Characterization of US Hospital Advertising and Association With Hospital Performance, 2008-2016.

Importance: Hospital advertising has been touted as a tool to improve consumer decision-making, but little is known about its association with objective measures of hospital quality. Objective: To document recent trends in hospital advertising in the US and examine the association between concurrent measures of hospital advertising and quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional study of all general acute care hospitals operating in the US between January 2008 and December 2016. Data were analyzed from December 6, 2019, to July 15, 2020. Exposure: Annualized advertising spending for each hospital as measured by a market research firm. Main Outcomes and Measures: Four composites of hospital performance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database were used: risk-standardized mortality rate, risk-standardized readmission rate, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CAHPS) Overall Patient Experience Rating (scale of 1-5; higher scores indicate a more positive patient experience rating), and overall 5-star rating. Linear models adjusted for hospital bed size, hospital revenue, and geographic census region. Results: The study sample included, on average, 4569 general acute care hospitals per year between 2008 and 2016. During this time, approximately half of acute care hospitals (2239 of 4569 [49%]) advertised their services to consumers and spent a total of $3.39 billion. Relative to hospitals that never advertised, advertising hospitals were more likely to be nonprofit facilities (mean [SD], 66% [47%] vs 51% [50%]; P < .001), had larger bed sizes (mean [SD], 234.3 [210.7] beds vs 84.8 [110.6] beds; P < .001), and had higher net incomes (mean [SD], $17 800 000 [$49 000 000] vs $134 099 [$51 600 000]; P < .001). There was no observed association between hospital advertising and performance. For example, hospitals that advertised had a mean (SD) CAHPS 5-star rating of 3.2 (0.9) stars compared with 3.3 (1.0) stars among hospitals that did not advertise, an insignificant difference (P = .92). We observed no difference in performance between advertising and nonadvertising hospitals in 30-day readmission rates (mean [SD], 15.5% [0.8%] vs 15.6% [1.0%]; P = .25), mortality rates (mean [SD], 12.7% [4.0%] vs 12.0% [4.1%]; P = .46), and overall 5-star hospital ratings (mean [SD], 3.1 [0.8] stars vs 3.0 [0.9] stars; P = .50). A significant difference was observed in adjusted mortality rates across terciles of advertising spending, with lower mortality rates for the hospitals with higher ad spending (2016, mean [SD] mortality composite for hospitals in the highest tercile, 11.2% [4.2%] vs hospitals in the middle tercile, 12.0% [3.8%], and for hospitals in the lowest tercile, 12.7% [4.1%]; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that the amount hospitals spent on direct-to-consumer advertising was not associated with publicly reported measures of hospital quality; instead, hospital advertising spending was higher for financially stable hospitals with higher net incomes.

Medical Student Patient Outreach to Ensure Continuity of Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Yale New Haven Health System began rescheduling nonurgent outpatient appointments as virtual visits in March 2020. While Yale New Haven Health expanded its telemedicine infrastructure to accommodate this shift, many appointments were delayed and patients faced considerable uncertainty. Objective: Medical students created the Medical Student Task Force (MSTF) to help ensure continuity of care by calling patients whose appointments were delayed during this transition to telemedicine. Methods: Eighty-five student volunteers called 3765 internal medicine patients with canceled appointments, completing screening for 2197 patients. Volunteers screened for health care needs, assessed preferences for future appointments, and offered emotional support and information about COVID-19. Urgent or emergent patient concerns were triaged and escalated to providers. In this analysis, we used a mixed-methods approach: call information and provider responses were analyzed quantitatively, and patient feedback was analyzed qualitatively via thematic analysis. Results: Ninety-one percent of patients screened found the MSTF calls helpful. Twenty-one percent of patients reported health concerns, with 1% reporting urgent concerns escalated to and addressed by providers. Themes of patient comments included gratitude for outreach and social contact, utility of calls, and well-wishes for health care workers. Conclusions: By calling patients whose appointments had been canceled during a rapid transition to telemedicine, the MSTF helped bridge a potential gap in care by offering patients communication with their care teams, information, and support. We propose that this model could be used in other care systems urgently transitioning to outpatient telemedicine, whether during ongoing outbreaks of COVID-19 or other public health emergencies.

