Practice Management Strategies Among Current Members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: A survey was conducted at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) to evaluate current practice management strategies among AAHKS members. METHODS: An application was used by AAHKS members to answer both multiple-choice and yes or no questions. Specific questions were asked regarding the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on practice patterns. RESULTS: There was a dramatic acceleration in same day total joint arthroplasty with 85% of AAHKS members performing same day total joint arthroplasty. More AAHKS members remain in private practice (46%) than other practice types, whereas fee for service (34%) and relative value units (26%) are the major form of compensation. At the present time, 93% of practices are experiencing staffing shortages, and these shortages are having an impact on surgical volume. CONCLUSION: This survey elucidates the current practice patterns of AAHKS members. The pandemic has had a significant impact on some aspects of practice activity. Future surveys need to monitor changes in practice patterns over time.

Impact of COVID-19 on Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Practice in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the delivery of medical and surgical services globally. Subsequently, all elective and aesthetic procedures have been cancelled or deferred in accordance with government-mandated quarantine measures. The Cosmetic Surgery Governance Forum (CSGF) is a network of aesthetic plastic surgery consultants which has enabled a sharing of expertise during challenging times. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on aesthetic plastic surgeons and their practice in the UK. METHODS: On 15 June 2020, 131 respondents from the CSGF and wider aesthetic plastic surgeons in the UK were invited to respond to an online survey. An anonymised questionnaire was created using SmartSurveyTM and distributed at the end of the quarantine period. Questions regarding their current scope of practice, willingness to recommence face-to-face consultations, financial loss and psychological impact were asked. RESULTS: A total of 101 Consultant Plastic surgeons (76%) completed the questionnaire. If strict protocols and adequate personal protective equipment were available, 50-55% of respondents would consider offering non-surgical treatments as soon as the private clinic was open. Furthermore, 51% would consider procedures under general anaesthetic, whilst 89% of respondents would offer local anaesthetic only in the initial phase. Moreover, 66% reported experiencing a psychological impact and 100% of respondents reported a significant financial impact. CONCLUSIONS: This survey aims to give an account of the current state (May-July 2020) of aesthetic plastic surgery in the UK. There is ongoing uncertainty and deliberation regarding the timing and organisational changes required for aesthetic practice to restart.

Progression of Changes in Vascular Surgery Practices during the Novel Corona Virus SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly since it was identified. We sought to understand its effects on vascular surgery practices stratified by VASCON surgical readiness level and determine how these effects have changed during the course of the pandemic. METHODS: All members of the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society were sent electronic surveys questioning the effects of COVID-19 on their practices in the early pandemic in April (EP) and four months later in the pandemic in August (LP) 2020. RESULTS: Response rates were 206/731 (28%) in the EP group and 108/731 (15%) in the LP group (P < 0.0001). Most EP respondents reported VASCON levels less than 3 (168/206,82%), indicating increased hospital limitations while 6/108 (6%) in the LP group reported this level (P < 0.0001). The EP group was more likely to report a lower VASCON level (increased resource limitations), and decreased clinic, hospital and emergency room consults. Despite an increase of average cases/week to pre-COVID-19 levels, 46/108 (43%) of LP report continued decreased compensation, with 57% reporting more than 10% decrease. Respondents in the decreased compensation group were more likely to have reported a VASCON level 3 or lower earlier in the pandemic (P = 0.018). 91/108(84%) of LP group have treated COVID-19 patients for thromboembolic events, most commonly acute limb ischemia (76/108) and acute DVT (76/108). While the majority of respondents are no longer delaying the vascular surgery cases, 76/108 (70%) feel that vascular patient care has suffered due to earlier delays, and 36/108 (33%) report a backlog of cases caused by the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound effect on vascular surgery practices earlier in the pandemic, resulting in continued detrimental effects on the provision of vascular care as well as compensation received by vascular surgeons.

In-Person and Telehealth Ambulatory Contacts and Costs in a Large US Insured Cohort Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: This study assesses the role of telehealth in the delivery of care at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: To document patterns and costs of ambulatory care in the US before and during the initial stage of the pandemic and to assess how patient, practitioner, community, and COVID-19-related factors are associated with telehealth adoption. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cohort study of working-age persons continuously enrolled in private health plans from March 2019 through June 2020. The comparison periods were March to June in 2019 and 2020. Claims data files were provided by Blue Health Intelligence, an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Data analysis was performed from June to October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ambulatory encounters (in-person and telehealth) and allowed charges, stratified by characteristics derived from enrollment files, practitioner claims, and community characteristics linked to the enrollee's zip code. Results: A total of 36 568 010 individuals (mean [SD] age, 35.71 [18.77] years; 18 466 557 female individuals [50.5%]) were included in the analysis. In-person contacts decreased by 37% (from 1.63 to 1.02 contacts per enrollee) from 2019 to 2020. During 2020, telehealth visits (0.32 visit per person) accounted for 23.6% of all interactions compared with 0.3% of contacts in 2019. When these virtual contacts were added, the overall COVID-19 era patient and practitioner visit rate was 18% lower than that in 2019 (1.34 vs 1.64 visits per person). Behavioral health encounters were far more likely than medical contacts to take place virtually (46.1% vs 22.1%). COVID-19 prevalence in an area was associated with higher use of telehealth; patients from areas within the top quintile of COVID-19 prevalence during the week of their encounter were 1.34 times more likely to have a telehealth visit compared with those in the lowest quintile (the reference category). Persons living in areas with limited social resources were less likely to use telehealth (most vs least socially advantaged neighborhoods, 27.4% vs 19.9% usage rates). Per enrollee medical care costs decreased by 15% between 2019 and 2020 (from $358.32 to $306.04 per person per month). During 2020, those with 1 or more COVID-19-related service (1 470 721 members) had more than 3 times the medical costs ($1701 vs $544 per member per month) than those without COVID-19-related services. Persons with 1 or more telehealth visits in 2020 had considerably higher costs than persons having only in-person ambulatory contacts ($2214.10 vs $1337.78 for the COVID-19-related subgroup and $735.87 vs $456.41 for the non-COVID-19 subgroup). Conclusions and Relevance: This study of a large cohort of patients enrolled in US health plans documented patterns of care at the onset of COVID-19. The findings are relevant to policy makers, payers, and practitioners as they manage the use of telehealth during the pandemic and afterward.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Vascular Surgery Practice Guidelines during COVID-19 Pandemic in a Setting of High Work Volume Against Limited Resources: Perspective of a Developing Country.

