Background Integrating psychosocial resources into orthopaedic clinics can reduce psychological distress and opioid use after injury, enhance functional outcomes, and increase patient satisfaction with care. Establishing referral pathways for connecting orthopaedic patients with psychosocial resources requires the active collaboration and buy-in of orthopaedic healthcare professionals. Designing and disseminating psychosocial training materials for orthopaedic healthcare professionals requires a nuanced understanding of orthopaedic healthcare professionals' current attitudes toward addressing psychosocial factors, including any stigma and misconceptions about mental health that exist.This work was funded by a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health awarded to Dr. Ana-Maria Vranceanu (1U01AT010462-01A1). Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Mass General Brigham (number 2020P000095).

BackgroundGood clinical outcomes in orthopaedics are largely dictated by the biomedical model, despite mounting evidence of the role of psychosocial factors. Understanding orthopaedic providers’ conceptualizations of good clinical outcomes and what facilitates and hinders them may highlight critical barriers and opportunities for training providers on biopsychosocial models of care and integrating them into practice.Questions/purposes(1) How do orthopaedic trauma healthcare providers define good clinical outcomes for their patients after an acute orthopaedic injury? (2) What do providers perceive as barriers to good outcomes? (3) What do providers perceive as facilitators of good outcomes? For each question, we explored providers’ responses in a biopsychosocial framework.MethodsIn this cross-sectional, qualitative study, we recruited 94 orthopaedic providers via an electronic screening survey from three Level I trauma centers in geographically diverse regions of the United States (rural southeastern, urban southwestern, and urban northeastern). This study was part of the first phase of a multisite trial testing the implementation of a behavioral intervention to prevent chronic pain after acute orthopaedic injury. Of the 94 participants who were recruited, 88 completed the screening questionnaire. Of the 88 who completed it, nine could not participate because of scheduling conflicts. Thus, the final sample included 79 participants: 48 surgeons (20 attendings, 28 residents; 6% [three of 48] were women, 94% [45 of 48] were between 25 and 55 years old, 73% [35 of 48] were White, and 2% [one of 48] were Hispanic) and 31 other orthopaedic professionals (10 nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and physician assistants; 13 medical assistants; five physical therapists and social workers; and three research fellows; 68% [21 of 31] were women, 97% [30 of 31] were between 25 and 55 years old, 71% [22 of 31] were White, and 39% [12 of 31] were Hispanic). Using a semistructured interview, our team of psychology researchers conducted focus groups, organized by provider type at each site, followed by individual exit interviews (5- to 10-minute debriefing conversations and opportunities to voice additional opinions one-on-one with a focus group facilitator). In each focus group, providers were asked to share their perceptions of what constitutes a “good outcome for your patients,” what factors facilitate these outcomes, and what factors are barriers to achieving those outcomes. Focus groups were approximately 60 minutes long. A research assistant recorded field notes during the focus groups to summarize insights gained and disseminate findings to the broader research team. Using this procedure, we determined that thematic saturation was reached for all topics and no additional focus groups were necessary. Three independent coders identified the codes of good outcomes, outcome barriers, and outcome facilitators and applied this coding framework to all transcripts. Three separate data interpreters collaboratively extracte...

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind–body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers’ lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients’ psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers’ confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings.