Long-term Use of Wearable Health Technology by Chronic Pain Patients.

OBJECTIVES: People living with chronic pain may use wearable health technology (WHT) in conjunction with an expert-directed pain management program for up to 1 year. WHT use may be associated with improvements in key patient outcomes. METHODS: A 12-month study of WHT use among people with chronic pain was conducted, consisting of iPhone and Apple Watch applications to measure movement, sleep, and self-reported pain. Clinical outcomes among 105 patients enrolled in a multidisciplinary pain program that included WHT use were compared with 146 patients in the same program but without WHT, and to 161 patients receiving medical pain management without WHT. RESULTS: Participants used the WHT on average 143.0 (SD: 117.6) out of 365 days. Mixed-effects models revealed participants who used WHT had decreases in depression scores (-7.83, P <0.01) and prescribed morphine milligram equivalents (-21.55, P =0.04) over 1 year. Control groups also showed decreases in depression scores (-5.08, P =0.01; -5.68, P <0.01) and morphine milligram equivalents (-18.67, P =0.01; -10.99, ns). The estimated slope of change among the WHT was not statistically different than control groups. DISCUSSION: Patients who used WHT as part of their pain management program demonstrated a willingness to do so for extended periods of time despite living with chronic pain and other comorbidities. Data trends suggest that WHT use may positively impact depression and prescribed medication. Additional research is warranted to investigate the potential of WHT to improve the negative consequences of chronic pain.

Medications requiring prior authorization across health insurance plans.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the amount of variation in numbers and types of medications requiring prior authorization (PA) by insurance plan and type. METHODS: Most health insurance companies require PA for medications to ensure safe and effective use and contain costs. We generated 4 lists of medications that required PA during 2017 for commercial, marketplace, Medicaid, and Medicare plans. We aggregated medications according to the generic medication name equivalent using codes and medication names. We compared these medications to assess how many of the medications required PA by 1, 2, 3, or all 4 of the insurance plans. We counted all prescription orders written for a patient age 18 years or older with health plan insurance during 2017 for any of the medications that appeared on the health plan's PA lists by querying the electronic health record. RESULTS: PA was required for 600 unique medications in 2017 across the 4 plans. Of 691,457 prescription orders written for 114,159 members, 31,631 (5%) were written for 1 of the 600 medications that required PA by at least 1 insurance plan. There were 12,540 medication orders (written for 6,642 members) that potentially required PA. The marketplace plan required PA for the greatest number of medications (440), followed by the Medicare (272), commercial (271), and Medicaid (72) plans. The most commonly prescribed classes of medications for which PA was required by at least 1 plan were antihyperlipidemics (22% of orders potentially requiring PA), narcotic analgesics (13%), hypnotics (12%), antidiabetic medications (9%), and antidepressants (9%). For only 25% of medications (151 of 600) was PA required by at least 3 plans, and for only 5% (32 of 600) was PA required by all 4 insurance types. CONCLUSION: Medications requiring PA can differ within a single health insurance company, but this variation may be unavoidable due to external factors.

Current Trends in WALANT Surgery: A Survey of American Society for Surgery of the Hand Members.

Purpose: To define self-reported WALANT use among American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) members. We aimed to define surgeon and practice demographics relative to WALANT use and identify potential barriers for WALANT implementation. Methods: An anonymous multiple-choice survey was electronically distributed to all active ASSH members. Incomplete surveys were included in the final analysis. Surgeons were asked to provide reasons for not performing WALANT, which were categorized based on general themes. We compared practice and surgeon demographic information relative to WALANT use. Results: Of 3,826 ASSH members, 869 responded (23%). A total of 79% of respondents had performed at least one WALANT procedure; 62% currently incorporated WALANT into their practice. Hospital-owned outpatient surgery centers were the most common location for WALANT procedures (31%). Canadian surgeons were more likely to use WALANT, compared with US and international surgeons. Surgeons with fewer years in practice and higher-volume surgeons were more likely to use WALANT. There was no statistically significant association between either practice or income structure and WALANT use. For carpal tunnel release (CTR), 13% did not offer patients WALANT, whereas 43% offered WALANT to all patients. Moreover, 51% of surgeons reported that anesthesia staff was required to be present for WALANT cases at their institution. In determining reasons for not using WALANT, 16% reported that they preferred a tourniquet for visualization. Only 2% had concerns regarding epinephrine use in the hand. Conclusions: The results of this survey illustrate current WALANT use among ASSH members and defines the demographics of those employing WALANT. Lack of familiarity with WALANT and an acceptance of the use of epinephrine in the hand has increased from prior ASSH surveys. Lack of familiarity with the technique, concerns regarding operating room efficiency, and patient preferences remain considerable barriers to more widespread adoption of WALANT procedures. Type of study/level of evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis V.

Understanding the medication prior-authorization process: A case study of patients and clinical staff from a large rural integrated health delivery system.

PURPOSE: The barriers and solutions to the current prior-authorization (PA) process at an integrated health system were evaluated. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with patients at an integrated health system who also had insurance from an affiliated health plan and at least 1 denial for a medication in the past year. Semistructured interviews were conducted with medical staff (physicians, office staff, and PA experts). Both focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Inductive analysis was used to code transcripts and develop themes. RESULTS: Three focus groups were conducted with 13 patients, and 9 medical staff (3 staff physicians, 2 office staff, and 4 PA staff) who have interactions with the PA process interviewed. Several themes were identified including the complexity of the PA process, consequences experienced, and ineffective communication between key stakeholders. A cross-cutting theme was that stakeholders expressed feelings of frustration, anxiety, and anger throughout the PA process. All stakeholders offered insights on how the process could be improved to better facilitate their preferences, such as access to the list of medications that require PA and the need for a patient advocate. CONCLUSION: Results of this study revealed that the PA process was frustrating, upsetting, and infuriating to patients and medical staff involved in the process. Three main themes identified included the complexity of the PA process, consequences experienced from the PA process, and ineffective communication between stakeholders.

