Creating Value by Prioritizing Mental and Social Health After Injury

Ankle fracture surgery in patients experiencing homelessness: a national evaluation of one-year rates of reoperation

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of homelessness on surgical outcomes following ankle fracture surgery.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Mariner claims database.

Patients/Participants

Patients older than 18 years who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures between 2010 and 2021. A total of 345,759 patients were included in the study.

Intervention

Study patients were divided into two cohorts (homeless and nonhomeless) based on whether their patient record contained International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 or ICD-10 codes for homelessness/inadequate housing.

Main Outcome Measures

One-year rates of reoperation for amputation, irrigation and debridement, repeat ORIF, repair of nonunion/malunion, and implant removal in isolation.

Results

Homeless patients had significantly higher odds of undergoing amputation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.27, P = 0.014), irrigation and debridement (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.37, P < 0.001), and repeat ORIF (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00-1.35, P = 0.045). Implant removal was less common in homeless patients (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59-0.72, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between homeless and nonhomeless patients in the rate of nonunion/malunion repair (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63-1.18, P = 0.41).

Conclusions

Homelessness is a significant risk factor for worse surgical outcomes following ankle fracture surgery. The findings of this study warrant future research to identify gaps in surgical fracture care for patients with housing insecurity and underscore the importance of developing interventions to advance health equity for this vulnerable patient population.

Level of Evidence

Prognostic Level III.

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.

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.

Social Determinants of Health and Patients With Traumatic Injuries: Is There a Relationship Between Social Health and Orthopaedic Trauma?

BACKGROUND

Although economic stability, social context, and healthcare access are well-known social determinants of health associated with more challenging recovery after traumatic injury, little is known about how these factors differ by mechanism of injury. Our team sought to use the results of social determinants of health screenings to better understand the population that engaged with psychosocial support services after traumatic musculoskeletal injury and fill a gap in our understanding of patient-reported social health needs.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

What is the relationship between social determinants of health and traumatic musculoskeletal injury?

METHODS

Trauma recovery services is a psychosocial support program at our institution that offers patients and their family members resources such as professional coaching, peer mentorship, post-traumatic stress disorder screening and treatment, educational resources, and more. This team engages with any patient admitted to, treated at, and released from our institution. Their primary engagement population is individuals with traumatic injury, although not exclusively. Between January 2019 and October 2021, the trauma recovery services team interacted with 6036 patients. Of those who engaged with this service, we considered only patients who experienced a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had a completed social determinants of health screening tool. During the stated timeframe, 13% (814 of 6036) of patients engaged with trauma recovery services and had a complete social determinants of health screening tool. Of these, 53% (428 of 814) had no physical injury. A further 26% (99 of 386) were excluded because they did not have traumatic musculoskeletal injuries, leaving 4.8% (287) for analysis in this cross-sectional study. The study population included patients who interacted with trauma recovery services at our institution after a traumatic orthopaedic injury that occurred between January 2019 and October 2021. Social determinants of health risk screening questionnaires were self-administered prospectively using a screening tool developed by our institution based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services social determinants of health screening questions. Mechanisms of injury were separated into intentional (physical assault, sexual assault, gunshot wound, or stabbing) and unintentional (fall, motor vehicle collision, or motorcycle crash). During the study period, 287 adult patients interacted with trauma recovery services after a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had complete social determinant of health screening; 123 injuries were unintentional and 164 were intentional. Patients were primarily women (55% [159 of 287]), single (73% [209 of 287]), and insured by Medicaid or Medicare (78% [225 of 287]). Mechanism category was determined after a thorough medical record review to verify the appropriate category. An initial exploratory univariate analysis was completed for the primary outcome variable using the Pearson chi-squared test for categorical variables and a two-tailed independent t-test for continuous variables. All demographic variables and social determinants of health with p < 0.20 in the univariate analysis were included in a multivariate binary regression analysis to determine independent associations with injury mechanism. All variables with p < 0.05 in the multivariate analysis were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

After controlling for potential demographic confounders, younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.96]; p < 0.001), Black race (compared with White race, OR 2.71 [95% CI 1.20 to 6.16]; p = 0.02), Hispanic ethnicity (compared with White race, OR 5.32 [95% CI 1.62 to 17.47]; p = 0.006), and at-risk status for food insecurity (OR 4.27 [95% CI 1.18 to 15.39]; p = 0.03) were independently associated with intentional mechanisms of injury.

CONCLUSION

There is a relationship between the mechanism of traumatic orthopaedic injury and social determinants of health risks. Specifically, data showed a correlation between food insecurity and intentional injury. Healthcare systems and providers should be cognizant of this, as well as the additional challenges patients may face in their recovery journey because of social needs. Screening for needs is only the first step in addressing patient's social health needs. Healthcare systems should also allocate resources for personnel and programs that support patients in meeting their social health needs. Future studies should evaluate the impact of such programming in responding to social needs that impact health outcomes and improve health disparities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, prognostic study.

Which patient and surgeon characteristics are associated with surgeon experience of stress during an office visit?

Objective

To determine clinician and patient factors associated with the surgeon feelings of stress, futility, inadequacy, and frustration during an office visit.

Methods

A survey-based experiment presented clinical vignettes with randomized patient factors (such as symptom intensity, the number of prior consultations, and involvement in a legal dispute) and feeling behind schedule in order to determine which are most related to surgeon ratings of stress, futility, inadequacy, and frustration on 11-point Likert scales.

Results

Higher surgeon stress levels were independently associated with women patients, multiple prior consultations, a legal dispute, disproportionate symptom intensity, and being an hour behind in the office. The findings were similar for feelings of futility, inadequacy, and frustration.

Conclusion

Patient factors potentially indicative of mental and social health opportunities are associated with greater surgeon-rated stress and frustration.

Innovation

Trainings for surgeon self-awareness and effective communication can transform stressful or adversarial interactions into an effective part of helping patients get and stay healthy by diagnosing and addressing psychosocial aspects of the illness.

Level of evidence

N/a.

Percent of Normal: A Pragmatic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for the Orthopaedic Trauma Clinic

OBJECTIVES

To compare a single numerical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to general health and injury-specific PROMs.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Urban Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

The study included 175 patients with 34 humerus, 54 pelvis, 31 acetabular, and 56 ankle fractures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Patients were administered 3 PROMs: the 12-item short-form (SF-12), an injury-specific PROM (QuickDASH-humerus; Majeed Pelvic Outcome Score (Majeed)-pelvis; modified Merle d'Aubigne score (Merle)-acetabular; Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI)-ankle, and the Percent of Normal (PON) PROM, a single numerical PROM, which asked, "How would you rate yourself, if 100% is back to normal?" Floor/ceiling effect, convergent validity, and responsiveness of PROMs were assessed.

RESULTS

None of the PROMs demonstrated a floor effect. The Merle was the only PROM with a ceiling effect (19%). The PON had a strong correlation with the QuickDASH (r = 0.78) and Majeed (r = 0.78); a moderate association with the SF-12 physical component score (r = 0.63), Merle (r = 0.67), and FADI (r = 0.55); and a weak association with the SF-12 mental component score (r = 0.22). The regression coefficient for change in PROM over time, a measure of responsiveness, was greater for the PON compared with the SF-12 physical component score/mental component score, Majeed, Merle, and FADI, but not the QuickDASH.

CONCLUSIONS

The PON is a pragmatic PROM that can be easily administered in clinic by the physician to quickly assess and manage a variety of fractures, avoiding the disadvantages of nonrelative general or region-specific PROMs.