The perceived value of a geriatrics‐surgery co‐management program: Perspectives from three surgical specialties

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2023 · 7 citations

• Medicine
• Family medicine
• Psychiatry

BACKGROUND: Geriatrics-surgery co-management (GSCM) programs have improved patient outcomes, but little is known about how they change care and whether their value varies by surgical specialty. We aimed to assess GSCM's effects as perceived by Orthopedic Trauma, Trauma, and Neurosurgery clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study utilizing electronic survey and virtual interviews at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, an academic trauma center, in Philadelphia, PA. Participants included physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, and case managers in the aforementioned specialties. Key measures were perspectives on value of GSCM, its facilitators, specialty most appropriate to manage specified medical issues, and factors affecting use. RESULTS: Of 71 eligible clinicians, 45 (63%) completed the survey and 12 (21%) of 56 purposefully sampled for specialty-role diversity were interviewed. Clinicians across specialties valued GSCM highly and similarly for impact on personal management of older adults (grand mean [standard error, SE] = 4.33 [0.24] out of 5; p = 0.80 for specialty means comparisons), patient care (mean [SE] = 4.47 [0.21]; p = 0.27), patient outcomes (mean [SE] = 4.26 [0.22]; p = 0.51), and specialty overall (mean [SE] = 4.55 [0.23]; p = 0.25) but less so for knowledge growth (mean [SE] = 3.47 [0.29]; p = 0.11). Interviewees across specialties reported that value derived from improved understanding of patient history, management of complex medical conditions, goals of care support, communication with families, and patient discharge facilitation. Interviewees also agreed on program facilitators: aligned stakeholders, shared data-driven goals, champion/administrative support, continuity and availability of geriatricians, and thorough communication. Specialties differed on three issues: (1) who should manage some medical concerns; (2) whether GSCM makes their job easier (significantly easier for Orthopedic Trauma: mean [SE] = 4.75 [0.29] vs. Trauma: mean [SE] = 4.01 [0.19]; p = 0.05); and (3) whether GSCM increases coordination difficulty (more for Neurosurgery: mean [SE] = 2.18 [0.0.58] vs. Orthopedic Trauma: mean [SE] = 0.51 [0.42]; p = 0.03 and Trauma: mean [SE] = 0.89 [0.28]; p = 0.07). Orthopedic Trauma had the most positive impression of GSCM overall. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians across diverse surgical specialties valued GSCM. Hospitals considering implementation or expansion of GSCM should attend to identified facilitators and may need to tailor to specialty.