0
The Orthopaedic Forum   |    
The Academy on the Edge: Taking Charge of Our Future*
Richard H. Gelberman, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Richard H. Gelberman, MD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Barnes-Jewish Hospital at Washington University School of Medicine, One Barnes Hospital Plaza, Suite 11300, St. Louis, MO 63110

*First Vice-President’s Address. Read at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, California, March 2, 2001.

The author did not receive grants or outside funding in support of his research or preparation of this manuscript. He did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the author is affiliated or associated.

*First Vice-President’s Address. Read at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, California, March 2, 2001.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2001; 83:946-950 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
It’s an enormous honor for me to be standing before you this morning as your incoming President at a time of remarkable change, the magnitude of which was emphasized in the very critical Institute of Medicine report featured on the front page of this morning’s issue of USA Today1.
In preparing this talk, I’ve been reflecting on the changes that have affected my career since I attended my first Academy meeting back in 1975. That meeting was also here in San Francisco. It was my first year in practice; I had a two-year-old daughter. Now I have three children; they’re all grown, they’re all through college, and they’re all contributing to society in very positive ways.
I remember the meeting in 1975 clearly. I remember being impressed by the depth and breadth of the science and being very proud to be a member of the Academy.
Not long ago, I came across the program from 1975. As impressive as the science was, the strides we’ve made since then are nothing less than astounding. Consider that, just over twenty-five years ago, arthroscopy wasn’t on the program at all, total knee replacement was in its infancy, anterolateral instability of the knee was just being described, and total shoulder arthroplasty was experimental and performed only in patients with deficient rotator cuffs.
In fact, in 1975 we had only three papers related to the shoulder and elbow. Today, these subspecialties constitute a separate discipline. This year, we have four sessions, twenty-seven papers, and more than fifty posters on shoulder and elbow topics alone. It is an entirely different world. There were no presentations on health-care reform in 1975. Now, just twenty-six years later, we live in a world of HMOs and PPOs. And the changes extend far beyond health care. We live in a world of e-mail, Palm Pilots, and cell phones. It is common to buy airline tickets and stocks online and to access the Internet for information on everything from the status of one’s portfolio to the state of one’s health.
Will things ever settle down?
I don’t think so. The English economist John Stuart Mill taught us, a century and a half ago, that constant change is a fact of life. In a changing world we have no choice but to continually change ourselves2. As General Electric’s Chairman, Jack Welch, said about organizations today, "When the rate of change outside exceeds the rate of change inside, the end is in sight."3 There are two ways to respond to change: we can react to defend our weaknesses, or we can lead with our strengths.
Friends and colleagues, the time has come for us to stop reacting to the agendas set by others. It’s time to start leading with our strengths. It’s time to step back, look around, and see what we’re good at. It’s time to set our agenda.
This morning, I want to talk to you about a special task force that was assembled twenty-four months ago to do just that. The task force, called The AAOS in 2005, was charged with collecting the evidence and then determining what we must do to raise the bar in order for us to be the foremost leader in medicine by 2005.
Specifically, this task force was asked to do three things: to identify our opportunities, based on the evidence of what our members need and what we know we do best; to focus on targets and set goals that are achievable but high; and to push ourselves to new levels of creativity and innovation.
The task force conducted extensive research, including three retreats with authorities on organizations such as ours, several focus groups, a Board workshop, and a survey sent to over 2000 Academy fellows. The data that were collected pointed to several broad areas of concern—and opportunity—in practice, in education, in research, and in the very structure of our organization4-8.
Let’s look first at our core, the heart of the Academy’s mission: education. Clearly, we are living through a revolution—an information revolution. The New York Times recently described what is happening on the Internet as the greatest explosion of free expression and cultural resources of the last century. Some have called the information revolution the most important event in the American economy since the Industrial Revolution6,9-13.
Now, we could see this as a threat. After all, education is the heart of the Academy’s work. Most of us joined the AAOS to take advantage of its leadership in cutting-edge educational programs and resources. But most of us are used to learning through face-to-face meetings, hands-on training, personal interaction, and publications. And while these methods are of enormous value, the Internet and other communication technologies offer new opportunities for us. But only if we embrace them.
