedic providers (51%) had adopted EHRs, with an increase from 8% to 46% during the incentive phase (2011 to 2014) and an increase from 44% to 51% during the penalty phase (2015 to 2016). After analyzing factors associated with adoption, it was most notable that for every additional year since graduation, the odds of adopting EHR later increased by 4.14 (95% confidence interval 4.00 to 4.33; p < 0.001). After adoption, providers who adopted EHRs increased the mean number of Medicare outpatient visits per year from 439 to 470 (mean difference, increase of 31 procedures [95% CI 24 to 39]; p < 0.001), and providers who did not use EHRs decreased from 378 to 368 visits per year (median difference, decrease of 10 procedures [95% CI 8.0 to 12.0]; p < 0.001). EHR was not associated with billing for Level 4-5 visits, after adjusting for practice size and pre-adoption volumes (p = 0.32; R = 0.51). EHR adoption was not associated with surgical volume for 10 of 11 common orthopaedic procedures. However, two additional TKA procedures annually could be attributed to EHR adoption, when compared with non-adopters (p = 0.03; R = 0.65). After adoption, orthopaedic surgeons increased their annual TKA volume from 42 to 48 (mean difference, increase of 6 [95% CI 4.0 to 7.0]; p < 0.001), while non-adopting orthopaedic surgeons increased their annual surgical volume for TKA from 28 to 30 (median difference, increase of 2 [95% CI 2.0 to 4.0]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In orthopaedics, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act resulted in approximately half of self-reported orthopaedic surgeons adopting EHR from 2011 to 2016. Considering the high cost of most EHRs and the substantial investment in adoption incentives, this adoption rate may not be sufficient to fully realize the objectives of the HITECH Act. Diffusion of technology is a vast field of study within social theory. Prominent sociologist Everett M. Rogers details its complexity in Diffusion of Innovations. Diffusion of technology is impacted by factors such as the possibility to sample the innovation without commitment, opinion leadership, and observability of results in a peer network, to name a few. Incorporating these principles, where appropriate, into a more focused action plan may facilitate technological diffusion for future innovations. Lastly, EHR adoption was not associated with higher-level billing or surgical volume. This might suggest that EHRs have not had a meaningful clinical benefit, but this needs to be further investigated by relating these trends to patient outcomes or other quality measures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.