A prospective study assessing the political advocacy of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the current political standings and active political engagement of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members along with the political process as it relates to health care policy.

METHODS

This survey study involved 552 ASES members. The survey was open for 2 weeks. Responses were received from 254 of the 552 members (46%), and their answers were analyzed.

RESULTS

Six (2%) of the responding members were solo practitioners, 100 (39%) belonged to a private practice, 106 (42%) were providers at academic institutions or residency training programs, 25 (10%) were employed by a hospital, and 17 (7%) categorized themselves as other. Email was the preferred method of communication. Of all responding members, 110 (43%) stated they had contributed to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery Political Advocacy Committee in the last 12 months. Four (10%) of the responding members have a relationship with an elected official, and 220 (87%) would be willing to become a key contact and reach out to a legislator.

CONCLUSION

Moving forward, this survey can be used to better shape the political advocacy efforts of the ASES and potentially other subspecialty societies. The response that "a high percentage of members would like to be more involved" suggests the need for a program to help further educate and facilitate the membership on political advocacy.

A Proficiency-Based Progression Training Curriculum Coupled With a Model Simulator Results in the Acquisition of a Superior Arthroscopic Bankart Skill Set

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of proficiency-based progression (PBP) training using simulation both compared with the same training without proficiency requirements and compared with a traditional resident course for learning to perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, blinded study, 44 postgraduate year 4 or 5 orthopaedic residents from 21 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved US orthopaedic residency programs were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 skills training protocols for learning to perform an ABR: group A, traditional (routine Arthroscopy Association of North America Resident Course) (control, n = 14); group B, simulator (modified curriculum adding a shoulder model simulator) (n = 14); or group C, PBP (PBP plus the simulator) (n = 16). At the completion of training, all subjects performed a 3 suture anchor ABR on a cadaveric shoulder, which was videotaped and scored in blinded fashion with the use of previously validated metrics.

RESULTS

The PBP-trained group (group C) made 56% fewer objectively assessed errors than the traditionally trained group (group A) (P = .011) and 41% fewer than group B (P = .049) (both comparisons were statistically significant). The proficiency benchmark was achieved on the final repair by 68.7% of participants in group C compared with 36.7% in group B and 28.6% in group A. When compared with group A, group B participants were 1.4 times, group C participants were 5.5 times, and group C(PBP) participants (who met all intermediate proficiency benchmarks) were 7.5 times as likely to achieve the final proficiency benchmark.

CONCLUSIONS

A PBP training curriculum and protocol coupled with the use of a shoulder model simulator and previously validated metrics produces a superior arthroscopic Bankart skill set when compared with traditional and simulator-enhanced training methods.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgical training combining PBP and a simulator is efficient and effective. Patient safety could be improved if surgical trainees participated in PBP training using a simulator before treating surgical patients.

Correct coding for the orthopedic surgeon

Coding accurately is one of the main principles of a successful practice. Some changes that we will see shortly include deletion of the term "separate procedure," deletion of the term "with and/or without," deletion of the term "any method," revision of the criteria for choosing E/M levels, and 52 new and revised Hand Surgery codes. Some other changes to come will be category II and category III codes. More changes are occurring as this is written, and the best advice is to stay tuned. It is obvious to the authors that coding is mainly for reimbursement purposes. The orthopedic surgeon must remain vigilant and must not pass this task on to someone else. Ignorance of coding methods is not an excuse [2]. We must all watch carefully and speak up when necessary. In this day of decreasing reimbursement, we can all increase our revenue stream without working any harder if we code our work properly, completely, and promptly.