This cohort study examines the characteristics of high-risk therapeutic devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in children and adolescents between 2016 and 2021.
The financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly significant in surgical specialties, with an estimated loss of $22 billion due to deferrals and cancelations of procedures. Evidence suggests that alternative payment models may have reduced the financial impact of COVID-19 for some providers; however, representation of plastic surgery in these models has historically been limited. It is critical for plastic surgeons to understand cost drivers throughout the surgical care episode to design strategies to reduce costs in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this perspective, we use the American College of Surgeons Five Phases of Surgical Care framework to examine inflationary spending pressures at each stage of the surgical continuum of care. We then highlight cost-containment strategies relevant to plastic and reconstructive surgery within these stages, including those developed before the COVID-19 pandemic, such as bundled payment models and utilization of ambulatory surgery centers, and others expanded during the pandemic, including further use of telemedicine for pre and postoperative visits and expansion of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways and home-based rehabilitation for breast reconstruction. Using innovations from the COVID-19 pandemic can help plastic surgeons further innovate to decrease costs and improve outcomes for patients.
Abstract Home hospital (HH), a care delivery model of providing hospital-grade care to patients in their homes, has become increasingly common in medical settings, though surgical uptake has been limited. HH programs have been shown to be safe and effective in a variety of medical contexts, with increased usage of this care pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though surgical patients have unique clinical considerations, surgical Home Hospital (SHH) programs may have important benefits for this population. Various technologies exist for the delivery of hospital care in the home, such as clinical risk prediction models and remote patient monitoring platforms. Here, we use institutional experiences at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) to discuss the utility of technology in enabling SHH programs and highlight current limitations. Additionally, we comment on the importance of data interoperability, access for all patients, and clinical workflow design in successfully implementing SHH programs.
A quarter of a million people in the United States are affected by spinal cord injury (SCI), which causes loss of sensation and muscle function. Improvements in clinical care have resulted in a lower risk of mortality from initial complications like bedsores or urosepsis, though patients are more susceptible to long term conditions like coronary heart disease [1], which is a leading cause of death for SCI patients [2]. Patients with SCI have sedentary lifestyles, decreased aerobic fitness, and limited levels of oxygen uptake, which contribute to increased rates of cardiovascular complications [2]. To mitigate these factors, SCI patients must perform vigorous aerobic exercise, which can be done through functional electrical stimulation (FES) [3].
Abstract Open science practices are research tools used to improve research quality and transparency. These practices have been used by researchers in various medical fields, though the usage of these practices in the surgical research ecosystem has not been quantified. In this work, we studied the use of open science practices in general surgery journals. Eight of the highest-ranked general surgery journals by SJR2 were chosen and their author guidelines were reviewed. From each journal, 30 articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 11, 2021 were randomly chosen and analyzed. Five open science practices were measured (preprint publication prior to peer-reviewed publication, use of Equator guidelines, study protocol preregistration prior to peer-reviewed publication, published peer review, and public accessibility of data, methods, and/or code). Across all 240 articles, 82 (34%) used one or more open science practices. Articles in the International Journal of Surgery showed greatest use of open science practices, with a mean of 1.6 open science practices compared to 0.36 across the other journals (p<.001). Adoption of open science practices in surgical research remains low, and further work is needed to increase utilization of these tools.