Capsular release following total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of early outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to analyze the outcomes of open and arthroscopic capsular release following total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Over 15 years, 19 patients experienced persistent shoulder stiffness after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty refractory to nonoperative treatment, requiring either open (n = 5) or arthroscopic (n = 14) capsular release. There were seven (39%) patients who had a prior diagnosis of stiffness before the primary arthroplasty. RESULTS: At a follow-up of 2.3 years (1-5.5), there were changes in range of motion, including forward flexion (77°-117°), abduction (49°-98°), external rotation (9°-19°), internal rotation at 0° (Sacrum to L1), and pain (4.1-2.3) scores (p < 0.01). There were seven (37%) patients that required a reoperation following the initial capsular release. The survival-free of reoperation at 2 and 5 years was 76% and 53%, respectively, while the survival-free of revision surgery at 2 and 5 years was 83%. Furthermore, three (16%) patients required a repeat capsular release. Overall, there were 11 (58%) complications, including stiffness (n = 9), infection (n = 1), subscapularis rupture (n = 2), glenoid loosening (n = 3), and pain with weakness requiring reoperation (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder stiffness after total shoulder arthroplasty is a very difficult pathology to treat, with high rates of complications and reoperations after capsular release. Overall, in patients that do not develop glenoid loosening, capsular release does improve the patient's pain and shoulder motion. Furthermore, when patients develop stiffness, it is critical to rule out other etiologies, such as glenoid loosening, prior to proceeding with capsular release. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: Retrospective case series.

Latarjet Procedure for the Treatment of Anterior Glenohumeral Instability.

Anterior glenohumeral instability is common, with 21.9 first-time dislocations per 100,000 individuals per year. Recurrent instability is more likely to occur in patients who are younger, of male sex, and have bone defects or ligament laxity. The open Latarjet procedure is effective for the treatment of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability and is preferred over arthroscopic Bankart repair in the presence of glenoid bone loss. The Latarjet procedure involves transferring the coracoid to the anterior aspect of the glenoid in the following steps. Step 1: Preoperative planning includes an assessment of glenoid deformation and the integrity of the rotator cuff. The degree of bone loss is measured with use of the circle-line method. Step 2: The patient is in the beach-chair position with the arm in a pneumatic arm holder. A parallel drill guide system with 3.75-mm cannulated screws is utilized. Step 3: A 5-to-6-cm incision is made along the anterior axillary line. The deltopectoral interval is established, and the cephalic vein is mobilized laterally. The coracoacromial ligament is transected 15 mm lateral to the coracoid to allow later repair to the anterior capsule. The pectoralis minor is released subperiosteally off the medial coracoid. A 90° oscillating saw is used to transect the coracoid medially to laterally. The coracohumeral ligament is released. Step 4: Two 4.0-mm drill-holes are made 1 cm apart through the coracoid. The undersurface is decorticated. Step 5: The subscapularis is split at the junction of the upper two-thirds and lower one-third. A longitudinal capsulotomy is performed parallel to the glenoid. Step 6: Soft tissue, including the capsule and labrum, is removed from the anterior aspect of the glenoid. The bone is decorticated with an osteotome and a rasp. Step 7: The coracoid is positioned flush or 1 mm recessed relative to the glenoid. Two 1.6-mm guidewires are placed with use of a parallel drill guide followed by a cannulated reamer and two 3.75-mm cannulated screws. Step 8: The coracoacromial ligament is repaired to the capsule. Step 9: The subscapularis split is repaired laterally. The deltopectoral interval and skin are closed in a standard fashion. A standardized rehabilitation protocol is employed postoperatively. The Latarjet procedure results in significantly lower rates of recurrent glenohumeral instability and revision compared with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure (3% and 1% compared with 28.4% and 21%, respectively); however, complication rates as high as 30% have been reported, as well as a risk for nerve injury. The videos included in this article highlight the critical steps required to optimize outcomes and minimize complications when performing the Latarjet procedure.