Our younger members know this. They grew up on computers. And these young members, born after 1960, are not joiners; they don’t join organizations like this one just because those before them or those around them did14. They join to get the best value, the most sustained benefit, the information and services that they need to perform at the highest level in a very complex health-care environment. We’re about to start offering a new online program of sustained benefit. We’re calling it "Orthopaedic Knowledge Online." This program is designed to give you access to the latest information whenever and wherever you want it—in the office, at home, or traveling with your laptop. With this site, you’ll have instant access to information developed by recognized authorities in each subspecialty, and it’s going to be updated quarterly. You’ll have crisply described indications, contraindications, pearls, and pitfalls. There will be video demonstrations of operative procedures. There will be a layered structure so that you can spend less than a minute getting a specific piece of information or spend hours reviewing what’s new in the field. And there will be online reminders when there’s something new in your area of interest.
As far as we know, there’s nothing like this out there for any other medical specialty. By providing answers to your questions when you need them in your practice, this type of clinical, problem-focused information will set the standard for online education, enhancing the competence of orthopaedic surgeons. These comprehensive, integrated programs are under construction and will be online sometime next year.
Another area of importance identified by this task force relates to the cumulative effect that over eight years of health-care reform has had on the practice of orthopaedic surgery. Federal reform measures have created some huge craters in the patient-care landscape. One example: last year, my hospital’s admissions increased over 5%. On many days during the year there were no patient beds to be found anywhere, and the emergency-room and admitting areas were backed up for hours or on diversion. Yet we barely broke even and had nothing to reinvest in our infrastructure, much less in the growth of new clinical programs. Many of you, from all parts of the country, have had the same experience—the pressure to effectively maintain high levels of care in your practices and in your hospitals in the face of declining resources.
What can we do?
The AAOS in 2005 Task Force has taken the initiative with a series of three innovative programs that constitute our agenda. One is designed to improve our own specialty, a second has been created to better understand the care provided to society at large, and still another is addressed directly to our patients.
The first component of our agenda calls for us to gather data on the incidence, prevalence, impact, cost, and outcomes—the burden—of musculoskeletal disease. Already, we have found that musculoskeletal ailments are the leading cause of visits to physicians in America. They are also the leading cause of chronic impairment. This year, musculoskeletal conditions cost Americans a staggering 254 billion dollars15—that’s more than we spend on clothing and only slightly less than we spend on food and drink16. And it’s a forty-billion-dollar increase in just five years15. Our goal is to take the lead by doing what we do best: accumulating knowledge, positioning ourselves as the authorities that we are, and using what we learn to advocate for improved patient care and research.
The second component of our practice initiative requires courage—the courage for us to look more closely at the impact of our care on society. In an ambitious study that we’re calling "Improving Musculoskeletal Care in America," we have collaborated with Dartmouth Medical School to determine whether or not our patients’ health-care needs vary by region, gender, ethnicity, age, and other variables17.
A study of thirty-five million Medicare patients revealed, among other things, that whether or not you have orthopaedic surgery depends a great deal on who you are and where you live18. For example, a patient in one city in the central valley of California is 50% more likely to have a spine operation than a patient in San Francisco, less than 100 miles away. Why? Patients in this central valley city are four to five times more likely to have a total joint replacement than patients in San Francisco. Why?
There are two potential answers. First, findings from a recent study by Dr. James Wright, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, indicate that, when you control for population characteristics and access to care, the dominant variant is the orthopaedic surgeon’s enthusiasm for a procedure19. There is another possible explanation for these variations in care, however. As was noted in Dr. Wright’s study19, there may be unmet need in both communities. If that is the case, we need to mount a public-health initiative to inform primary-care providers of the benefits of our care. Cardiovascular physicians have done this, with very positive results. Colleagues, friends—we must gather the evidence and then address this issue.
We have found that gender and race are also factors in who gets treated. Black men over sixty-five are 35% more likely to have hip osteoarthritis20 but are 50% to 75% less likely to have joint replacement surgery than are white men and women21,22. We have to change that. Armed with the facts on the burden of disease and the societal impact of our care, we now have a stronger case to make for education and advocacy—for our work with Congress, the Health Care Financing Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and others, including our own Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation.
The third component of the 2005 practice initiative calls for the development of new methods to strengthen our relationship with patients, by using the evidence that we have accumulated and combining it with the new technology. We are testing one such way—a pilot program that we are calling "Informed Choice." We have produced an interactive educational program for patients with herniated discs and spinal stenosis. This program gives patients specific information about their conditions to help them decide how to proceed with treatment. The program, which uses Cochran methodology to rank expected outcomes with evidence for and against each decision15,23-25, gets patients involved in making their own decisions on the basis of credible information that they can understand. This year’s goal, consistent with our focus on osteoarthritis, is to create two new programs for patients facing decisions about hip and knee replacement surgery.
