Anatomical distribution and treatment of paediatric hand fractures: a multi-centre study of 749 patients in the Netherlands.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Effectiveness of a digital vs face-to-face preoperative assessment: A randomized, noninferiority clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Digitalizing the preoperative assessment clinic can be a solution to keep up with the growing demand for surgery. It remains unclear if a digital preoperative assessment clinic is as safe, and effective in terms of patient health outcomes and experience compared to face-to-face consultations. This study aimed to compare quality of recovery and mental state in patients undergoing a digital preoperative assessment versus regular face-to-face consultations. DESIGN: This was a single centre, randomized (1:1), parallel, open-label, noninferiority trial. SETTING: The preoperative clinic and preoperative unit of an urban secondary care hospital. PATIENTS: All adult, Dutch speaking, ASA I-IV patients with access to an online computer who required surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Digital preoperative screening, consisting of an electronic screening questionnaire and web-based platform with personalized information and recommendations related to the procedure, or face-to-face screening, consisting of two 20-min in-hospital consultations. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was quality of recovery, measured 48 h after surgery. The analysis followed a per-protocol principle, and only patients who underwent the intended screening were included in the analysis. The noninferiority margin was set at -6. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05535205, during the study on 09/08/2022, before analysing results. MAIN RESULTS: Between March 1, 2021 and 30 august 2021, 480 patients were assessed for eligibility. 400 patients were randomly assigned to the digital group (n = 200) or face-to-face group (n = 201), of which respectively 117 and 124 patients were eventually included in the primary analysis. The mean quality of recovery score of patients undergoing digital screening (158) was non-inferior to that of patients undergoing face-to-face screening (155), with a mean difference of 3·2 points and a 97.5% lower confidence limit of -2.1 points. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A digital preoperative screening is not inferior to face-to-face consultations in patients undergoing predominantly low to moderate risk surgery. Given its potential to reduce physician workload, reallocate healthcare resources, and lower healthcare costs, a digital preoperative screening may be a better choice for preoperative assessments.

Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness.

We analyzed (1) the correspondence of patient and clinician perceived patient involvement in decision making and ratings made by independent observer's independent ratings, as well as (2), factors associated with patient-perceived involvement, among patients seeking hand specialty care. During 63 visits, the patient, their hand specialist, and 2 independent observers each rated patient involvement in decision making using the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire for patients and clinicians, and the 5-item observing patient involvement scale (OPTION-5). We also measured health literacy (Newest Vital Sign), patient and visit characteristics (gender, age, race, years of education, occupation, marital status, and family present). There was no correlation (ρ = 0.17; P = .17) between patient (median 42, IQR 36-44.5) and clinician (38, IQR 35-43) ratings of patient involvement in decision making. Independently rated patient involvement correlated moderately with a specialist (ρ = 0.35, P <.01), but not patient (ρ = 0.22, P = .08) ratings. The finding that patient perception of their involvement in decision making has little or no relationship to independently rated clinician communication effectiveness and effort, suggests that other aspects of the encounter-such as empathy and trust-may merit investigation as mediators of the patient agency.

Clinician Factors Rather Than Patient Factors Affect Discussion of Treatment Options.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort. METHODS: We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort. RESULTS: There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Missed Empathic Opportunities During Hand Surgery Office Visits.

Background: Empathy (conveyance of an understanding of a patient's situation, perspective, and feelings) deepens the therapeutic alliance and leads to better health outcomes. We studied the frequency and nature of empathic opportunities and physician responses in patients visiting a hand surgeon. We also sought patient characteristics associated with the number of patient-initiated-clues and missed opportunities by surgeons. Methods: For this prospective cohort study, we enrolled 83 new, adult patients visiting 1 of 3 hand surgeons during a period of 4 months. All visits were audio-recorded, and empathic opportunities (patient-initiated emotional or social clues) and physician responses were categorized using the model of Levenson et al. Before the visit, patients completed the Newest Vital Sign health literacy test; 3 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-based questionnaires: Upper-Extremity function, Pain Interference, and Depression questionnaires; and a sociodemographic survey. Results: Empathic opportunities were present in 70% of hand surgery office visits. Surgeons responded empathically to about half of the opportunities. Patients with limited health literacy and greater symptoms of depression (small correlation; r = -0.29) were less likely to receive a positive response. Response to an empathic opportunity did not affect visit duration. Conclusions: Hand surgeons often miss empathic opportunities. Future research might address the influence of training physicians to address empathic opportunities on trust, adherence, satisfaction, and outcomes.

Medium to Long-Term Follow-Up After Pyrocarbon Disc Interposition Arthroplasty for Treatment of CMC Thumb Joint Arthritis.

PURPOSE: Pyrocarbon disc interposition arthroplasty has been designed for the surgical treatment of Eaton-Glickel grade II/III carpometacarpal thumb joint arthritis. This study presents the results of this technique with a minimum 5-year follow up. METHODS: We assessed 4 questionnaires for patient-reported outcome measurements in a cross-sectional study: the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, Michigan Hand Questionnaire, and questions about satisfaction at the 5-year follow up. We evaluated grip and pinch strength, range of motion, and the radiological position of the disc. Finally, a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 164 thumbs (in 137 patients) were available for follow-up varying from 5 to 12 years. Median Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, and Michigan Hand Questionnaire scores were 17, 18, and 76, respectively. The satisfaction score was 9 (Likert scale of 1-10). Grip and pinch strength reached nearly 100% compared with the contralateral hand. Range of motion resulted in a Kapandji score of 10. Thumb height showed a marginal loss and the Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed a survival rate of 91%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that pyrocarbon disc interposition arthroplasty is a reliable and feasible treatment for carpometacarpal thumb joint arthritis at medium-term follow-up. It was associated with a high level of patient satisfaction; it maintained thumb height and the implant survived in 91% of patients. Strength and range of motion were comparable to the contralateral hand after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Gradual Onset Diseases: Misperception of Disease Onset.

