In 2013, we introduced a specialized, centralized, and interdisciplinary team in our institution that applied a standardized diagnostic and treatment algorithm for the management of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The hypothesis for this study was that the outcome of treatment would be improved using this approach. In a retrospective analysis with a standard postoperative follow-up, 95 patients with a PJI of the hip and knee who were treated with a two-stage exchange between 2013 and 2017 formed the study group. A historical cohort of 86 patients treated between 2009 and 2011 not according to the standardized protocol served as a control group. The success of treatment was defined according to the Delphi criteria in a two-year follow-up.Aims
Patients and Methods
The importance of accurate identification and reporting of surgical
site infection (SSI) is well recognised but poorly defined. Public
Health England (PHE) mandated collection of orthopaedic SSI data
in 2004. Data submission is required in one of four categories (hip
prosthesis, knee prosthesis, repair of neck of femur, reduction
of long bone fracture) for one quarter per year. Trusts are encouraged
to carry out post-discharge surveillance but this is not mandatory.
Recent papers in the orthopaedic literature have highlighted the
importance of SSI surveillance and the heterogeneity of surveillance
methods. However, details of current orthopaedic SSI surveillance
practice has not been described or quantified. All 147 NHS trusts in England were audited using a structured
questionnaire. Data was collected in the following categories: data
collection; data submission to PHE; definitions used; resource constraints;
post-discharge surveillance and SSI rates in the four PHE categories.
The response rate was 87.7%.Aims
Patients and Methods
Modern healthcare contracting is shifting the
responsibility for improving quality, enhancing community health
and controlling the total cost of care for patient populations from
payers to providers. Population-based contracting involves capitated
risk taken across an entire population, such that any included services
within the contract are paid for by the risk-bearing entity throughout
the term of the agreement. Under such contracts, a risk-bearing entity,
which may be a provider group, a hospital or another payer, administers
the contract and assumes risk for contractually defined services.
These contracts can be structured in various ways, from professional
fee capitation to full global per member per month diagnosis-based
risk. The entity contracting with the payer must have downstream
network contracts to provide the care and facilities that it has
agreed to provide. Population health is a very powerful model to
reduce waste and costs. It requires a deep understanding of the nuances
of such contracting and the appropriate infrastructure to manage
both networks and risk. Cite this article:
Episodic, or bundled payments, is a concept now
familiar to most in the healthcare arena, but the models are often
misunderstood. Under a traditional fee-for-service model, each provider
bills separately for their services which creates financial incentives
to maximise volumes. Under a bundled payment, a single entity, often
referred to as a convener (maybe the hospital, the physician group,
or a third party) assumes the risk through a payer contract for
all services provided within a defined episode of care, and receives
a single (bundled) payment for all services provided for that episode.
The time frame around the intervention is variable, but defined
in advance, as are included and excluded costs. Timing of the actual payment
in a bundle may either be before the episode occurs (prospective
payment model), or after the end of the episode through a reconciliation
(retrospective payment model). In either case, the defined costs
over the defined time frame are borne by the convener. Cite this article:
