Comparative study between admission, orthopaedic surgery, and economic trends during Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 pandemic in an Italian tertiary hospital: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the most massive health emergencies in the last century and has caused millions of deaths worldwide and a massive economic and social burden. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic-during the Italian lockdown period between 8 March and 4 May 2020-influenced orthopaedic access for traumatic events to the Emergency Department (ER). METHODS: A retrospective review of the admission to the emergency room and the discharge of the trauma patients' records was performed during the period between 8 March and 4 May 2020 (block in Italy), compared to the same period of the previous year (2019). Patients accesses, admissions, days of hospitalisation, frequency, fracture site, number and type of surgery, the time between admission and surgery, days of hospitalisation, and treatment cost according to the diagnosis-related group were collected. Chi-Square and ANOVA test were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: No significant statistical difference was found for the number of emergency room visits and orthopaedic hospitalisations (p < 0.53) between the year 2019 (9.5%) and 2020 (10.81%). The total number of surgeries in 2019 was 119, while in 2020, this was just 48 (p < 0.48). A significant decrease in the mean cost of orthopaedic hospitalisations was detected in 2020 compared (261.431 euros, equal to - 52.07%) relative to the same period in 2019 (p = 0.005). Although all the surgical performances have suffered a major decline, the most frequent surgery in 2020 was intramedullary femoral nailing. CONCLUSION: We detected a decrease in traumatic occasions during the lockdown period, with a decrease in fractures in each district and a consequent decrease in the diagnosis-related group (DRG).

A virtual multi-disciplinary meeting is a cost-effective method of triaging referrals to a regional musculoskeletal oncology service.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2010, a virtual sarcoma referral model was implemented, which aims to provide a centralised multidisciplinary team (MDT) to provide rapid advice, avoiding unnecessary appointments and providing a streamlined service. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of this screening tool in reducing the service burden and expediting patient journey. METHODS AND RESULTS: All referrals made to a single tertiary referral sarcoma unit from January 2010 to December 2018 were extracted from a prospective database. Only 26.0% events discussed required review directly. 30.3% were discharged back to referrer. 16.5% required further investigations. 22.5% required a biopsy prior to review. There was a reduction in the rate of patients reviewed at the sarcoma clinic, and a higher discharge rate from the MDT in 2018 versus 2010 (p < 0.001). This gives a potential cost saving of 670,700 GBP over the 9 year period. CONCLUSION: An MDT meeting which triages referrals is cost-effective at reducing unnecessary referrals. This can limit unnecessary exposure of patients who may have an underlying diagnosis of cancer to a high-risk environment, and reduces burden on services as it copes with increasing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Financial implications of coronavirus disease 2019 on a tertiary academic vascular surgery practice.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the healthcare system in the United States. The redistribution of resources and suspension of elective procedures and other services has resulted in financial stress across all service lines. The financial effects on the practice of vascular surgery have not yet been quantified. We hypothesized that vascular surgery divisions have experienced losses affecting the hospital and professional sides that will not be recoupable without significant productivity increases. METHODS: Administrative claims data for clinical services performed by the vascular surgery division at a tertiary medical center for March and April 2019 and for March and April 2020 were analyzed. These claims were separated into two categories: hospital claims (inpatient and outpatient) and professional claims (professional reimbursement for all services provided). Medicare reimbursement methods were used to assign financial value: diagnosis-related group for inpatient services, ambulatory payment classification for outpatient services, and the Medicare physician fee schedule for professional reimbursement and work relative value units (wRVUs). Reimbursements and productivity (wRVUs) were compared between the two periods. A financial model was created to determine the increase in future productivity over baseline required to mitigate the losses incurred during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 11,317 vascular surgery claims were reviewed. Hospital reimbursement during the pandemic decreased from $4,982,114 to $2,649,521 (-47%) overall (inpatient, from $3,505,775 to $2,128,133 [-39%]; outpatient, from $1,476,339 to $521,388 [-65%]) and professional reimbursement decreased from $933,897 to $430,967 (-54%) compared with the same period in 2019. Professional productivity as measured by wRVUs sustained a similar decline from 10,478 wRVUs to 5386 wRVUs (-51%). Modeling sensitivity analyses demonstrated that if a vascular division were able to increase inpatient and outpatient revenue to greater than prepandemic levels by 10%, 5%, or 3%, it would take 9, 19, or 31 months, respectively, for the hospital to recover their pandemic-associated losses. Similarly, professional reimbursement recovery would require 11, 20, or 36 months with corresponding increases in productivity. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound and lasting effects on the world in terms of lives lost and financial hardships. The financial effects on vascular surgery divisions has resulted in losses ranging from 39% to 65% compared with the prepandemic period in the previous year. Because the complete mitigation of losses is not feasible in the short term, alternative and novel strategies are needed to financially sustain the vascular division and hospital during a prolonged recovery period.

Implementation and Outcomes of Virtual Care Across a Tertiary Cancer Center During COVID-19.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective: To examine the outcomes of a cancer center-wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results: The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P < .001). Ambulatory clinic volumes recovered a month after deployment (3714-4091 patients per week), whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy caseloads (1943-2461 patients per week) remained stable throughout. No changes in institutional or provincial quality-of-care indexes were observed. A total of 3791 surveys (3507 patients and 284 practitioners) were completed; 2207 patients (82%) and 92 practitioners (72%) indicated overall satisfaction with VC. The direct cost of this initiative was CAD$ 202 537, and displacement-related cost savings to patients totaled CAD$ 3 155 946. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementation of VC at scale at a high-volume cancer center may be feasible. An agile service design approach was able to preserve outpatient caseloads and maintain care quality, while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. These findings may help guide the transformation of telemedicine in the post COVID-19 era.