Dataset Information

Surgical Timing for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Comparison of Health Care Delivery in the Veterans Administration and Private Sector.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system monitors time from referral to specialist visit. We compared wait times for carpal tunnel release (CTR) at a VA hospital and its academic affiliate.

Methods

We selected patients who underwent CTR at a VA hospital and its academic affiliate (AA) (2010-2015). We analyzed time from primary care physician (PCP) referral to CTR, which was subdivided into PCP referral to surgical consultation and surgical consultation to CTR. Electrodiagnostic testing (EDS) was categorized in relation to surgical consultation (prereferral vs postreferral). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between clinical variables and surgical location.

Results

Between 2010 and 2015, VA patients had a shorter median time from PCP referral to CTR (VA: 168 days; AA: 410 days), shorter time from PCP referral to surgical consultation (VA: 43 days; AA: 191 days), but longer time from surgical consultation to CTR (VA: 98 days; AA: 55 days). Using multivariable models, the VA was associated with a 35% shorter time to CTR (AA hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.82) and 75% shorter time to surgical consultation (AA HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20-0.03). Receiving both prereferral and postreferral EDS was associated with almost a 2-fold prolonged time to CTR (AA HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67).

Conclusions

The VA was associated with shorter overall time to CTR compared with its AA. However, the VA policy of prioritizing time from referral to surgical consultation may not optimally incentivize time to surgery. Repeat EDS was associated with longer wait times in both systems.

Clinical relevance

Given differences in where delays occur in each health care system, initiatives to improve efficiency will require targeting the appropriate sources of preoperative delay. Judicious use of EDS may be one avenue to decrease wait times in both systems.

SUBMITTER: Billig JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8260449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRecent legislation facilitates veterans' ability to receive non-Veterans Affairs (VA) surgical care. However, contemporary data comparing the quality and safety of VA and non-VA surgical care are lacking.ObjectiveTo compare perioperative outcomes among veterans treated in VA hospitals with patients treated in private-sector hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study took place across 8 noncardiac specialties in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2018. Multivariable log-binomial modeling was used to evaluate the association between VA vs private sector care settings and 30-day mortality. Unmeasured confounding was quantified using the E-value. Patients 18 years and older undergoing a noncardiac procedures were included.ExposuresSurgical care in either a VA or private sector setting.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Secondary outcome was failure to rescue, defined as a postoperative death after a complication.ResultsOf 3 910 752 operations (3 174 274 from NSQIP and 736 477 from VASQIP), 1 498 984 (92.1%) participants in NSQIP were male vs 678 382 (47.2%) in VASQIP (mean difference, -0.449 [95% CI, -0.450 to -0.448]; P < .001), and 441 894 (60.0%) participants in VASQIP were frail or very frail vs 676 525 (21.3%) in NSQIP (mean difference, -0.387 [95% CI, -0.388 to -0.386]; P < .001). Overall, rates of 30-day mortality, complications, and failure to rescue were 0.8%, 9.5%, and 4.7%, respectively, in NSQIP (n = 3 174 274 operations) and 1.1%, 17.1%, and 6.7%, respectively in VASQIP (736 477) (differences in proportions, -0.003 [95% CI, -0.003 to -0.002]; -0.076 [95% CI, -0.077 to -0.075]; 0.020 [95% CI, 0.018-0.021], respectively; P < .001). Compared with private sector care, VA surgical care was associated with a lower risk of perioperative death (adjusted relative risk, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.47-0.75]; P < .001). This finding was robust in multiple sensitivity analyses performed, including among patients who were frail and nonfrail, with or without complications, and undergoing low and high physiologic stress procedures. These findings were also consistent when year was included as a covariate and in nonparsimonious modeling for patient-level factors. Compared with private sector care, VA surgical care was also associated with a lower risk of failure to rescue (adjusted relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.44-0.68]). An unmeasured confounder (present disproportionately in NSQIP data) would require a relative risk of 2.78 [95% CI, 2.04-3.68] to obviate the main finding.Conclusions and relevanceVA surgical care is associated with lower perioperative mortality and decreased failure to rescue despite veterans having higher-risk characteristics. Given the unique needs and composition of the veteran population, health policy decisions and budgetary appropriations should reflect these important differences.

Project description:ImportanceConcerns have been raised about the adequacy of health care access among patients cared for within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.ObjectivesTo determine wait times for new patients receiving care at VA medical centers and compare wait times in the VA medical centers with wait times in the private sector (PS).Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective, repeated cross-sectional study was conducted of new appointment wait times for primary care, dermatology, cardiology, or orthopedics at VA medical centers in 15 major metropolitan areas in 2014 and 2017. Comparison data from the PS came from a published survey that used a secret shopper survey approach. Secondary analyses evaluated the change in overall and unique patients seen in the entire VA system and patient satisfaction survey measures of care access between 2014 and 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome of interest was patient wait time. Wait times in the VA were determined directly from patient scheduling. Wait times in the PS were as reported in Merritt Hawkins surveys using the secret shopper method.ResultsCompared with the PS, overall mean VA wait times for new appointments in 2014 were similar (mean [SD] wait time, 18.7 [7.9] days PS vs 22.5 [7.3] days VA; P = .20). Department of Veterans Affairs wait times in 2014 were similar to those in the PS across specialties and regions. In 2017, overall wait times for new appointments in the VA were shorter than in the PS (mean [SD], 17.7 [5.9] vs 29.8 [16.6] days; P < .001). This was true in primary care (mean [SD], 20.0 [10.4] vs 40.7 [35.0] days; P = .005), dermatology (mean [SD], 15.6 [12.2] vs 32.6 [16.5] days; P < .001), and cardiology (mean [SD], 15.3 [12.6] vs 22.8 [10.1] days; P = .04). Wait times for orthopedics remained longer in the VA than the PS (mean [SD], 20.9 [13.3] vs 12.4 [5.5] days; P = .01), although wait time improved significantly between 2014 and 2017 in the VA for orthopedics while wait times in the PS did not change (change in mean wait times, increased 1.5 days vs decreased 5.4 days; P = .02). Secondary analysis demonstrated an increase in the number of unique patients seen and appointment encounters in the VA between 2014 and 2017 (4 996 564 to 5 118 446, and 16 476 461 to 17 331 538, respectively), and patient satisfaction measures of access also improved (satisfaction scores increased by 1.4%, 3.0%, and 4.0% for specialty care, routine primary care, and urgent primary care, P < .05).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough wait times in the VA and PS appeared to be similar in 2014, there have been interval improvements in VA wait times since then, while wait times in the PS appear to be static. These findings suggest that access to care within the VA has improved over time.

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder in hand surgery practice. Both surgical and conservative interventions are utilized for the carpal tunnel syndrome. Although certain indications would specifically indicate the need for surgery, there is a spectrum of patients for whom either treatment option might be selected. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy of surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome with conservative treatment.MethodsWe included all controlled trials written in English, attempting to compare any surgical interventions with any conservative therapies. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2010), MEDLINE (1980 to June 2010), EMBASE (1980 to June 2010), PEDro (searched in June 2010), international guidelines, computer searches based on key words and reference lists of articles. Two reviewers performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction independently of each other. Weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for patient self-reported functional and symptom questionnaires were calculated. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals for electrophysiological studies and complication were also calculated.ResultsWe assessed seven studies in this review including 5 RCTs and 2 controlled trials. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from moderate to high. The weighted mean difference demonstrated a larger treatment benefit for surgical intervention compared to non surgical intervention at six months for functional status 0.35( 95% CI 0.22, 0.47) and symptom severity 0.43 (95% CI 0.29, 0.57). There were no statistically significant difference between the intervention options at 3 months but there was a benefit in favor of surgery in terms of function and symptom relief at 12 months (0.35, 95% CI 0.15, 0.55 and 0.37, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). The RR for secondary outcomes of normal nerve conduction studies was 2.3 (95% CI 1.2, 4.4), while RR was 2.03 (95% CI 1.28 to 3.22) for complication, both favoring surgery.ConclusionBoth surgical and conservative interventions had treatment benefit in carpal tunnel syndrome. Surgical treatment has a superior benefit, in symptoms and function, at six and twelve months. Patient underwent surgical release were two times more likely to have normal nerve conduction studies but also had complication and side effects as well. Given the treatment differential and potential for adverse effects and that conservative interventions benefitted a substantial proportion of patients, current practice of a trial of conservative management with surgical release for severe or persistent symptoms is supported by evidence.

Project description:PurposeCarpal tunnel release (CTR) is a common surgical procedure, representing a financial burden to the health care system. The purpose of this study was to test whether the choice of CTR technique (open carpal tunnel release [OCTR] vs endoscopic carpal tunnel release [ECTR]), surgical setting (operating room vs procedure room [PR]), and anesthetic type (local, monitored anesthesia care [MAC], Bier block, general) affected costs or payments.MethodsConsecutive adult patients undergoing isolated unilateral CTR between July 2014, and October 2017, at a single academic medical center were identified. Patients undergoing ECTR converted to OCTR, revision surgery, or additional procedures were excluded. Using our institution's information technology value tools, we calculated total direct costs (TDCs), total combined payment (TCP), hospital payment, surgeon payment, and anesthesia payment for each surgical encounter. Cost data were normalized using each participant's surgical encounter cost divided by the average cost in the data set and compared across 8 groups (defined by surgery type, operation location, and anesthesia type).ResultsOf 479 included patients, the mean age was 55.3 ± 16.1 years, and 68% were female. Payer mix included commercial (45%), Medicare (37%), Medicaid (13%), workers' compensation (2%), self-pay (1%), and other (3%) insurance types. The TDC and TCP both differed significantly between each CTR group, and OCTR in the PR under local anesthesia was the lowest. The OCTR/local/operating room, OCTR/MAC/operating room, and ECTR/operating room, were associated with 6.3-fold, 11.0-fold, and 12.4-16.6-fold greater TDC than OCTR/local/PR, respectively.ConclusionsPerforming OCTR under local anesthetic in the PR setting significantly minimizes direct surgical encounter costs relative to other surgical methods (ECTR), anesthetic methods (Bier block, MAC, general), and surgical settings (operating room).Clinical relevanceThis study identifies modifiable factors that may lead to cost reductions for CTR surgery.