There is another aspect of "Informed Choice" that is unique. To participate, patients enter data on a touchpad. An additional project team established by The AAOS in 2005 Task Force is evaluating such systems for electronic patient-data entry systems that integrate office, operating-room, and discharge documents. The goals are to decrease the hassle factor that we all are experiencing, to improve our ability to collect meaningful patient-assessment data, and to free up our time to concentrate on what matters most: patient care.
By using our creativity and by making radical innovations that harness the latest information technologies, we can make enormous strides in education and practice. But these gains will be valuable only to the extent that they allow us to continue to accrue data and to build knowledge about musculoskeletal disease—about its causes, prevention, and treatment that is more effective.
That brings me to the third major area of concern identified by The AAOS in 2005 Task Force: research. Today, the opportunities in research are huge. At no time in history has there been such explosive growth in scientific discovery. Basic research in such areas as computational chemistry, angiogenesis, gene therapy, and proteomics is opening the way to new treatments that were inconceivable just a decade ago. The rapidly emerging field of genomics is poised for a major breakthrough. Soon we should be able to predict susceptibility to disease and to target prevention to individuals26,27.
Without basic research in our specialty, groundbreaking advances will be lost opportunities for our patients. And without clinical research, we have no way to measure how well we are serving them. Where would we be without penicillin, vaccinations, total joint surgery, advances in fracture treatment, microsurgery, arthroscopy, and so much more of which we can be proud? In spite of the evidence that the burden of musculoskeletal disease is growing rapidly, funding for the National Institutes of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases is pitifully low—353 million dollars this year. That is 10% of what we spend on cancer research, 15% of what we spend on heart and lung disease, and less than half of the research budgets for allergy and infectious disease. It is roughly equivalent to the funding levels for dental research28. It is no surprise that we are seeing a significant drop in the numbers of orthopaedic physician-scientists. Recently, the actual number of first-time M.D. applicants for National Institutes of Health research plummeted—a greater than 30% decrease in just three years. At the rate that we are going, in two more years there will be no first-time physician applicants29.
In response, The AAOS in 2005 Task Force created a project team on academic affairs and training. The team was charged with investigating the special challenges experienced by orthopaedists in academic health centers and with developing a strategy to improve our standing significantly over the next several years. It will consider the challenge, made by a former AAOS President in a recent issue of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, that the Academy should take bold and innovative steps—first, to maintain and then, to expand the number of clinician-scientists within our specialty30. We will take that challenge and we will make a difference, if we take the lead by doing what we do best: accumulating the evidence on this critical issue and others, and then using what we learn to reinvigorate our research and training programs31.
The overall goal of the Academy’s new efforts in education, practice, and research is to force ourselves to raise the bar—to increase the effectiveness of this organization for you and for your patients. Our strength is our ability to gather the facts and share them effectively—but it is more than that. Our strength is our willingness to embrace new technologies and to find radically innovative ways to continually achieve higher levels of performance—but it is even more than that. Our greatest strength lies in the depth of our commitment as orthopaedic surgeons to the health and well-being of our patients.
Thomas Watson, the legendary founder of IBM, understood how such a commitment can affect an organization’s success or failure. In his book A Business and Its Beliefs, he wrote: "I firmly believe that any organization, in order to survive and achieve success, must have a sound set of beliefs on which it premises all its policies and actions. Next, I believe that the most important single factor in corporate success is faithful adherence to those beliefs. And finally, I believe that if an organization is to meet the challenges of a changing world, it must be prepared to change everything about itself except those beliefs as it moves through corporate life."32
At the AAOS, we believe in improving patients’ lives by continually advancing our knowledge of how to prevent and treat musculoskeletal disease. That is why you are at this meeting—and that belief is the moral core of this organization and is our greatest strength. Our ability to improve care is what we can give to make the world a better place. We must lead with that strength, and we must give that gift.
To make our contribution as orthopaedic surgeons, we must educate ourselves and others. Unless we do, our skills will diminish.
We must answer critical questions through research. Unless we do, there will be no progress.
We must listen to, communicate with, and care for our patients to the best of our abilities. Unless we do, we cannot fulfill our moral commitment to society or use our gift of caring for others to the fullest.
Just look at how far we have come since that meeting in 1975. Then think how much more we can accomplish in the next five years—and the next twenty-five. I am looking forward to that meeting in 2025—my fiftieth! On that day, you and I will look back and marvel at what we have accomplished since the turn of the century, building on our strengths. And the generation of leaders that we nurture today will be showing us their plans for 2050.
I plan to be there. I hope that you will be there too.
Davis R, Appleby J. Report: health system broken. USA Today. 2001 March 2-4; p 1A. 
 
