The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228.

The COVID-19 virus is a tremendous burden for the Italian health system. The regionally-based Italian National Health System has been reorganized. Hospitals' biggest challenge was to create new intensive care unit (ICU) beds, as the existing system was insufficient to meet new demand, especially in the most affected areas. Our institution in the Milan metropolitan area of Lombardy, the epicentre of the infection, was selected as one of the three regional hub for major trauma, serving a population of more than three million people. The aims were the increase the ICU beds and the rationalization of human and structural resources available for treating COVID-19 patients. In our hub hospital, the reorganization aimed to reduce the risk of infection and to obtained resources, in terms of beds and healthcare personnel to be use in the COVID-19 emergency. Non-urgent outpatient orthopaedic activity and elective surgery was also suspended. A training programme for healthcare personnel started immediately. Orthopaedic and radiological pathways dedicated to COVID-19 patients, or with possible infection, have been established. In our orthopaedic department, we passed from 70 to 26 beds. Our goal is to treat trauma surgery's patient in the “golden 72 hours” in order to reduce the overall hospital length of stay. We applied an objective priority system to manage the flow of surgical procedures in the emergency room based on clinical outcomes and guidelines. Organizing the present to face the emergency is a challenge, but in the global plan of changes in hospital management one must also think about the near future. We reported the Milan metropolitan area orthopaedic surgery management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our decisions are not based on scientific evidence; therefore, the decision on how reorganize hospitals will likely remain in the hands of individual countries

Aims

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.

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: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1431–4.

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: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1280–5.

Aims

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.