Babu, Maya

Abstract Operating rooms generate 42% of a hospital's revenue and 30% of hospital waste. Supply costs are 56% of a total operating room (OR) budget. US academic medical centers use 2 million pounds ($15 million) of recoverable medical supplies annually. Forming a multidisciplinary leadership team, we analyzed sources of waste focusing on our Department of Neurosurgery. We developed an 8-wk pilot project to recycle “blue wrap,” the number 5 plastic polypropylene material that is ubiquitously used in ORs across the country to wrap instrument pans and implant trays for sterilization. Blue wrap can be baled and sold to recyclers where the material is pelletized and transformed into plastic products. During the 39 d of the pilot, we collected 1247 pounds of blue wrap (32 lbs collected daily). The cost of the pilot was $14 987 that includes a new baler ($11 200) and 5 transport carts ($3697). The revenue received from baled blue wrap was 8 cents per pound. Cost avoidance yielded $31 680.00 in savings. Implementation of this pilot across our main hospital would yield $5000 in revenue annually and $174 240 in cost avoidance. This project can be replicated at other centers and not only reduces the environmental footprint, but also helps generate additional revenue by recycling a necessary packing material that would otherwise require payment for disposal.

Abstract BACKGROUND Developmental incentives are fundamental to surgical progress, yet financial and professional incentives inherently create conflicts of interest (COI). Understanding how to manage COI held by neurosurgeons, industry, hospitals, and journal editors, without thwarting progress and innovation is critical. OBJECTIVE To present an overview of COI associated with innovation in neurosurgery, and review ways to manage these in an ethically sound manner. METHODS A review of the literature was performed to assess conflicts of interest that affect neurosurgical innovation, and review ways to manage COI of various parties while adhering to ethical standards. RESULTS COI are inherent to collaboration and innovation, and are therefore an unavoidable component of neurosurgery. The lack of a clear distinction between clinical practice and innovation, ability to use devices off-label, and unstandardized disclosure requirements create inconsistencies in the way that conflicts of interest are handled. Additionally, lack of requirements to compare innovation to the standard of care and inherent bias that affects study design and interpretation can have profound effects on the medical literature. Conflicts of interest can have both direct and downstream effects on neurosurgical practice, and it is possible to manage them while improving the quality of research and innovation. CONCLUSION Conflicts of interest are inherent to surgical innovation, and can be handled in an ethically sound manner. Neurosurgeons, device companies, hospitals, and medical journals can take steps to proactively confront bias and ensure patient autonomy and safety. These steps can preserve public trust and ultimately improve evidence-based neurosurgical practice.

Abstract Assuring clinical competence throughout the career of a neurosurgeon is of paramount importance for patient safety. We present the first comprehensive survey of all neurosurgeons board certified through the American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) to evaluate perceptions of Maintenance of Certification (MOC). We administered a validated, online, confidential survey to 4899 neurosurgeons (2435 ABNS diplomates participating in MOC, 1440 diplomates certified prior to 1999 [time-unlimited certificates], and 1024 retired diplomates). We received 1449 responses overall (30% response rate). Our study found that most respondents believe that neurosurgeons should be required to participate in continuing professional improvement following initial board certification (75%). Most believe that specialty boards, working in conjunction with specialty societies, should require diplomates to participate in programs meant to promote continuous professional development (73%). The majority of respondents (76%) believed that self-assessment tests constituted a meaningful professional development activity, in addition to periodic case log reviews (33%) or quality improvement projects (32.6%). A plurality of respondents (44%) do not feel that the MOC process as currently structured provides them with value. There were no differences between those who were “grandfathered” and those who actively participate in MOC and no differences between those in private practice versus those in academics. The ABNS is cognizant of diplomate concerns and is actively developing new MOC paradigms to ensure that the process achieves both the goals of meeting the public interest and assuring that the quality of American neurosurgery remains exemplary.

OBJECTIVE Recently, 2 surgeon rating websites (Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica) were published to allow the public to compare surgeons through identifying surgeon volume and complication rates. Among neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, only cervical and lumbar spine, hip, and knee procedures were included in this assessment. METHODS The authors examined the methodology of each website to assess potential sources of inaccuracy. Each online tool was queried for reports on neurosurgeons specializing in spine surgery and orthopedic surgeons specializing in spine, hip, or knee surgery. Surgeons were chosen from top-ranked hospitals in the US, as recorded by a national consumer publication ranking system, within the fields of neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery. The results were compared for accuracy and surgeon representation, and the results of the 2 websites were also compared. RESULTS The methodology of each site was found to have opportunities for bias and limited risk adjustment. The end points assessed by each site were actually not complications, but proxies of complication occurrence. A search of 510 surgeons (401 orthopedic surgeons [79%] and 109 neurosurgeons [21%]) showed that only 28% and 56% of surgeons had data represented on Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica, respectively. There was a significantly higher chance of finding surgeon data on ProPublica (p < 0.001). Of the surgeons from top-ranked programs with data available, 17% were quoted to have high complication rates, 13% with lower volume than other surgeons, and 79% had a 3-star out of 5-star rating. There was no significant correlation found between the number of stars a surgeon received on Consumers' Checkbook and his or her adjusted complication rate on ProPublica. CONCLUSIONS Both the Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica websites have significant methodological issues. Neither site assessed complication occurrence, but rather readmissions or prolonged length of stay. Risk adjustment was limited or nonexistent. A substantial number of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons from top-ranked hospitals have no ratings on either site, or have data that suggests they are low-volume surgeons or have higher complication rates. Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica produced different results with little correlation between the 2 websites in how surgeons were graded. Given the significant methodological issues, incomplete data, and lack of appropriate risk stratification of patients, the featured websites may provide erroneous information to the public.