PURPOSE: Gradual onset diseases (eg, carpal tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, and trapeziometacarpal arthrosis) tend to go unnoticed for years. When a slowly progressive disease transitions from asymptomatic to symptomatic, it may seem like an acute event. The primary aim of this study was to determine the percentage of patients who perceive the slowly progressive disease as having started within 1 year. We also hypothesized that (1) there would be no factors associated with perception of an onset of disease within 1 year, more specifically among patients with advanced disease; and (2) there would be no difference in a decision to pursue operative treatment between patients who perceived the onset of the disease to be recent and those who perceived it to be long-standing. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the medical records of 732 patients newly diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 114), cubital tunnel syndrome (n = 276), or trapeziometacarpal arthrosis (n = 342), for the onset of symptoms. Multiple factors were assessed for (1) association with perception of disease onset within 1 year, and (2) choice for operative treatment in bivariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 69% of all subjects and 68% of patients with advanced disease perceived the disease as having started within 1 year. A perceived provocation (such as an injury or surgery) was associated with a perception of recent onset. A decision to pursue operative treatment was not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Slowly progressive diseases are often misperceived as relatively new. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Effective communication strategies are important to ensure that people make choices consistent with their values and not based on misconceptions.

Carpal Coalitions on Radiographs: Prevalence and Association With Ordering Indication.

PURPOSE: Carpal coalitions are common and usually incidental to the indication for wrist radiographs. It is not clear if, or when, carpal coalitions cause pain. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of incidental carpal coalitions by evaluating radiographs taken for various indications and to test the association of demographic variables and ordering indications with the finding of a carpal coalition. METHODS: We reviewed 1,119 posteroanterior wrist radiographs for the presence of carpal coalition. We used bivariate and multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors for their independent associations with the presence of carpal coalitions and to compare the difference in the prevalence of carpal coalitions between radiographs obtained to evaluate traumatic wrist pain (623 wrists), nontraumatic wrist pain (175 wrists), and other reasons (321 wrists). RESULTS: Radiographs of 98 out of 1,119 patients (8.8%) showed a carpal coalition. Carpal coalitions were equally likely on radiographs obtained for traumatic wrist pain and nontraumatic wrist pain. Patients with no wrist trauma or wrist pain were less likely to have a carpal coalition on their radiograph. CONCLUSIONS: We consider carpal coalitions an unlikely cause of wrist pain. The lower prevalence in radiographs obtained for causes other than wrist trauma or wrist pain remains unexplained, although it may be spurious. In the evaluation of a patient with nonspecific wrist pain, clinicians should be careful ascribing symptoms to anatomical variations on radiographs. These incidental findings should not usually affect management. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic III.

Patients With Limited Health Literacy Ask Fewer Questions During Office Visits With Hand Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of rapid expansion of medical knowledge and decision-support tools intended to benefit diverse patients, patients with limited health literacy (the ability to obtain, process, and understand information and services to make health decisions) will benefit from asking questions and engaging actively in their own care. But little is known regarding the relationship between health literacy and question-asking behavior during outpatient office visits. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patients with lower levels of health literacy ask fewer questions in general, and as stratified by types of questions? (2) What other patient characteristics are associated with the number of questions asked? (3) How often do surgeons prompt patients to ask questions during an office visit? METHODS: We audio-recorded office visits of 84 patients visiting one of three orthopaedic hand surgeons for the first time. Patient questions were counted and coded using an adaptation of the Roter Interaction Analysis System in 11 categories: (1) therapeutic regimen; (2) medical condition; (3) lifestyle; (4) requests for services or medications; (5) psychosocial/feelings; (6) nonmedical/procedural; (7) asks for understanding; (8) asks for reassurance; (9) paraphrase/checks for understanding; (10) bid for repetition; and (11) personal remarks/social conversation. Directly after the visit, patients completed the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, a sociodemographic survey (including age, sex, race, work status, marital status, insurance status), and three Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-based questionnaires: Upper-Extremity Function, Pain Interference, and Depression. The NVS scores were divided into limited (0-3) and adequate (4-6) health literacy as done by the tool's creators. We also assessed whether the surgeons prompted patients to ask questions during the encounter. RESULTS: Patients with limited health literacy asked fewer questions than patients with adequate health literacy (5 ± 4 versus 9 ± 7; mean difference, -4; 95% CI, -7 to -1; p = 0.002). More specifically, patients with limited health literacy asked fewer questions regarding medical-care issues such as their therapeutic regimen (1 ± 2 versus 3 ± 4; mean difference, -2; 95% CI, -4 to -1]; p < 0.001) and condition (2 ± 2 versus 3 ± 3; mean difference, -1; 95% CI, -3 to 0; p = 0.022). Nonwhite patients asked fewer questions than did white patients (5 ± 4 versus 9 ± 7; mean difference, -4; 95% CI, -7 to 0; p = 0.032). No other patient characteristics were associated with the number of questions asked. Surgeons only occasionally (29%; 24/84) asked patients if they had questions during the encounter, but when they did, most patients (79%; 19/24) asked questions. CONCLUSIONS: Limited health literacy is a barrier to effective patient engagement in hand surgery care. In the increasingly tangled health-information environment, it is important to actively involve patients with limited health literacy in the decision-making process by encouraging question-asking, particularly in practice settings where most decisions are preference-sensitive. Instead of assuming that patients understand what they are told, orthopaedic surgeons may take "universal precautions" by assuming that patients do not understand unless proved otherwise. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.