Editorial: Are We All Better-than-Average Drivers, and Better-than-Average Kissers? Outwitting the Kruger–Dunning Effect in Clinical Practice and Research No abstract available

Editor’s Spotlight/Take 5: Do Skills Acquired from Training with a Wire Navigation Simulator Transfer to a Mock Operating Room Environment? No abstract available

Do Skills Acquired from Training with a Wire Navigation Simulator Transfer to a Mock Operating Room Environment? Background Skills training and simulation play an increasingly important role in orthopaedic surgical education. The intent of simulation is to improve performance in the operating room (OR), a trait known as transfer validity. No prior studies have explored how simulator-based wire navigation training can transfer to higher-level tasks. Additionally, there is a lack of knowledge on the format in which wire navigation training should be deployed. Questions/purposes (1) Which training methods (didactic content, deliberate practice, or proficiency-based practice) lead to the greatest improvement in performing a wire navigation task? (2) Does a resident’s performance using a wire navigation simulator correlate with his or her performance on a higher-level simulation task in a mock OR involving a C-arm, a radiopaque femur model, and a large soft tissue surrogate surrounding the femur? Methods Fifty-five residents from four different medical centers participated in this study over the course of 2 years. The residents were divided into three groups: traditional training (included first-year residents from the University of Iowa, University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Clinic), deliberate practice (included first-year residents from the University of Nebraska and the University of Minnesota), and proficiency training (included first-year residents from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic). Residents in each group received a didactic introduction covering the task of placing a wire to treat an intertrochanteric fracture, and this was considered traditional training. Deliberate practice involved training on a radiation-free simulator that provided specific feedback throughout the practice sessions. Proficiency training used the same simulator to train on specific components of wire navigation, like finding the correct starting point, to proficiency before moving to assessment. The wire navigation simulator uses a camera system to track the wire and provide computer-generated fluoroscopy. After training, task performance was assessed in a mock OR. Residents from each group were assessed in the mock OR based on their use of fluoroscopy, total time, and tip-apex distance. Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between resident performance on the simulator and in the mock OR. Results Residents in the two simulation-based training groups had a lower tip-apex distance than those in the traditional training group (didactic training tip-apex distance: 24 ± 7 mm, 95% CI, 20–27; deliberate practice tip-apex distance: 16 ± 5 mm, 95% CI, 13–19, p = 0.001; proficiency training tip-apex distance: 15 ± 4 mm, 95% CI, 13–18, p < 0.001). Residents in the proficiency training group used more images than those in the other groups (didactic training: 22 ± 12 images, p = 0.041; deliberate practice: 19 ± 8 images; p = 0.012, proficiency training: 31 ± 14 images). In the two simulation-based training groups, resident performance on the simulator, that is, tip-apex distance, image use, and overall time, was correlated with performance in the mock OR (r-square = 0.15 [p = 0.030], 0.61 [p < 0.001], and 0.43 [p < 0.001], respectively). Conclusions As residency programs are designing their curriculum to train wire navigation skills, emphasis should be placed on providing an environment that allows for deliberate practice with immediate feedback about their performance. Simulators such as the one presented in this study offer a safe environment for residents to learn this key skill. Level of Evidence Level II, therapeutic study.

Not the Last Word: High-value Health Care and the Assassination of George Washington No abstract available

Medicolegal Sidebar: Getting Sued By Someone Else’s Patient—When Does a Curbside Consultation Carry Medicolegal Jeopardy? No abstract available

On Patient Safety: How Can Orthopaedic Surgeons Improve Patient Safety at Nursing Homes? No abstract available

CORR® Curriculum - Orthopaedic Education: Can Adopting Entrustable Professional Activities Improve How We Assess Our Residents? No abstract available

A Day at the Office: How Private Practicing Orthopaedic Surgeons Grow Their Knowledge Base No abstract available