Mill JS. Principles of political economy. London: Penguin Press; 1988. p 113-5, 496-7. 
 
Gendron G. FYI. Inc. 1995;17:13. 
 
Duysters G, Hagedoorn J. The effect of core competence building on companies performance. netec.mcc.ac.uk/WoPEc/data/Papers/dgrumamer1996014.html. Accessed: 6 Sept. 2000. 
 
Gergen D: Keeping the flame alive. US News and World Report,1999.23: 94, 2394  1999 
 
Hamel G.Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2000. p 3-29. 
 
Hargadon A, and Sutton R: Building an innovation factory. Harv Bus Rev,2000.157-66, 157  2000 
 
Shapiro E: Managing in the cappucino economy. Harv Bus Rev,2000.177-83, 177  2000 
 
Donovan JJ.The second Industrial Revolution: business strategy and Internet technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997. p 3-12. 
 
Friedman TL.The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Anchor Books; 2000. p 3-16. 
 
Gastells M. The information age: economy, society and culture. Volume I: The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 1999. p 29-65. 
 
Kelly K.New rules for the new economy: 10 radical strategies for a connected world. New York: Penguin; 1999. p 1-8. 
 
Shenk D.The end of patience: cautionary notes on the information revolution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1999. p 141-4. 
 
Kennedy MM.Managing change: understanding the demographics of the evolving workforce. Privately published; 2000. p 24-5. 
 
Praemer A, Furner S, Rice DP.Musculoskeletal conditions in the United States. 2nd ed. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1999. p 146. 
 
US Census Bureau.Statistical abstract of the United States. Section 14. Income, expenditures, and wealth. Table 729, 1999. www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html. 
 
Weinstein J, Birkmeyer J.The Dartmouth atlas of musculoskeletal health care. Chicago: AHA Press; 2000. p 28-199. 
 
Weinstein JN: The missing piece: embracing shared decision making to reform health care. Spine,2000.25: 1-4, 251  2000  [PubMed]
 
Wright JG; Hawke GA; Bombardier C; Croxford R; Dittus RS; Freund DA; and Coyte PC: Physician enthusiasm as an explanation for area variation in the utilization of knee replacement surgery. Med Care,1999.37: 946-56, 37946  1999  [PubMed]
 
Jordan JM, Renner JB, Luta G, Dragomir AD, Hochberg MC, Helmick CG. Gender and ethnic differences in radiographic knee and hip OA. American College of Rheumatology. www.abstracts-on-line.com/abstracts/ACR. 
 
Atlas finds wide variations in orthopaedic care. AAOS Bull,2000.48: 15, 4815  2000 
 
Hawker GA; Wright JG; Coyte PC; Williams JI; Harvey B; Glazier R; and Badley EM: Differences between men and women in the rate of use of hip and knee arthroplasty. N Engl J Med,2000.342: 1016-22, 3421016  2000  [PubMed]
 
Charles C; Gafni A; and Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med,1997.44: 681-92, 44681  1997  [PubMed]
 
Landro L. The decision is yours. Wall St J. 18 Oct 1999. p R13. 
 
Weinstein JN; Brown PW; Hanscom B; Walsh T; and Nelson EC: Designing an ambulatory clinical practice for outcomes improvement: from vision to reality—The Spine Center at Dartmouth--Hitchcock, year one. Qual Manag Health Care,2000.8: 1-20, 81  2000  [PubMed]
 
Last lap in the genome race [editorial]. NY Times. 26 June 2000. p A16. 
 
Snyderman R: Academic medicine can transform health care through clinical research. Acad Med,1999.74: 1224-5, 741224  1999  [PubMed]
 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Budget Office. 2001 Budget. National Institutes of Health, 2001. 
 
