The International Initiative to Measure Perceived Risk in Arthroplasty: The Results From a Multinational Survey
Amit Atrey,Adolph J Yates,Mary I O'Connor,Zoe Thomson,James P Waddell,James Broderick,Alejandro Zylberg,Christopher Wall,Ben Emmerson,David Campbell,Amir Khoshbin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.08.003
Abstract:Background: There is an inherent moral imperative to avoid complications from arthroplasty. Doing so at ideal cost is also associated with surgeon reputation, and, increasingly in health care delivery systems that measure and competitively score outcomes, reimbursement to the surgeons and their hospitals. As a result, patients who are perceived to be in higher risk comorbidity groups, such as the obese and diabetics, as well as those challenged by socioeconomic factors may face barriers to access elective arthroplasty. Methods: In this initiative, surveys were sent to surgeons in 8 different countries, each adapted for their own unique payment, remuneration, and punitive models. The questions in the surveys pertained to surgeons' perception of risk regarding medical and socioeconomic factors in patients indicated for total hip or knee arthroplasty. This paper primarily reports on the results from Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Results: The health care systems varied between a universal/state funded health care system (Canada) to those that were almost exclusively private (India). Some health care systems have "bundled" payment with retention of fees for postoperative complications requiring readmission/reoperation and including some with public publication of outcome data (United States and the United Kingdom), whereas others had none (Canada). There were some major discrepancies across different countries regarding the perceived risk of diabetic patients, who have variable Hemoglobin A1c cut-offs, if any used. However, overall the perception of risk for age, body mass index, age, sex, socioeconomic, and social situations remained surprisingly consistent throughout the health care systems. Any limitations set were primarily driven by surgeon decision making and not external demands. Conclusion: Surgeons will understandably try and optimize the health status of patients who have reversible risks as shown by best available evidence. The evidence is of variable quality, and, especially for irreversible social risk factors, limited due to concerns over cost and quality outcomes that can be influenced by experience-driven perceptions of risk. The results show that perceptions of risk do have such influence on access across many health care delivery environments. The authors recommend better risk-adjustment models for medical and socioeconomic risk factors with possible stratification/exclusions regarding reimbursement adjustments and reporting to help reverse disparities of access to arthroplasty.