Background Public reporting of patient health outcomes offers the potential to incentivize quality improvement by fostering increased accountability among providers. Voluntary reporting of risk-adjusted outcomes in cardiac surgery, for example, is viewed as a ''watershed event'' in healthcare accountability. However, public reporting of outcomes, cost, and quality information in orthopaedic surgery remains limited by comparison, attributable in part to the lack of standard assessment methods and metrics, provider fear of inadequate adjustment of health outcomes for patient characteristics (risk adjustment), and historically weak market demand for this type of information.Questions/purposes We review the origins of public reporting of outcomes in surgical care, identify existing initiatives specific to orthopaedics, outline the challenges and opportunities, and propose recommendations for public reporting of orthopaedic outcomes. Methods We performed a comprehensive review of the literature through a bibliographic search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases from January 1990 to December 2010 to identify articles related to public reporting of surgical outcomes. Results Orthopaedic-specific quality reporting efforts include the early FDA adverse event reporting MedWatch program and the involvement of surgeons in the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. Issues that require more work include balancing different stakeholder perspectives on quality reporting measures and methods, defining accountability and attribution for outcomes, and appropriately risk-adjusting outcomes. Conclusions Given the current limitations associated with public reporting of quality and cost in orthopaedic surgery, valuable contributions can be made in developing specialty-specific evidence-based performance measures. We believe through leadership and involvement in policy formulation and development, orthopaedic surgeons are best equipped to accurately and comprehensively inform the quality reporting process and its application to improve the delivery and outcomes of orthopaedic care.

Background The relationships between physicians and hospitals are viewed as central to the proposition of delivering high-quality health care at a sustainable cost. Over the last two decades, major changes in the scope, breadth, and complexities of these relationships have emerged. Despite understanding the need for physician-hospital alignment, identification and understanding the incentives and drivers of alignment prove challenging. Questions/purposes Our review identifies the primary drivers of physician alignment with hospitals from both the physician and hospital perspectives. Further, we assess the drivers more specific to motivating orthopaedic surgeons to align with hospitals. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature review from 1992 to March 2012 to evaluate published studies and opinions on the issues surrounding physicianhospital alignment. Literature searches were performed in both MEDLINE 1 and Health Business TM Elite. Results Available literature identifies economic and regulatory shifts in health care and cultural factors as primary drivers of physician-hospital alignment. Specific to orthopaedics, factors driving alignment include the profitability of orthopaedic service lines, the expense of implants, and issues surrounding ambulatory surgery centers and other ancillary services. Conclusions Evolving healthcare delivery and payment reforms promote increased collaboration between physicians and hospitals. While economic incentives and increasing regulatory demands provide the strongest drivers, cultural changes including physician leadership and changing expectations of work-life balance must be considered when pursuing successful alignment models. Physicians and hospitals view each other as critical to achieving lower-cost, higher-quality health care.

As health care increasingly emphasizes high value, the terms "population health" and "patient-centered care" have become common, but their application is less clear. Patient-centered care encourages using data to optimize care for an individual. Population health offers a framework to consider how to efficiently and effectively manage a condition for a population, how prevention affects large groups, and the specific distribution of a given disorder. Integrating both concepts into practice can facilitate required outcome-measure reporting and potentially improve patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines and appropriate use criteria are examples of reconciliation of these topics. By embracing attempts to decrease variation in treating musculoskeletal disorders while personalizing delivery to individual patients, surgeons may benefit from the improvement of both efficiency and patient experience.