Aims

To develop a multidisciplinary health research agenda (HRA) utilizing expertise from various disciplines to identify and prioritize evidence uncertainties in orthopaedics, thereby reducing research waste.

The objective of this study was to quantify the burden of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on the Ontario health care system. Specifically, we examined the magnitude and costs of MSD-associated ambulatory physician care and hospital service use, considering different physician types (e.g. primary care, rheumatologists, orthopaedic surgeons) and hospital settings (e.g. emergency department (ED), day surgery, inpatient hospitalizations). Administrative health data were analyzed for fiscal year 2013/14 for adults aged 18+ years (N=10,841,302). Data sources included: Ontario Health Insurance Plan Claims History Database, which captures data on in- and out-patient physician services, Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Discharge Abstract Database, which records diagnoses and procedures associated with all inpatient hospitalizations, and CIHI National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, which captures data on all emergency department (ED) and day surgery encounters. Services associated with MSDs were identified using the single three digit International Classification of Diseases (ICD) version 9 diagnosis code provided on each physician service claim for outpatient physician visits and the “most responsible” ICD-10 diagnosis code recorded for hospitalizations, ED visits and day surgeries. Patient visit rates and numbers of patients and visits were tabulated according to care setting, patient age and sex, and physician specialty. Direct medical costs were estimated by care setting. Data were examined for all MSDs combined as well as specific diagnostic groupings, including a comprehensive list of both trauma and non-trauma related conditions. Overall, 3.1 million adult Ontarians (28.5%) made 8 million outpatient physician visits associated with MSDs in 2013/14. These included 5.6 million primary care visits, nearly 15% of all adult primary care visits in the province. MSDs accounted for 560,000, 12.3%, of all adult ED visits. Patient visit rates to the ED for non-trauma spinal conditions were the highest of all MSDs at 1032 per 100,000 population, accounting for 23% of all MSD-related ED visits. Osteoarthritis had the highest rate of inpatient hospitalization of all MSDs at 340 per 100,000 population, accounting for 42% of all MSD-related admissions. Total costs for MSD-related care were $1.6 billion, with 12.6% of costs attributed to primary care, 9.2% to specialist care, 8.6% to ED care, and 61.2% of total costs associated with inpatient hospitalizations. Costs due to ‘arthritis and related conditions’ as a group accounted for 40.1% of total MSD costs ($966 million). Costs due to non-trauma related spinal conditions accounted for 10.5% ($168 million) of total MSD costs. All trauma-related conditions (spine and non-spine combined) were responsible for 39.4% ($627 million) of total MSD costs. MSD-related imaging costs for patients who made physician visits for MSDs were $169 million. Including these costs yields a total of $1.8 billion. MSDs place a significant and costly burden on the health care system. As the population ages, it will be essential that health system planning takes into account the large and escalating demand for MSD care, both in terms of health human resources planning and the implementation of more clinically and cost effective models of care, to reduce both the individual and population burden

It is important to remember that osteoarthritis is a noninflammatory condition that can affect 1, 2 or all 3 compartments of the knee. Moreover, this disease is a continuum from very mild to very severe involvement of the soft tissue, articular cartilage and bone. For this reason, a variety of nonsurgical and surgical options are indicated. The rheumatologist and/or orthopedist must understand the stage of the disease and fit that both to the pathology, age, activity level, and functional needs of the patient. For that reason, each of the options discussed today have an indication. The important issue about tricompartmental replacement is that we have improved technology and technique and the indications of today are broader than those of 20 years ago. Hopefully, they will continue to evolve both in terms of materials and instruments. The American Rheumatologic Association (ARA) has stated that joint replacement has been the major improvement in the care of the arthritic patient. The tricompartmental solution is the treatment of choice in patients with inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis as well as the solution in osteoarthritic patients with tricompartmental disease. There is an indication for osteotomy, unicompartmental replacement and perhaps patellofemoral replacement. I think the next frontier will be to find disease modifying osteoarthritic drugs (DMOADS) that will provide disease intervention as the DMARDs have done in rheumatoid arthritis. Moreover, cartilage repair combined with osteotomy will hopefully allow us to prevent progression of this disease

