Improving Care in Orthopaedics: How to Incorporate Quality Improvement Techniques into Surgical Practice

How Did Orthopaedic Surgeons Perform in the 2018 Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System?

BACKGROUND

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the latest value-based payment program implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. As performance-based bonuses and penalties continue to rise in magnitude, it is essential to evaluate this program's ability to achieve its core objectives of quality improvement, cost reduction, and competition around clinically meaningful outcomes.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked the following: (1) How do orthopaedic surgeons differ on the MIPS compared with surgeons in other specialties, both in terms of the MIPS scores and bonuses that derive from them? (2) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving penalties based on the MIPS? (3) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving a perfect score of 100 based on the MIPS?

METHODS

Scores from the 2018 MIPS reporting period were linked to physician demographic and practice-based information using the Medicare Part B Provider Utilization and Payment File, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data (NPPES), and National Physician Compare Database. For all orthopaedic surgeons identified within the Physician Compare Database, there were 15,210 MIPS scores identified, representing a 72% (15,210 of 21,124) participation rate in the 2018 MIPS. Those participating in the MIPS receive a final score (0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect score) based on a weighted calculation of performance metrics across four domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and costs. In 2018, orthopaedic surgeons had an overall mean ± SD score of 87 ± 21. From these scores, payment adjustments are determined in the following manner: scores less than 15 received a maximum penalty adjustment of -5% ("penalty"), scores equal to 15 did not receive an adjustment ("neutral"), scores between 15 and 70 received a positive adjustment ("positive"), and scores above 70 (maximum 100) received both a positive adjustment and an additional exceptional performance adjustment with a maximum adjustment of +5% ("bonus"). Adjustments among orthopaedic surgeons were compared across various demographic and practice characteristics. Both the mean MIPS score and the resulting payment adjustments were compared with a group of surgeons in other subspecialties. Finally, multivariable logistic regression models were generated to identify which variables were associated with increased odds of receiving a penalty as well as a perfect score of 100.

RESULTS

Compared with surgeons in other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons' mean MIPS score was 4.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.2; p < 0.001) points lower. From this difference, a lower proportion of orthopaedic surgeons received bonuses (-5.0% [95% CI -5.6 to -4.3]; p < 0.001), and a greater proportion received penalties (+0.5% [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and positive adjustments (+4.6% [95% CI 6.1 to 10.7]; p < 0.001) compared with surgeons in other specialties. After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as gender, years in practice, and practice setting, small (1 to 49 members) group size (adjusted odds ratio 22.2 [95% CI 8.17 to 60.3]; p < 0.001) and higher Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) scores (aOR 2.32 [95% CI 1.35 to 4.01]; p = 0.002) were associated with increased odds of a penalty. Also, after controlling for potential confounding, we found that reporting through an alternative payment model (aOR 28.7 [95% CI 24.0 to 34.3]; p < 0.001) was associated with increased odds of a perfect score, whereas small practice size (1 to 49 members) (aOR 0.35 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.39]; p < 0.001), a high patient volume (greater than 500 Medicare patients) (aOR 0.82 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.95]; p = 0.01), and higher HCC score (aOR 0.79 [95% Cl 0.66 to 0.93]; p = 0.006) were associated with decreased odds of a perfect MIPS score.

CONCLUSION

Collectively, orthopaedic surgeons performed well in the second year of the MIPS, with 87% earning bonus payments. Among participating orthopaedic surgeons, individual reporting affiliation, small practice size, and more medically complex patient populations were associated with higher odds of receiving penalties and lower odds of earning a perfect score. Based on these findings, we recommend that individuals and orthopaedic surgeons in small group practices strive to forge partnerships with larger hospital practices with adequate ancillary staff to support quality reporting initiatives. Such partnerships may help relieve surgeons of growing administrative obligations and allow for maintained focus on direct patient care activities. Policymakers should aim to produce a shortened panel of performance measures to ensure more standardized comparison and less time and energy diverted from established clinical workflows. The current MIPS scoring methodology should also be amended with a complexity modifier to ensure fair evaluation of surgeons practicing in the safety net setting, or those treating patients with a high comorbidity burden.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

A Simple Initiative to Decrease Time to Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Open Fractures Is Durable After 2 Years

INTRODUCTION

A simple antibiotic prophylaxis initiative can effectively decrease the time to antibiotic administration for patients with open fractures. We aim to determine whether adherence to the protocol decreased over time without active input from the orthopaedic trauma team.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with open fractures (excluding hand) presenting directly to the emergency department at one Level I trauma center. Three separate 50-patient groups were included: a preimplementation cohort, immediately postimplementation cohort, and a retention cohort 2 years later. The primary outcome was time from emergency department presentation to antibiotic administration, and secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 60 minutes and incidence of infection requiring revision surgery within 90 days. The χ2 and Student t-tests evaluated between-group differences, and multivariable linear or logistic regression evaluated risk factors.

RESULTS

After implementation, the time from presentation to antibiotic administration decreased markedly from 123.1 to 35.7 minutes and remained durable (50.0 minutes) at retention. The proportion of patients receiving antibiotics within 60 minutes increased markedly from 46% preimplementation to 82% postintervention and remained similar at retention (80%). The postintervention and retention groups were markedly more likely to receive antibiotics within 60 minutes than the preintervention group (odds ratio [OR], 8.4 and 4.7, respectively), as were patients with a higher Gustilo-Anderson type (OR, 2.4/unit increase), lower extremity injury (OR, 2.8), and male sex (OR, 3.1); mechanism, age, and Injury Severity Score were not associated. No difference was observed in infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our educational initiative showed durable results in reducing the time from presentation to antibiotic administration after 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III.

Evaluating learning and change in orthopaedics: What is the evidence-base?

Learning and change are key elements of clinical governance and are responsible for the progression of our specialty. Although orthopaedics has been slow to embrace quality improvement, recent years have seen global developments in surgical education, quality improvement, and patient outcome research. This review covers recent advances in the evaluation of learning and change and identifies the most important research questions that remain unanswered. Research into proxies of learning is improving but more work is required to identify the best proxy for a given procedure. Learning curves are becoming commonplace but are poorly integrated into postgraduate training curricula and there is little agreement over the most appropriate method to analyse learning curve data. With various organisations promoting centralisation of care, learning curve analysis is more important than ever before. The use of simulation in orthopaedics is developing but is yet to be formally mapped to resident training worldwide. Patient outcome research is rapidly changing, with an increased focus on quality of life measures. These are key to patients and their care. Cost-utility analysis is increasingly seen in orthopaedic manuscripts and this needs to continue to improve evidence-based care. Large-scale international, multi-centre randomised trials are gaining popularity and updated guidance on sample size estimation needs to become widespread. A global lack of surgeon equipoise will need to be addressed. Quality improvement projects frequently employ interrupted time-series analysis to evaluate change. This technique's limitations must be acknowledged, and more work is required to improve the evaluation of change in a dynamic healthcare environment where multiple interventions frequently occur. Advances in the evaluation of learning and change are needed to drive improved international surgical education and increase the reliability, validity, and importance of the conclusions drawn from orthopaedic research.