Patient Perspectives of Midlevel Providers in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine

What Is the Geographic Distribution and Density of Orthopaedic Advanced Practice Professionals in Rural Counties? A Large-database Study

BACKGROUND

Advanced practice professionals, including physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), play an important role in providing high-quality orthopaedic care. This role has been highlighted by projections of nationwide shortages in orthopaedic surgeons, with rural areas expected to be most affected. Given that approximately half of rural counties have no practicing orthopaedic surgeons and that advanced practice professionals have been shown to be more likely to practice in rural areas compared to physicians in other medical disciplines, orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may be poised to address orthopaedic care shortages in rural areas, but the degree to which this is true has not been well characterized.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What percentage of rural counties have no orthopaedic caregivers, including surgeons and advanced practice professionals? (2) Is the density of advanced practice professionals greater than that of orthopaedic surgeons in rural counties? (3) Do orthopaedic advanced practice professionals only practice in counties that also have practicing orthopaedic surgeons? (4) Are NPs in states with full practice authority more likely to practice in rural counties compared with NPs in restricted practice authority states?

METHODS

We identified orthopaedic surgeons and advanced practice professionals using the 2019 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data, as this large dataset has been shown to be the most complete source of claims data nationwide. Each professional's ZIP Code was matched to counties per the US Postal Service ZIP Code Crosswalk Files. The total number and density of physician and advanced practice professionals per 100,000 residents were calculated per county nationwide. Counties were categorized as urban (large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan, medium metropolitan, and small metropolitan) or rural (micropolitan and noncore) using the National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Comparisons between rural and urban county caregivers were conducted with the chi-square test and odds ratios. Population densities were compared with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. A bivariate density map was made to visualize the nationwide distribution of orthopaedic caregivers and determine the percentage of rural counties with no orthopaedic caregivers as well as whether orthopaedic advanced practice professionals practiced in counties not containing any surgeons. Additionally, to compare states with NP's full versus restricted practice authority, each NP was grouped based on their state to determine whether NPs in states with full practice authority were more likely to practice in rural counties. We identified a group of 31,091 orthopaedic caregivers, which was comprised of 23,728 physicians, 964 NPs, and 6399 PAs (7363 advanced practice professionals). A total of 88% (20,879 of 23,728) of physicians and 87% (6427 of 7363) of advanced practice professionals were in urban counties, which is comparable to nationwide population distributions.

RESULTS

A total of 39% (1237 of 3139) of counties had no orthopaedic professionals (defined as orthopaedic surgeons or advanced practice professionals) in 2019. Among these counties, 82% (1015 of 1237) were rural and 18% (222 of 1237) were urban. The density of advanced practice professionals providing orthopaedic services compared with the density of orthopaedic surgeons was higher in rural counties (18 ± 70 versus 8 ± 40 per 100,000 residents; p = 0.001). Additionally, 3% (57 of 1974) of rural and 1% (13 of 1165) of urban counties had at least one orthopaedic advanced practice professional, but no orthopaedic surgeons concurrently practicing in the county. There was no difference between the percentage of rural counties with an NP in states with full versus restricted practice authority for NPs (19% [157 of 823] versus 26% [36 of 141], OR 1.45 [95% CI 0.99 to 2.2]; p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

As advanced practice professionals tended to only practice in counties which contain orthopaedic surgeons, our analysis suggests that plans to increase the number of advanced practice professionals alone in rural counties may not be sufficient to fully address the demand for orthopaedic care in rural areas that currently do not have orthopaedic surgeons in practice. Rather, interventions are needed to encourage more orthopaedic surgeons to practice in rural counties in collaborative partnerships with advanced practice professionals. In turn, rural orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may serve to further extend the accessibility of these surgeons, but it remains to be determined what the total number and ratio of advanced practice professionals and surgeons is needed to serve rural counties adequately.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To increase rural orthopaedic outreach, state legislatures may consider providing financial incentives to hospitals who adopt traveling clinic models, incorporating advanced practice professionals in these models as physician-extenders to further increase the coverage of orthopaedic care. Furthermore, the creation of more widespread financial incentives and programs aimed at expanding the experience of trainees in serving rural populations are longer-term investments to foster interest and retention of orthopaedic caregivers in rural settings.

Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google

Background. Physician review websites (PRWs) are increasing in usage and popularity. Our purpose is to characterize one-star reviews of orthopedic oncology surgeons to understand factors in healthcare that contribute to patient satisfaction. Methods. Orthopedic oncology surgeons were randomly selected from the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. A search for one-star reviews was performed on Google Reviews, Healthgrades, and Vitals.com. Reviews were classified as clinical or nonclinical. Statistical analyses were performed regarding the frequency of reviews and complaints for each category. Results. Of the 7,733 reviews discovered, 908 (11.7%) were identified as one-star reviews. Of 907 usable complaints, 362 (40.8%) were clinical and 545 (59.2%) were nonclinical. The most common nonclinical complaints included bedside manner (65%) and limited time with providers (19%). The most common clinical complaints included complications (26%) and disagreements with the treatment plan (26%). There were 120 surgical and 221 nonsurgical reviews. Surgical patients had a higher rate of clinical complaints. Nonsurgical patients had a higher rate of total complaints. Conclusion. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study examining PRWs regarding orthopedic oncology surgeons. Most one-star reviews were due to nonclinical complaints from nonsurgical patients. The most common factors are bedside manner, limited time with provider, phone communication issues, and rude/unprofessional conduct.

The Majority of Complaints About Orthopedic Sports Surgeons on Yelp Are Nonclinical

PURPOSE

To examine and characterize extremely negative Yelp reviews of orthopedic sports surgeons in the United States.

METHODS

A search for reviews was performed using the keywords "Orthopedic Sports Medicine" on Yelp.com for 8 major metropolitan areas. Single-star reviews were isolated for analysis, and individual complaints were then categorized as clinical or nonclinical. The reviews were classified as surgical or nonsurgical.

RESULTS

A total of 11,033 reviews were surveyed. Of these, 1,045 (9.5%) were identified as 1-star, and 289 were ultimately included in the study. These reviews encompassed 566 total complaints, 133 (23%) of which were clinical, and 433 (77%) of which were nonclinical in nature. The most common clinical complaints concerned complications (32 complaints; 6%), misdiagnosis (29 complaints; 5%), and uncontrolled pain (21 complaints; 4%). The most common nonclinical complaints concerned physicians' bedside manner (120 complaints; 21%), unprofessional staff (98 complaints; 17%), and finances (78 complaints; 14%). Patients who had undergone surgery wrote 47 reviews that resulted in 114 complaints (20.5% of total complaints), whereas nonsurgical patients were responsible for 242 reviews and a total of 452 complaints (81.3% of total complaints). The difference in the number of complaints by patients after surgery and patients without surgery was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for all categories except for uncontrolled pain, delay in care, bedside manner of midlevel staff, and facilities.

CONCLUSION

Our study of extremely negative Yelp reviews found that 77% of negative complaints were nonclinical in nature. The most common clinical complaints were complications, misdiagnoses and uncontrolled pain. Only 16% of 1-star reviews were from surgical patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patients use online review platforms when choosing surgeons. A comprehensive understanding of factors affecting patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction is needed. The results of our study could be used to guide future quality-improvement measures and to assist surgeons in maintaining favorable online reputations.

The Association Between Patient Satisfaction and Mode of Visit (Telemedicine Versus In-Person) in a Large Orthopaedic Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown: A Retrospective Study

Background:

During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine was rapidly adopted to provide continued, efficient, and safe medical care. Little is known about patient satisfaction with telemedicine in orthopedics or the factors associated with selection of telemedicine versus face-to-face care. Thus, we examined (1) the association between patient satisfaction and mode of visit (telemedicine versus in-person) and (2) predictors of patient satisfaction in a large orthopedic practice during the onset of the pandemic.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of in-person and telemedicine visits within a large, university-affiliated orthopaedic practice between March 2020 and April 2020 during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients who completed a patient satisfaction survey were included. Demographic and other office visit (eg, type of provider and type of visit) data were collected. A Patient Satisfaction Aggregate (PSA, range 0 to 1) score was calculated by taking the average of five patient satisfaction questions. Linear regression was used to examine (1) the association between PSA score and mode of visit and (2) predictors of PSA score.

Results:

A total of 2,049 of 6,515 patient satisfaction surveys were completed and included for analysis, of which 748 had telemedicine visits and 1,301 had in-person visits. No association was found between PSA score and mode of visit with and without adjustment for duration of patient-physician relationship, appointment type (new versus follow-up), provider type (physician versus nonphysician), and provider subspecialty (β_unadjusted = 0.004 [SE = 0.01], P = 0.44; β_adjusted = 0.001 [SE = 0.01], P = 0.92). Predictors of increased PSA score were White race (P = 0.001), >1 year relationship with provider (P_{1-3 years} = 0.01, P_{3-5 years} = 0.04, and P_{5+ years} = 0.002), physician provider (P = 0.004), and foot/ankle provider (P = 0.04), whereas predictors of decreased PSA score were oncology provider (P = 0.02) and spine provider (P = 0.001).