Determining the Generalizability of the PROMIS Depression Domain’s Floor Effect and Completion Time in Patients Undergoing Orthopaedic Surgery Background Depression is common and can decrease the likelihood that a patient undergoing an orthopaedic procedure will improve after that intervention. Research at a single institution using the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) showed that the PROMIS Depression domain had a substantial floor effect (lowest depressive symptoms measurable) in patients with orthopaedic conditions, although the instrument is designed to follow a population-based normal distribution. Patients with the lowest scores (floor) completed the questionnaire more quickly than those who did not have the lowest scores, which suggests that patients may not want to report or discuss depressive symptoms with their orthopaedic surgeon. Questions/purposes (1) Do the scores of a large population of patients with orthopaedic conditions completing the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression questionnaires follow the normal population distribution used to calibrate the PROMIS instrument? (2) Do the scores of a large population of patients with foot and ankle, spine, upper extremity, multiple orthopaedic subspecialty, or other orthopaedic conditions completing the PROMIS Depression questionnaire follow the normal population distribution used to calibrate the PROMIS instrument? (3) Do all orthopaedic patients with the lowest possible score (floor effect) on the PROMIS Depression questionnaire answer questions more quickly than those who do not? Methods Between February 12, 2015 and July 19, 2018, a total of 513,042 patients with orthopaedic conditions at a single urban, tertiary academic medical center were asked to complete the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains. The PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression questionnaires were administered at 433,939 patient encounters (85%), and 325,251 of 433,939 (75%) completed all three questionnaires and were included in our final sample. The remaining encounters were excluded from all analyses because of incomplete PROMIS data. Using this large sample size, we determined the distributions of the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains for all patients with orthopaedic conditions by visual inspection. We calculated the percentage of patients with the lowest possible score on the PROMIS Depression domain (“floor group”) for all patients with orthopaedic conditions, as well for patients presenting to orthopaedic subspecialists (foot and ankle, spine, upper extremity, multiple subspecialties, or other specialists). We compared patient and PROMIS characteristics between patients in the floor group and all others (“standard group”) using a bivariate analysis, including the total time it took to complete the questionnaires and average time it took to answer each question. Results Of the three PROMIS domains analyzed, only the PROMIS PF demonstrated a normal distribution on visual inspection. PROMIS PI scores had a measurable ceiling effect (more pain symptoms) (15,520 of 325,251 patient encounters; 5%), while PROMIS Depression scores demonstrated a clear floor effect (65,226 of 325,251; 20%). When analyzed by subspecialty, there was a clear floor effect for the PROMIS Depression in the specialties of foot and ankle (6031 of 29,273 patient encounters; 21%), spine (7611 of 58,266; 13%), upper extremity (9851 of 42,864; 23%), multiple subspecialties (276 of 1662; 17%), and other (41, 454 of 193,185; 22%). Generally, those in the floor group spent less time per question on the PROMIS Depression questionnaire than did those in the standard group (5.3 seconds ± 2.6 seconds versus 8.1 seconds ± 4.6 seconds; mean difference, 2.8 seconds; p < 0.001). Conclusions The substantial floor effect of the PROMIS Depression in the setting of hasty completion raises the question of whether such results truly indicate that these patients have minimal depression or whether they simply do not report their true mental health status in an orthopaedic setting. When such patients are seen in clinic, surgeons may benefit from using the PROMIS Depression as an educational opportunity to explain the importance of mental health in orthopaedic care and ensure the questionnaire is completed accurately. This study builds on previous work by suggesting these findings apply to other general and subspecialty orthopaedic patient populations at academic medical centers. Future work may seek to determine the best way of ensuring that the PROMIS Depression questionnaire is completed accurately in orthopaedic clinics. Level of Evidence Level II, diagnostic study.

CORR Insights®: Determining the Generalizability of the PROMIS Depression Domain’s Floor Effect and Completion Time in Patients Undergoing Orthopaedic Surgery No abstract available