BACKGROUND: The situation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Indian subcontinent is worsening. In Bangladesh, rate of new infection has been on the rise despite limited testing facility. Constraint of resources in the health care sector makes the fight against COVID-19 more challenging for a developing country like Bangladesh. Vascular surgeons find themselves in a precarious situation while delivering professional services during this crisis. With the limited number of dedicated vascular surgeons in Bangladesh, it is important to safeguard these professionals without compromising emergency vascular care services in the long term. To this end, we at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka, have developed a working guideline for our vascular surgeons to follow during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guideline takes into account high vascular work volume against limited resources in the country. METHODS: A total of 307 emergency vascular patients were dealt with in the first 4 COVID-19 months (March through June 2020) according to the working guideline, and the results were compared with the 4 pre-COVID-19 months. Vascular trauma, dialysis access complications, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia formed the main bulk of the patient population. Vascular health care workers were regularly screened for COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There was a 38% decrease in the number of patients in the COVID-19 period. Treatment outcome in COVID-19 months were comparable with that in the pre-COVID-19 months except that limb loss in the chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients was higher. COVID-19 infection among the vascular health care professionals was low. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgery practice guidelines customized for the high work volume and limited resources of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka were effective in delivering emergency care during COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring safety of the caregivers. Despite the fact that similar guidelines exist in different parts of the world, we believe that the present one is still relevant on the premises of a deepening COVID-19 crisis in a developing country like Bangladesh.

Virtual Management of Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Web-Based Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with cancer in rural settings and distant geographical areas will be affected the most by curfews. Virtual management (telemedicine) has been shown to reduce health costs and improve access to care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this survey is to understand oncologists' awareness of and views on virtual management, challenges, and preferences, as well as their priorities regarding the prescribing of anticancer treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We created a self-administrated electronic survey about the virtual management of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated its clinical sensibility and pilot tested the instrument. We surveyed practicing oncologists in Gulf and Arab countries using snowball sampling via emails and social media networks. Reminders were sent 1 and 2 weeks later using SurveyMonkey. RESULTS: We received 222 responses from validated oncologists from April 2-22, 2020. An awareness of virtual clinics, virtual multidisciplinary teams, and virtual prescriptions was reported by 182 (82%), 175 (79%), and 166 (75%) respondents, respectively. Reported challenges associated with virtual management were the lack of physical exam (n=134, 60%), patients' awareness and access (n=131, 59%), the lack of physical attendance of patients (n=93, 42%), information technology (IT) support (n=82, 37%), and the safety of virtual management (n=78, 35%). Overall, 111 (50%) and 107 (48%) oncologists did not prefer the virtual prescription of chemotherapy and novel immunotherapy, respectively. However, 188 (85%), 165 (74%), and 127 (57%) oncologists preferred the virtual prescription of hormonal therapy, bone modifying agents, and targeted therapy, respectively. In total, 184 (83%), 183 (83%), and 176 (80%) oncologists preferred to continue neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and perioperative treatments, respectively. Overall, 118 (53%) respondents preferred to continue first-line palliative treatment, in contrast to 68 (30%) and 47 (21%) respondents indicating a preference to interrupt second- and third-line palliative treatment, respectively. For administration of virtual prescriptions, all respondents preferred the oral route and 118 (53%) preferred the subcutaneous route. In contrast, 193 (87%) did not prefer the intravenous route for virtual prescriptions. Overall, 102 (46%) oncologists responded that they would "definitely" prefer to manage patients with cancer virtually. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists have a high level of awareness of virtual management. Although their survey responses indicated that second- and third-line palliative treatments should be interrupted, they stated that neoadjuvant, adjuvant, perioperative, and first-line palliative treatments should continue. Our results confirm that oncologists' views on the priority of anticancer treatments are consistent with the evolving literature during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenges to virtual management should be addressed to improve the care of patients with cancer.