Dataset Information

Assessment of Surgeon Variation in Adherence to Evidence-Based Recommendations for Treatment of Trigger Finger.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger finger) affects approximately 2% of the population. Given the prevalence of trigger finger and rising health care costs, adherence to the cost-effective and evidence-based treatment algorithm will permit better outcomes and allocation of resources.

Objectives

To examine treatment patterns for trigger finger and to determine surgeon-level and patient-level factors that influence adherence to evidence-based treatment.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective population-based cohort study examined deidentified claims for treatment of trigger finger from a national insurance provider using the Clinformatics Data Mart database. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and treated from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2016 (excluding a washout period from July 1, 2008, until June 30, 2010), with a new diagnosis of single-digit trigger finger. Data were analyzed from December 21, 2018, through April 28, 2019.

Exposures

Cost-effective and evidence-based research published in July 2009 for the treatment of trigger finger.

Main outcomes and measures

After excluding the 1-year washout period on either side of July 1, 2009, adherence to the recommended treatment algorithm of 2 corticosteroid injections before surgical release of trigger finger was compared with practice before publication of research supporting this cost-effective and evidence-based approach.

Results

In this analysis of 83?667 patients with trigger finger, 52?698 (63.0%) were women, and 20?045 (24.0%) had type 1 or 2 diabetes. Mean (SD) age was 61 (13) years. From 2002 to 2016, an overall increasing trend in adherence to the cost-effective and evidence-based approach to treatment was noted, with no significant increase in adherence in the postpublication era (67.5% vs 73.3%; P?=?.27). Substantial variation in adherence was observed at the surgeon level (intraclass correlation, 33%). Plastic surgeons had no change in adherence over time compared with orthopedic surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; P?=?.90), whereas general surgeons had increased adherence (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P?Conclusions and relevanceThis study found substantial surgeon-level variation in adherence to evidence-based treatment of trigger finger. Surgeon specialty and volume were associated with differences in adherence. Efforts to understand surgeon barriers to implementation, regardless of physician specialty, appear to be necessary, and better implementation strategies may permit increased uptake of evidence-based treatment of trigger finger.

SUBMITTER: Billig JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6804023 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of Surgeon Variation in Adherence to Evidence-Based Recommendations for Treatment of Trigger Finger.

Billig Jessica I JI Speth Kelly A KA Nasser Jacob S JS Wang Lu L Chung Kevin C KC

JAMA network open 20191002 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger finger) affects approximately 2% of the population. Given the prevalence of trigger finger and rising health care costs, adherence to the cost-effective and evidence-based treatment algorithm will permit better outcomes and allocation of resources.<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine treatment patterns for trigger finger and to determine surgeon-level and patient-level factors that influence adherence to evidence-based treatment.<h4>Design, setting, a ...[more]

PMID: 31603484

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines assert that contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) should be discouraged in patients without an elevated risk for a second primary breast cancer. However, little is known about the impact of surgeons discouraging CPM on patient care satisfaction or decisions to seek treatment from another clinician.ObjectiveTo examine the association between patient report of first-surgeon recommendation against CPM and the extent of discussion about it with 3 outcomes: patient satisfaction with surgery decisions, receipt of a second opinion, and receipt of surgery by a second surgeon.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based survey study was conducted in Georgia and California. We identified 3880 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013-2014 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery (71% response rate, n = 2578). In this analysis conducted from February to May 2016, we included patients with unilateral breast cancer who considered CPM (n = 1140). Patients were selected between July 2013 and September 2014.Main outcomes and measuresWe examined report of surgeon recommendations, level of discussion about CPM, satisfaction with surgical decision making, receipt of second surgical opinion, and surgery from a second surgeon.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of patients included in this study was 56 (10.6) years. About one-quarter of patients (26.7%; n = 304) reported that their first surgeon recommended against CPM and 30.1% (n = 343) reported no substantial discussion about CPM. Dissatisfaction with surgery decision was uncommon (7.6%; n = 130), controlling for clinical and demographic characteristics. One-fifth of patients (20.6%; n = 304) had a second opinion about surgical options and 9.8% (n = 158) had surgery performed by a second surgeon. Dissatisfaction was very low (3.9%; n = 42) among patients who reported that their surgeon did not recommend against CPM but discussed it. Dissatisfaction was substantively higher for those whose surgeon recommended against CPM with no substantive discussion (14.5%; n = 37). Women who received a recommendation against CPM were not more likely to seek a second opinion (17.1% among patients with recommendation against CPM vs 15.1% of others; P = .52) nor to receive surgery by a second surgeon (7.9% among patients with recommendation against CPM vs 8.3% of others; P = .88).Conclusions and relevanceMost patients are satisfied with surgical decision making. First-surgeon recommendation against CPM does not appear to substantively increase patient dissatisfaction, use of second opinions, or loss of the patient to a second surgeon.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Surgeon Variation in Adherence to Evidence-Based Recommendations for Treatment of Trigger Finger.

Importance

Objectives

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

Assessment of Surgeon Variation in Adherence to Evidence-Based Recommendations for Treatment of Trigger Finger.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets