Projected Economic Burden of Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip and Knee in the United States

BackgroundIn addition to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), the cost of treating PJI is substantial. Prior high-quality national estimates of the economic burden of PJI utilize data up to 2009 to project PJI growth in the United States through 2020. Now in the year 2020, it is appropriate to evaluate these past projections and incorporate the latest available data to better understand the current scale and burden of PJI in the United States.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002-2017) was used to identify rates and associated inpatient costs for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) and PJI-related revision TKA and THA. Poisson regression was utilized to model past growth and project future rates and cost of PJI of the hip and knee.ResultsUsing the most recent data, the combined annual hospital costs related to PJI of the hip and knee were estimated to be $1.85 billion by 2030. This includes $753.4 million for THA PJI and $1.1 billion for TKA PJI, in that year. Increases in PJI costs are mainly attributable to increases in volume. Although the growth in incidence of primary THA and TKA has slowed in recent years, the incidence of PJI and the cost per case of PJI remained relatively constant from 2002 to 2017.DiscussionUnderstanding the current and potential future financial burden of PJI for surgeons, patients, and healthcare systems is essential. There is an urgent need for efficacious preventive strategies in reducing rates of PJI after THA and TKA.     

The impact of COVID-19 and healthcare system changes on the well-being of rheumatic patients

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the healthcare systems. Many Polish outpatient clinics have been implementing telemedical consultations as a tool to ensure the continuity of care for patients with chronic diseases. The aim of the study was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with telemedical appointments, as well as availability of the various medical services and patients’ well-being during the pandemic.Material and methodsAn online-based questionnaire on the experience with telemedical consultations, availability of medical services and current state of health was conducted among Polish rheumatology patients approximately 6 months after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThe survey was completed by 107 respondents with a mean age of 41.52 ±14.33 years. The overall level of satisfaction from telemedical consultations, evaluated with a VAS 1–10 scale, was assessed as 6.23 ±3.04 for teleconsultations in primary healthcare units and 6.00 ±2.80 for rheumatology outpatient units. 42.99% of the respondents were in favour of maintaining telemedical appointments even after the pandemic. Incidences of reduced access to medical services during the COVID-19 pandemic were reported by 77.57% of the patients. Almost half of the respondents reported reduced accessibility to rheumatological care. An alarming decline in health self-esteem, evaluated with a VAS 1–10 scale, was noted from the average 6.37 ±1.92 before COVID-19 to the current rating of 5.78 ±1.91 (p = 0.0087).ConclusionsPolish rheumatology patients are moderately satisfied with the medical teleconsultations in primary health care units and rheumatology outpatient clinics. A substantial number of patients experienced deterioration of well-being as well as limited access to traditional healthcare services, including rheumatology care.     

Successful navigation of late career transitions

The purpose of this educational review was to describe the challenges that may face the anesthesiologist near the end of their career and to propose strategies that will enable the individual to continue to be a productive and valued member of their Department, both clinically and by other contributions.     

Thermal discomfort in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction:Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers are now required to use additional personal protective equipment (PPEs) to protect themselves against the virus. That led to an increased clothing insulation which is negatively affecting the perceived healthcare workers’ thermal sensation.Objectives:While demonstrating through software simulations the potential level of thermal discomfort healthcare workers involved in the COVID-19 emergency can be subjected to, this work aims at identifying measures to improve thermal sensation perception and acceptable thermal conditions for medical personnel.Methods:After having obtained the insulation values of individual clothing used by staff during COVID-19 emergency through the use of a thermal well-being evaluation software, the Fanger indexes (PMV - Predicted Mean Vote and PPD - Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied) were calculated in order to estimate staff satisfaction to microclimatic conditions.Results:The use of COVID-19 additional PPEs with an air temperature equal to 22 °C (normally considered optimal) brings the PMV index equal to 0.6, which corresponds to 11.8 % being unsatisfied (PPD) due to perceived heat.Discussion:The use of additional protective devices significantly increases the clothing insulation level, facilitating the onset of conditions of thermal discomfort in the health workers. Workers engaged in the execution of nasopharyngeal swabs were most affected by the summer weather conditions and certainly represent the most critical category, for which it would be recommended to implement a higher turnover of service to reduce individual exposure time and consequent discomfort.     