The impact of the reverse prosthesis on revision shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of a high-volume shoulder practice.

BACKGROUND: Since the approval of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in 2004, the use of shoulder arthroplasty increased dramatically. Although the success of RSA in the revision setting has been demonstrated, there remains a paucity of studies examining the epidemiology of RSA in revision arthroplasty. This study describes trends of revision arthroplasty during the "era of the reverse," from 2005 through 2016. METHODS: In a multicenter retrospective analysis, we analyzed 274 revision shoulder arthroplasties converted to a RSA (n = 182), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, n = 68), or hemiarthroplasty (n = 24) from 2005 to 2016. Demographics, surgical indications, and types of prosthesis were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of revision arthroplasties increased over 12 years. From 2005 to 2010, TSA (33%) or hemiarthroplasty (16%) were used in similar rates as RSA (51%). From 2011 to 2016, there was a much higher incidence of revision arthroplasty with RSA (78%) compared with TSA (19%) or hemiarthroplasty (3%). Specifically, the number of RSAs increased in 2011 to 2016 compared with 2005 to 2010 in patients aged younger than 60 years, obese patients, patients with indications of glenoid loosening, and those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RSA for revision arthroplasty increased over the "era of the reverse" and became the majority by 2016. The reverse prosthesis has had expanding indications regarding both patient demographics and pathology. This study demonstrates the reverse prosthesis has had a similar and even more profound effect on revision shoulder arthroplasty than what has previously been well documented in the primary setting.

The Utilization of Formal Physical Therapy After Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that structured rehabilitation programs by professional therapists help guide patients through the various recovery periods after shoulder arthroplasty, speeding up their recovery and improving their final functional gains. However, to our knowledge, there are no studies providing information about the current state of physical rehabilitation use after shoulder arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation in physical rehabilitation utilization after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and to identify differences in utilization based on type of insurance (private versus public), sex, age, and region of the country. METHODS: This epidemiological retrospective database study utilized a commercially available database, PearlDiver, with longitudinal patient tracking linking all patients' Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision codes to their specific records to analyze patterns of physical rehabilitation usage after TSA and RSA in the United States. Two main patient populations were analyzed within the PearlDiver database, the Humana private insurance population and the Medicare insurance population. The period analyzed was 2010 to 2015. RESULTS: There was significantly higher utilization of physical rehabilitation in the Humana population when compared to the Medicare population (P<.001, Cramer's V = 0.270). In the Humana population, 36% of patients had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits in the 6 months following their operation, while in the Medicare population, 56% of patients had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits in the same period. Those with TSA had a higher utilization rate than those with RSA in the Humana (P<.001, V = 0.104; TSA, 31% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits; RSA, 40% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits within 6 months) and Medicare populations (P<.001, V = 0.135; TSA, 51% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits; RSA, 61% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits within 6 months). CONCLUSION: Postoperative utilization of physical rehabilitation after anatomic TSA and RSA is markedly higher in privately insured patients than in patients with Medicare, regardless of age, sex, diagnosis, or region of country. These findings have important implications, from the individual patient's experience and outcomes to system-wide resource utilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analyses, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(11):856-863. Epub 8 May 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8176.