Identifying the core competencies of musculoskeletal medicine has been the basis for the development of the Australian Musculoskeletal Education Competencies (AMSEC) project. AMSEC aims to ensure Australian health professionals are suitably equipped through improved and appropriate education to address the increasing burden of both acute and chronic musculoskeletal disease. The AMSEC project has consisted of four distinct phases. The first two phases were consultative and highlighted concerns from medical educators, specialists and students that current curricula inadequately address the increasing scientific information base in MSK medicine and management. In phase three, Multidisciplinary Working Groups were established to detail competencies in MSK areas such as physical examination, red flag emergencies, basic and clinical science, patient education and self-management, procedural skills and rehabilitation and a web portal was developed. Phase four will see the core competencies completed, endorsed by the relevant professional colleges and integrated into Australian Medical School curricula. By bringing together experts from different groups involved in musculoskeletal education, it has been possible to agree on the core competencies required of a graduating medical student and from these determine the required underlying basic knowledge, skills and attitudes. These competencies are based on actual needs determined from current disease impact studies and the experience of professionals working in the various areas of musculoskeletal related clinical practice. This multidisciplinary and multi-professional approach, which includes consumer groups, has allowed a broader and more complete perspective of requirements. Both improved horizontal and vertical integration are facilitated and more efficient implementation is possible. By linking these core competencies to specific anatomy and basic science knowledge requirements, justification of the need to address current deficits in these areas was achieved. A standardised evidenced based approach to physical examination was developed allowing a unified approach to the resourcing and teaching of this skill by orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists and others. The ability to outline competency requirements vertically from medical student to resident, general practitioner and specialist is greatly facilitated by combining specialist educators with those of the universities and general practitioners. For the specialists, this approach yields excellent education leverage for very little additional effort. AMSEC has undertaken significant inter and intra disciplinary consultations to identify and classify core MSK competencies at a basic, median and advanced level of specialisation across professions. This novel national integrated model to address education needs offers many benefits and could be translated into other areas of medicine

Purpose. In 2010, the new clinical guideline of Osteoporosis Canada for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, clearly indicates that patients with high-risk of fracture are those that have already sustained a fracture (osteoporotic fracture). Until now, only 12% of the 3,400 fractures that we treat each year receive a treatment for osteoporosis. We are validating an evaluation protocol and a multidisciplinary systematic follow-up approach for osteoporosis. Patients are managed by a clinical nurse specialist. We are recruiting 543 patients with an osteoporotic fracture at Hal du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal. We aim to evaluate: 1) the incidence of a second osteoporotic fracture, 2) the initiation of a treatment and determine the compliance and adherence to treatment and 3) the evaluation of CTX-1 and Osteocalcin at Baseline, 6, 12,18 et 24 months (treatment efficacy) and 4) the functional outcome and quality of life post-fracture. Method. We've enrolled 153 subjects (men and women) over 40 years of age who were treated for an osteoporotic fracture at the orthopaedic clinic of Hal du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal. After starting a treatment protocol for osteoporosis, the subjects will be followed for a 24 months period at different time intervals. During these visits, they fill up functional outcome questionnaires, undergo physical exam, blood test, x rays and their compliance to treatment is evaluated. Results. Mean patients age was 65 y.o (+ 13). Two hundred seventeen patients were approached and 153 patients were enrolled (23 men and 130 women). Eleven patients refused to be part of the systematic follow up because they were satisfied with their family doctors osteoporosis management. Fifty-three were explained treatment and follow up and refused to participate. Thirteen patients (9%) dropped out after six months. One patient died. Twenty-one patients (13.7%) were already on bisphosphonates and 53 pts (34.6 %) had already sustained a fragility fracture. All patients were prescribed risedronate except three that were prescribed zoledronic acid or pamidronate for intolerance or contraindication to oral bisphosphonates. Up to now, we obtained 71% adherence and 91% persistence. After validation, 10% of the patients needed to be referred to a rheumatologist and 90% of the patients were managed by the clinical nurse specialist. Conclusion. Our multidisciplinary systematic follow up of osteoporotic fracture improved the osteoporosis treatment rate from 12 to 71 % in our orthopaedic surgery department. Clinical Nurse Specialists could represent the best approach to manage the underlying osteoporosis that leads to fragility fractures