Medication therapy disease management: Geisinger's approach to population health management.

PURPOSE: Pharmacists' involvement in a population health initiative focused on chronic disease management is described. SUMMARY: Geisinger Health System has cultivated a culture of innovation in population health management, as highlighted by its ambulatory care pharmacy program, the Medication Therapy Disease Management (MTDM) program. Initiated in 1996, the MTDM program leverages pharmacists' pharmacotherapy expertise to optimize care and improve outcomes. MTDM program pharmacists are trained and credentialed to manage over 16 conditions, including atrial fibrillation (AF) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Over a 15-year period, Geisinger Health Plan (GHP)-insured patients with AF whose warfarin therapy was managed by the MTDM program had, on average, 18% fewer emergency department (ED) visits and 18% fewer hospitalizations per year than GHP enrollees with AF who did not receive MTDM services, with 23% lower annual total care costs. Over a 2-year period, GHP-insured patients with MS whose pharmacotherapy was managed by pharmacists averaged 28% fewer annual ED visits than non-pharmacist-managed patients; however, the mean annual total care cost was 21% higher among MTDM clinic patients. CONCLUSION: The Geisinger MTDM program has evolved over 20 years from a single pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinic into a large program focused on managing the health of an ever-growing population. Initial challenges in integrating pharmacists into the Geisinger patient care framework as clinical experts were overcome by demonstrating the MTDM program's positive impact on patient outcomes.

Is "Early Total Care" a Safe and Effective Alternative to "Staged Protocol" for the Treatment of Schatzker IV-VI Tibial Plateau Fractures in Patients Older Than 50 Years?

OBJECTIVES: To compare "Early Total Care" (ETC) with "Staged Protocol" (SP) for the treatment of Schatzker IV-VI tibial plateau fractures in patients older than 50 years regarding safety and effectiveness. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: An academic level 1 US trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one patients older than 50 years with Schatzker grade IV-VI tibial plateau fractures were included. INTERVENTION: Fifty-three patients were treated under SP with immediate external fixation followed by definitive internal fixation. Twenty-eight patients were treated under ETC with immediate internal fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of perioperative findings, time to bony and clinical union, soft-tissue and bony complications, radiological outcome, and secondary procedures. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable without significant difference regarding age, sex, side of involvement, body mass index, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologist classification, associated injuries, comorbidities, follow-up duration, and fracture classification. No statistically significant difference was found regarding the perioperative complications, quality of reduction, time to union, Rasmussen score at union or at the final follow-up, soft-tissue/bony complications, and the rate of the secondary procedures. CONCLUSION: ETC seems to be a safe, efficacious, and effective alternative to the SP for the treatment of some Schatzker IV-VI fractures in patients older than 50 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Role of Sonication for Detection of Infection in Explanted Orthopaedic Trauma Implants.

OBJECTIVES: Sonication is a new technology that uses high-frequency sound waves to mechanically dislodge bacteria adherent in biofilms. Unlike arthroplasty, its role in orthopaedic trauma has not been described. The goal of this study was to explore the utility of sonication in orthopaedic trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-six sonicated metallic orthopaedic devices from September 2010 to May 2013 were included. Patients were divided into 3 groups: clinically infected, elective implant removals, and nonunion. INTERVENTION: Sonication culture results were retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing implant removal. OUTCOMES: Sonication results were the primary study outcome and were considered positive for culture growth if equal to or greater than 20 colony-forming units per plate. RESULTS: In 32 patients with clinical infection, tissue cultures were positive in 30 (94%) and negative in 2 (6%). In contrast, sonication cultures were positive in 19 patients (59%) and did not identify additional organisms. Of the 72 patients who underwent elective implant removal, 52 had pain. Sonication cultures were positive in 5 of these 52 patients (10%) and in 0 of 20 patients with no pain. Sonication culture results were negative in all 42 patients who underwent nonunion surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Sonication of orthopaedic trauma implants in patients with clinically apparent infection or "aseptic" nonunion offered negligible additional information. Sonication demonstrated a positive microbiologic yield in a subset of patients with painful implants; further research is required to better establish the frequency of subclinical infection and to determine the diagnostic role of traditional cultures and sonication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Human-armadillo interaction in Ceará, Brazil: Potential for transmission of Mycobacterium leprae.

Several factors suggest that armadillos present an important risk for human leprosy infection. This study uses semi-structured interviews to better illustrate how human interaction with armadillos may increase the risk of leprosy transmission. The participants were all residents of the state of Ceará, in northeastern Brazil, all acknowledged contact with armadillos either through hunting, through cooking, or through consumption of its meat. This study raises important issues about contact between human beings and armadillos. The interviews provide evidence of numerous situations in which leprosy transmission via the armadillo is possible. At a minimum, people who hunt armadillos need to be made aware of the risk of infection.

What standards can (and can't) tell us about a spinal device.

Standards are important tools in evaluating and predicting the performance of medical devices prior to implantation. There are three types of standards that are available: a material specification, a standard test method, and a standard test guide. Each of these types of standards is defined with examples of how each is used to facilitate evaluation of medical devices. The standards development process is also described: this is a complex process, requiring the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, usually consisting of engineers, scientists, and clinicians who represent healthcare, academia, government, and industry. Finally, standards have a clear and defined role in the development of medical devices, and the benefits, strengths, as well as the limitations in this role are discussed.