No abstract

Objectives: To determine the reliability of self-reported smoking status in the orthopaedic trauma population and determine if certain patient factors might predispose inaccurate self-reported smoking cessation.Design: Prospective.Setting: Level I trauma center.Patients: Two hundred forty-seven orthopaedic trauma patients were included in the study. Intervention:In-office measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO).Main Outcome Measurements: Self-reported smoking cessation with exhaled CO measurements.Results: A total of 906 self-reported surveys were completed over 4 follow-up visits. Of the responses indicating smoking cessation (n = 174), 12.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.081-0.185] reported smoking cessation with positive CO readings, suggesting inaccurate self-reporting of smoking status. Over 20% of those patients inaccurately reporting abstinence did so more than once. The odds of inaccurate self-reporting was 3 times higher in patients with no insurance or government insurance [odds ratio (OR), 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-11.0; P = 0.043] and in the unemployed (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.97-8.57; P = 0.049).Conclusions: Self-reported smoking status in the orthopaedic population is fairly reliable, with 13% of patient's inaccurately self-reporting smoking cessation despite knowing their smoking status was being measured. Clinicians should be aware of the potential for inaccuracy in self-reported smoking cessation, particularly in patients with the identified socioeconomic factors. Point-of-care testing before elective trauma procedures to confirm smoking status might have a role if the procedure outcome is highly dependent on smoking status.

Objectives: To review and evaluate the validity of common perceptions and practices regarding radiation safety in orthopaedic trauma.

Instrument choices are influenced primarily by a surgeon's training and individual preference. Cost is often of secondary interest, particularly in the absence of any contracted fiscal obligation to the hospital. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how a simple intervention involving dissemination of cost data among a surgeon peer group influenced behavior with respect to surgical instrument choice. Cost data for laparoscopic appendectomies between July-December 2016 were disseminated to surgeons belonging to the same department of a teaching hospital. Each surgeon was provided his or her own cost data along with blinded data for his or her peers for comparison. Cost for each disposable instrument used among the group was provided for reference. Costs of laparoscopic appendectomy performed after the intervention (June-December 2017) were compared with costs before the intervention, for both individual surgeons and the group as a whole. A random effects linear regression model clustered on surgeon was then used to assess the average cost saving of the intervention while accounting for the intracorrelation of surgeon costs. One outlier was removed from the analysis, resulting in a cohort of 89 cases before the intervention and 74 postintervention. After outlier removal, data were normally distributed. The mean cost per case decreased for 10 of the 11 surgeons analyzed (minimum decrease of $7 to maximum decrease of $725). The remaining surgeon increased from an average of $985 ± 235 pre-intervention to $1003 ± 227 postintervention. The average cost saving for the group was $238 ± 226 and was associated with an average reduction in cost of 21 per cent. A linear regression analysis clustered on surgeon suggested the intervention was associated with an average saving of $260 (β = -260, SE = 39, P < 0.001). After dissemination of cost data among surgeon peers, a reduction in costs was observed. Most notably, significant savings occurred in the absence of any mandate or incentive to reduce costs. Providing cost data to surgeons to facilitate natural competition among peers is a simple and effective tool for reducing operating room costs.