Clinical Outcomes Following the Latarjet Procedure in Contact and Collision Athletes.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the success of the Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the contact or collision athlete. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the return-to-sport and functional results of the Latarjet procedure in this select group. METHODS: One hundred and nine consecutive contact or collision athletes (112 shoulders) treated with an open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability were retrospectively identified. Seventy-three shoulders in 73 patients (67%) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 52 months (range, 24 to 120 months). The average age at surgery was 25.8 years (range, 15 to 54 years). The primary outcomes were the scores on the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire, a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and return to sport. Predictors of return to sport were analyzed. RESULTS: Six (8%) of the 73 patients experienced ≥1 postoperative dislocations. Ten additional patients (14%) experienced a perception of instability without a dislocation. The median postoperative WOSI and ASES scores were 382 (range, 0 to 2,016) and 93.3 (range, 21.7 to 100), respectively. The median postoperative VAS pain score was 0 (range, 0 to 10). Forty-nine percent (36) of the 73 patients returned to their preoperative sports level, 14% (10) decreased their activity level in the same sport, 12% (9) changed sports, and 25% (18) decreased their level of activity and changed sports or stopped participating in sports altogether. Patients with ≥2 stabilization procedures prior to the Latarjet procedure demonstrated a lower likelihood of returning to their original sport (p = 0.019; relative risk = 2.84; 95% confidence interval = 1.34 to 6.06). The percentage of glenoid bone loss showed no association with the return-to-sport rate (p = 0.507). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of the Latarjet procedure in high-risk contact or collision athletes is variable. Patients who have fewer prior stabilization surgical procedures are more likely to successfully return to their original sport. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The cost-effectiveness of the arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the arthroscopic Bankart and the open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness study used a Markov decision chain and Monte-Carlo simulation. Existing literature was reviewed to determine the survivorship and complication rates of these procedures. Health utility states (EQ-5D and quality-adjusted life-years) of the Bankart and Latarjet were prospectively collected. Using these variables, the Monte-Carlo simulation was modeled 100,000 times. RESULTS: In reviewing the literature, the overall recurrence rate is 14% after the arthroscopic Bankart and 8% after the open Latarjet. Postoperative health utility states were equal between the 2 procedures (mean EQ-5D, 0.930; P = .775). The Monte-Carlo simulation showed that the Bankart had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4214 and the Latarjet had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4681 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Both the arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet are highly cost-effective; however, the Bankart is more cost-effective than the Latarjet, primarily because of a lower health utility state after a failed Latarjet. Ultimately, the clinical scenario may favor Latarjet (ie, critical glenoid bone loss) in certain circumstances, and decisions should be made on a case by case basis.

Predicting 1-Year Postoperative Visual Analog Scale Pain Scores and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Function Scores in Total and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Shared decision-making provides patients a measure of autonomy in making choices for their health and their future. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) use clinically sensitive and specific metrics to evaluate a patient's self-reported pain, functional ability, and mental state. We conducted a study to create an evidence-based clinical decision-making tool. We used PROMs to create a predictive model of a patient's outcome to help set patient expectations and facilitate a collaborative decision-making environment for patient and physician. The study used a comprehensive prospective database that stores preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient demographics and total shoulder arthroplasty PROM data. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the predictive ability of each factor and the overall predictive ability of each model. One model predicts 1-year postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores; the other predicts 1-year postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Function scores. The total number of observations was 1004 for modeling 1-year postoperative VAS pain scores and 986 for modeling 1-year postoperative ASES Function scores. Regression coefficients and P and ω2 values are reported. Preoperative VAS pain scores predicted 1-year postoperative VAS pain scores (P < .001) but not 1-year postoperative ASES Function scores (P = .485). Preoperative Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) mental health component summary (MCS) scores predicted self-reported pain and function (Ps < .001) 1 year after surgery. In these models, preoperative VR-12 MCS score was the most predictive PROM for 1-year postoperative VAS pain score (ω2 = .023) and 1-year postoperative ASES Function score (ω2 = .029). Together, a patient's preoperative VAS pain score, ASES Function score, VR-12 MCS score, age, sex, and type of arthroplasty can provide significant predictive value that may aid in setting appropriate expectations for pain and function 1 year after surgery.