↓ Skip to main content

Variation in Resource Utilization for Patients With Hip and Pelvic Fractures Despite Equal Medicare Reimbursement

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Variation in Resource Utilization for Patients With Hip and Pelvic Fractures Despite Equal Medicare Reimbursement
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4765-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andre M Samuel, Matthew L Webb, Adam M Lukasiewicz, Bryce A Basques, Daniel D Bohl, Arya G Varthi, Joseph M Lane, Jonathan N Grauer

Abstract

Medicare currently reimburses hospitals for inpatient admissions with "bundled" payments based on patient Diagnosis-related Groups (DRGs) regardless of true hospital costs. At present, DRG 536 (fractures of the hip and pelvis) includes a broad spectrum of patients with orthopaedic trauma, likely with varying inpatient resource utilization. With the growing incidence of fractures in the elderly, inadequate reimbursements from Medicare for certain patients with DRG 536 may lead to growing financial strain on healthcare institutions caring for these patients with higher costs. The purposes of the study were to determine whether (1) inpatient length of stay; (2) intensive care unit stay; and (3) ventilator time differ among subpopulations with Medicare DRG 536. A total of 56,683 patients, 65 years or older, with fractures of the hip or pelvis were identified in the 2011 and 2012 National Trauma Data Bank. This clinical registry contains data on trauma cases from more than 900 participating trauma centers, allowing analysis of resource utilization in centers across the United States. Patients were grouped in the following subgroups: hip fractures (n = 35,119), nonoperative pelvic fractures (n = 15,506), acetabulum fractures, operative and nonoperative, (n = 7670), and operative pelvic fractures (n = 682). Total inpatient length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and ventilator time were compared across groups using multivariate analysis that controlled for hospital factors. After controlling for patient and hospital factors, difference in inpatient length of stay was -0.2 days for patients with nonoperative pelvis fractures compared with inpatient length of stay for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1 days; p = 0.001); 1.7 days for patient with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.4-1.9 days; p < 0.001); and 7.7 days for patients with operative pelvic fractures (95% CI, 7.0-8.4 days; p < 0.001). The difference in ICU length of stay for patients with nonoperative pelvis fractures was 0.8 days compared with ICU length of stay for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, 0.7-0.9 days; p < 0.001); 1.9 days for patients with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.8-2.1 days; p < 0.001); and 6.3 days for patients with operative pelvic fractures (95% CI, 5.9-6.7 days; p < 0.001). The difference in mechanical ventilation time for patients with nonoperative fractures was 0.5 days compared with ventilation time for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 days; p < 0.001); 1.1 days for patients with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.0-1.2 days; p < 0.001); and 3.9 days for patients with operative fractures (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 days; p < 0.001). In our current multitiered trauma system, certain centers will see higher proportions of patients with acetabulum and operative pelvic fractures. Because hospitals are reimbursed equally for these subgroups of Medicare DRG 536, centers that care for a greater proportion of patients with more-complex pelvic trauma will experience lower financial margins per trauma patient, limiting their potential for growth and investment compared with competing institutions that may not routinely see patients with high-energy trauma. Because of this, we believe reevaluation of this Medicare Prospective Payment System DRG is warranted. Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 24 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2019.
All research outputs
#7,714,565
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#2,110
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,438
of 312,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#53
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.