Hospital‐based health systems 20 years later: A taxonomy for policy research and analysis

ObjectiveBuilding on the original taxonomy of hospital‐based health systems from 20 years ago, we develop a new taxonomy to inform emerging public policy and practice developments.Data SourcesThe 2016 American Hospital Association''s (AHA) Annual Survey; the 2016 IQVIA Healthcare Organizations and Systems (HCOS) database; and the 2017‐2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS).Study DesignCluster analysis of the 2016 AHA Annual Survey data to derive measures of differentiation, centralization, and integration to create categories or types of hospital‐based health systems.Data CollectionPrincipal components factor analysis with varimax rotation generating the factors used in the cluster algorithms.Principal FindingsAmong the four cluster types, 54% (N = 202) of systems are decentralized (−0.35) and relatively less differentiated (−0.37); 23% of systems (N = 85) are highly differentiated (1.28) but relatively decentralized (−0.29); 15% (N = 57) are highly centralized (2.04) and highly differentiated (0.65); and approximately 9 percent (N = 33) are least differentiated (−1.35) and most decentralized (−0.64). Despite differences in calculation, the Highly Centralized, Highly Differentiated System Cluster and the Undifferentiated, Decentralized System Cluster were similar to those identified 20 years ago. The other two system clusters contained similarities as well as differences from those 20 years ago. Overall, 82 percent of the systems remain relatively decentralized suggesting they operate largely as holding companies allowing autonomy to individual hospitals operating within the system.ConclusionsThe new taxonomy of hospital‐based health systems bears similarities as well as differences from 20 years ago. Important applications of the taxonomy for addressing current challenges facing the healthcare system, such as the transition to value‐based payment models, continued consolidation, and the growing importance of the social determinants of health, are highlighted.     

Developing network adequacy standards for VA Community Care

ObjectivesTo inform how the VA should develop and implement network adequacy standards, we convened an expert panel to discuss Community Care Network (CCN) adequacy and how VA might implement network adequacy standards for community care.Data Sources/Study settingData were generated from expert panel ratings and from an audio‐recorded expert panel meeting conducted in Arlington, Virginia, in October 2017.Study DesignWe used a modified Delphi panel process involving one round of expert panel ratings provided by nine experts in network adequacy standards. Expert panel members received a list of network adequacy standard measures used in commercial and government market and were provided a rating form listing a total of 11 measures and characteristics to rate.Data Collection MethodsItems on the rating form were individually discussed during an expert panel meeting between the nine expert panel members and VA Office of Community Care leaders. Attendees addressed discordant views and generated revised or new standards accordingly. Recorded audio data were transcribed to facilitate thematic analysis regarding opportunities and challenges with implementing network adequacy standards in VA Community Care.Principal FindingsThe five highest ranked standards were network directories for Veterans, regular reporting of network adequacy data to VA, maximum wait time/distance standards, minimum ratio of providers to enrolled population, and qualitative assessments of network adequacy. During the expert panel discussion with VA Community Care leaders, opportunities and challenges implementing network adequacy standards were highlighted.ConclusionsOur expert panel shed light on priorities for network adequacy to be implemented under CCN contracts, such as developing comprehensive provider directories for Veterans to use when selecting community providers. Remaining questions focus on whether the VA could reasonably develop and implement network adequacy standards given current Congressional restraints on VA reimbursement to community providers.     

What attracts and sustain urban poor to informal healthcare practitioners? A study on practitioners' perspectives and patients' experiences in an Indian city

The practice of allopathic medicine by informal healthcare practitioners (IHPs) is ubiquitous in India. However, a little is known about the patients' experiences and IHPs' perspectives. The core questions guided the present study were (1) why do urban poor approach IHPs for healthcare? (2) what are their experiences of availing services from IHPs? and (3) what are the perspectives of IHPs about their practice with the population they serve? A qualitative research design guided the study. The study was conducted in the Gurugram city of Haryana, India. Nine IHPs and twenty‐seven patients who fit into the pre‐established inclusion criteria were interviewed. The findings of the study underline the structural constrains of healthcare access to the poor in India and the mutual dependencies between IHPs and the urban poor. Three themes were emerged corresponding to the perspectives of IHPs, and five themes were generated, which describes patients' experiences and perspectives of availing treatment. The factors that attract and sustain patients to IHPs are a mixture of socio‐economic aspects, which include poverty, inaccessibility, unaffordability, inefficient public healthcare facilities, and the positive behavioural and treatment attributes of the practitioners. The study implies urgent policy interventions to ensure quality healthcare to urban poor.     

Impact of COVID‐19 on access to healthcare in low‐ and middle‐income countries: Current evidence and future recommendations

The COVID‐19 pandemic continues to be a major public health threat globally and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) are not an exception. The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic is far‐reaching on many areas including but not limited to global health security, economic and healthcare delivery with a potential impact on access to healthcare in LMICs. We evaluate the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on access to healthcare in LMICs, as well as plausible strategies that can be put in place to ensure that the delivery of healthcare is not halted. In order to mitigate the devastating effect of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the already weak health systems in LMICs, it is much necessary to reinforce and scale up interventions and proactive measures that will ensure that access to healthcare is not disrupted even in course of the pandemic.