How Do Orthopaedic Providers Conceptualize Good Patient Outcomes and Their Barriers and Facilitators After Acute Injury? A Qualitative Study.

Background: Good clinical outcomes in orthopaedics are largely dictated by the biomedical model, despite mounting evidence of the role of psychosocial factors. Understanding orthopaedic providers' conceptualizations of good clinical outcomes and what facilitates and hinders them may highlight critical barriers and opportunities for training providers on biopsychosocial models of care and integrating them into practice.

Questions/purposes: (1) How do orthopaedic trauma healthcare providers define good clinical outcomes for their patients after an acute orthopaedic injury? (2) What do providers perceive as barriers to good outcomes? (3) What do providers perceive as facilitators of good outcomes? For each question, we explored providers' responses in a biopsychosocial framework.

Methods: In this cross-sectional, qualitative study, we recruited 94 orthopaedic providers via an electronic screening survey from three Level I trauma centers in geographically diverse regions of the United States (rural southeastern, urban southwestern, and urban northeastern). This study was part of the first phase of a multisite trial testing the implementation of a behavioral intervention to prevent chronic pain after acute orthopaedic injury. Of the 94 participants who were recruited, 88 completed the screening questionnaire. Of the 88 who completed it, nine could not participate because of scheduling conflicts. Thus, the final sample included 79 participants: 48 surgeons (20 attendings, 28 residents; 6% [three of 48] were women, 94% [45 of 48] were between 25 and 55 years old, 73% [35 of 48] were White, and 2% [one of 48] were Hispanic) and 31 other orthopaedic professionals (10 nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and physician assistants; 13 medical assistants; five physical therapists and social workers; and three research fellows; 68% [21 of 31] were women, 97% [30 of 31] were between 25 and 55 years old, 71% [22 of 31] were White, and 39% [12 of 31] were Hispanic). Using a semistructured interview, our team of psychology researchers conducted focus groups, organized by provider type at each site, followed by individual exit interviews (5- to 10-minute debriefing conversations and opportunities to voice additional opinions one-on-one with a focus group facilitator). In each focus group, providers were asked to share their perceptions of what constitutes a "good outcome for your patients," what factors facilitate these outcomes, and what factors are barriers to achieving those outcomes. Focus groups were approximately 60 minutes long. A research assistant recorded field notes during the focus groups to summarize insights gained and disseminate findings to the broader research team. Using this procedure, we determined that thematic saturation was reached for all topics and no additional focus groups were necessary. Three independent coders identified the codes of good outcomes, outcome barriers, and outcome facilitators and applied this coding framework to all transcripts. Three separate data interpreters collaboratively extracted themes related to biomedical, psychological, and social factors and corresponding inductive subthemes.

Results: Although orthopaedic providers' definitions of good outcomes naturally included biomedical factors (bone healing, functional independence, and pain alleviation), they were also marked by nuanced psychosocial factors, including the need for patients to recover from psychological trauma associated with injury and feel heard and understood-not just as outcome facilitators, but also as key outcomes themselves. Regarding perceived barriers to good outcomes, providers interwove psychological and biomedical factors (for example, "if they're a smoker, if they have depression, anxiety…") and discussed how psychological dysfunction (for example, maladaptive avoidance or fear of reinjury) can limit key behaviors during recovery (such as adherence to physical therapy regimens). Unprimed, providers also cited resiliency-related terms from psychological research, including (low) "self-efficacy," "catastrophic thinking," and (lack of) psychological "hardiness" as barriers. Regarding perceived facilitators of good outcomes, various social and socioeconomic factors emerged, including a biosocial connection between recovery, social support, and "privilege" (such as occupation or education). These perspectives emerged across sites and provider types.

Conclusion: Although the biomedical model prevails in clinical practice, providers across all sites, in various roles, defined good outcomes and their barriers and facilitators in terms of interconnected biopsychosocial factors without direct priming to do so. Thus, similar Level I trauma centers may be more ready to adopt biopsychosocial care approaches than initially expected.

Clinical Relevance: Providers' perspectives in this study aligned with a growing body of research on the role of biomedical and psychosocial factors in surgical outcomes and risk of transition to chronic pain. To translate these affirming attitudes into practice, other Level I trauma centers could encourage leaders who adopt biopsychosocial approaches to share their perspectives and train other providers in biopsychosocial conceptualization and treatment.