Objective Identifying when and how often decisions are made based on high-quality evidence can inform the development of evidence-based treatment plans and care pathways, which have been shown to improve quality of care and patient safety. Evidence to guide decision making, national guidelines, and clinical pathways for many conditions in pediatric orthopaedic surgery are limited. This study investigated decision making rationale and quantified the evidence supporting decisions made by pediatric orthopaedic surgeons in an outpatient clinic. Design/Setting/Participants/Intervention(s)/Main Outcome Measure(s) We recorded decisions made by eight pediatric orthopaedic surgeons in an outpatient clinic and the surgeon’s reported rationale behind the decisions. Surgeons categorized the rationale for each decision as one or a combination of 12 possibilities (e.g. “Experience/anecdote”, “First Principles”, “Trained to do it”, “Arbitrary/Instinct”, “General Study”, “Specific Study”). Results Out of 1150 total decisions, the most frequent decisions were follow-up scheduling, followed by bracing prescription/removal. The most common decision rationales were “First principles” (N=310, 27.0%) and “Experience/anecdote” (N=253, 22.0%). Only 17.8% of decisions were attributed to scientific studies, with 7.3% based on studies specific to the decision. 34.6% of surgical intervention decisions were based on scientific studies, while only 10.4% of follow-up scheduling decisions were made with studies in mind. Decision category was significantly associated with a basis in scientific studies: surgical intervention and medication prescription decisions were more likely to be based on scientific studies than all other decisions. Conclusions With increasing emphasis on high value, evidence-based care, understanding the rationale behind physician decision-making can educate physicians, identify common decisions without supporting evidence, and help create clinical care pathways in pediatric orthopaedic surgery. Decisions based on evidence or consensus between surgeons can inform pathways and national guidelines that minimize unwarranted variation in care and waste. Decision support tools & aids could also be implemented to guide these decisions.
Unnecessary delays in discharge are extraordinarily common in the current US health care system. These delays are even more protracted for patients undergoing orthopedic procedures. A traditional hospital staffing model is heavily weighted toward increased resources on weekdays and minimal coverage on the weekend. This study examined the effect of this traditional staffing model on time to discharge for patients undergoing posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Patients undergoing surgery later in the week had a significantly longer hospital stay compared with patients undergoing surgery early in the week (5.5 days vs 4.9 days, respectively; P =.003). This discrepancy resulted in a mean cost increase of $7749.50 for patients undergoing surgery later in the week. A subsequent quality, safety, value initiative (QSVI) was undertaken to balance physical therapy resources alone. Following the QSVI, patients undergoing surgery later in the week had a decreased mean length of stay of 3.78 days ( P =.002). Patients undergoing fusion early in the week also had a decreased mean length of stay of 3.66 days ( P <.001). There was no longer a significant difference in length of stay between the “early” and the “late” groups ( P =.84). This study demonstrates that simply having surgery later in the week in a hospital with a traditional staffing model adversely affects the timing of discharge, resulting in a significantly longer and more costly hospital course. By increasing physical therapy availability on the weekend, the length of stay and the cost of hospitalization decrease precipitously for these patients. [ Orthopedics . 2020; 43(1);8–12.]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.