Conclusion:

We found no association between PSA score and mode of visit. Predictors of PSA score included race, duration of patient-physician relationship, provider type, and provider subspecialty.

Redeployment of Orthopaedic Advanced Practice Providers at Academic Medical Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) represents a rapidly evolving pandemic. Health systems are scrambling to mobilize and redeploy their medical staff in the fight against COVID-19. Orthopaedic nurse practitioners/physician assistants should be part of any redeployment strategy to address unmet needs during these unprecedented times. This article discusses redeployment considerations and strategies that utilize these providers appropriately while mitigating risks.

Initial Evaluation by a Non-Surgeon Provider Does Not Delay the Surgical Care of Pediatric Forearm and Elbow Trauma in a Walk-In Orthopaedic Clinic

Introduction

Walk-in and after-hours clinics are being increasingly utilized in orthopedics and are especially beneficial for patients with simple sprains, fractures, or overuse injuries that might otherwise require an emergency room visit. To meet the increased patient load, additional staffing often is required, which might include a family medicine physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant. Few studies have evaluated the performance of these non-surgeon providers in an orthopedic clinical setting. This study compared the time to definitive care of pediatric patients with forearm and elbow injuries between non-surgeon providers in a walk-in clinic, orthopedic surgeons in a walk-in clinic, and a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in a regular clinic.

Methods

Children who had closed reduction and fixation of an elbow or forearm injury from January 2010 to December 2017 were identified. The patients were divided into groups: patients initially evaluated in a walk-in clinic by a non-surgeon provider; patients initially evaluated in a walk-in clinic by an orthopedic surgeon; and patients initially seen by a fellowship-trained, pediatric orthopedic surgeon in a regular clinic (control group). Neither type of provider (non-surgeon or surgeon) in the walk-in clinics definitively treated any injury but rather transferred care of the patient to a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. The number of clinic visits until surgery, the number of providers seen, the days before evaluation by a pediatric orthopedic surgeon, and the number of days before definitive surgical treatment were documented.

Results

Of the 162 patients identified, 36 (22%) were initially seen by an orthopedic surgeon and 62 (38%) by a non-surgeon provider in a walk-in clinic. The remaining 64 (40%) (control group) were initially seen in a regular office visit by a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. There were no significant differences noted for patients treated by orthopedic surgeon and non-surgeon providers in days before a referral visit to the pediatric orthopedic surgeon (3.7 vs. 3.9, respectively; p = 0.63) or days to surgery for definitive treatment (5.2 vs. 4.8, respectively; p = 0.62). The average number of providers seen (1.58 vs. 1.63, respectively; p = 0.69) and average number of clinic visits before surgery (2.08 vs. 2.06, respectively; p = 0.76) also were similar when comparing the two groups. The control group had significantly fewer days from evaluation to surgical treatment than the surgeon walk-in group (3.3 days vs. 5.2 days, p < 0.05) and the non-surgeon walk-in group (3.3 days vs. 4.8 days, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

There was no difference in the number of days to transfer patient care to a pediatric orthopedic surgeon between non-surgeon providers and orthopedic surgeons in the walk-in clinic. However, there was a one-day delay reaching definitive treatment when initial evaluation occurred in a walk-in clinic, regardless of whether the patient was initially seen by a surgeon or non-surgeon, when compared to an initial evaluation by a pediatric orthopedic surgeon.

Operative Distal Radial Fractures: A Comparison of Time to Surgery After Evaluation by Surgical and Nonsurgical Providers in a Walk-in Clinic

To determine if orthopedic surgeons are more efficient than nonsurgical providers at care of operative injuries in walk-in clinics, patients in a walk-in clinic for evaluation of acute injury who subsequently had surgical treatment of isolated distal radial fracture were compared based on whether the initial visit was with a surgical or nonsurgical provider. Initial evaluation in a walk-in orthopedic clinic setting versus a conventional hand surgeon's clinic was associated with longer delay between initial evaluation and surgical treatment, but this difference may not be significant. Evaluation by a nonsurgical provider was not associated with increased duration to definitive treatment.