Rosenberg L: Physician-scientists—endangered and essential. Science,1999.283: 331-2, 283331  1999  [PubMed]
 
Jackson DW: The orthopaedic clinician-scientist. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2001.83: 131-5, 83131  2001  [PubMed]
 
Gross CP; Anderson GF; and Powe NR: The relationship between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med,1999.340: 1881-7, 3401881  1999  [PubMed]
 
Watson TJ Jr.A business and its beliefs. The ideas that helped build IBM. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1963. 
 

Submit a comment

Topics

Davis R, Appleby J. Report: health system broken. USA Today. 2001 March 2-4; p 1A. 
 
Mill JS. Principles of political economy. London: Penguin Press; 1988. p 113-5, 496-7. 
 
Gendron G. FYI. Inc. 1995;17:13. 
 
Duysters G, Hagedoorn J. The effect of core competence building on companies performance. netec.mcc.ac.uk/WoPEc/data/Papers/dgrumamer1996014.html. Accessed: 6 Sept. 2000. 
 
Gergen D: Keeping the flame alive. US News and World Report,1999.23: 94, 2394  1999 
 
Hamel G.Leading the revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2000. p 3-29. 
 
Hargadon A, and Sutton R: Building an innovation factory. Harv Bus Rev,2000.157-66, 157  2000 
 
Shapiro E: Managing in the cappucino economy. Harv Bus Rev,2000.177-83, 177  2000 
 
Donovan JJ.The second Industrial Revolution: business strategy and Internet technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997. p 3-12. 
 
Friedman TL.The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Anchor Books; 2000. p 3-16. 
 
Gastells M. The information age: economy, society and culture. Volume I: The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 1999. p 29-65. 
 
Kelly K.New rules for the new economy: 10 radical strategies for a connected world. New York: Penguin; 1999. p 1-8. 
 
Shenk D.The end of patience: cautionary notes on the information revolution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1999. p 141-4. 
 
Kennedy MM.Managing change: understanding the demographics of the evolving workforce. Privately published; 2000. p 24-5. 
 
Praemer A, Furner S, Rice DP.Musculoskeletal conditions in the United States. 2nd ed. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1999. p 146. 
 
US Census Bureau.Statistical abstract of the United States. Section 14. Income, expenditures, and wealth. Table 729, 1999. www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html. 
 
Weinstein J, Birkmeyer J.The Dartmouth atlas of musculoskeletal health care. Chicago: AHA Press; 2000. p 28-199. 
 
Weinstein JN: The missing piece: embracing shared decision making to reform health care. Spine,2000.25: 1-4, 251  2000  [PubMed]
 
Wright JG; Hawke GA; Bombardier C; Croxford R; Dittus RS; Freund DA; and Coyte PC: Physician enthusiasm as an explanation for area variation in the utilization of knee replacement surgery. Med Care,1999.37: 946-56, 37946  1999  [PubMed]
 
Jordan JM, Renner JB, Luta G, Dragomir AD, Hochberg MC, Helmick CG. Gender and ethnic differences in radiographic knee and hip OA. American College of Rheumatology. www.abstracts-on-line.com/abstracts/ACR. 
 
Atlas finds wide variations in orthopaedic care. AAOS Bull,2000.48: 15, 4815  2000 
 
Hawker GA; Wright JG; Coyte PC; Williams JI; Harvey B; Glazier R; and Badley EM: Differences between men and women in the rate of use of hip and knee arthroplasty. N Engl J Med,2000.342: 1016-22, 3421016  2000  [PubMed]
 
Charles C; Gafni A; and Whelan T: Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med,1997.44: 681-92, 44681  1997  [PubMed]
 
Landro L. The decision is yours. Wall St J. 18 Oct 1999. p R13. 
 
Weinstein JN; Brown PW; Hanscom B; Walsh T; and Nelson EC: Designing an ambulatory clinical practice for outcomes improvement: from vision to reality—The Spine Center at Dartmouth--Hitchcock, year one. Qual Manag Health Care,2000.8: 1-20, 81  2000  [PubMed]
 
Last lap in the genome race [editorial]. NY Times. 26 June 2000. p A16. 
 
Snyderman R: Academic medicine can transform health care through clinical research. Acad Med,1999.74: 1224-5, 741224  1999  [PubMed]
 
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Budget Office. 2001 Budget. National Institutes of Health, 2001. 
 
Rosenberg L: Physician-scientists—endangered and essential. Science,1999.283: 331-2, 283331  1999  [PubMed]
 
Jackson DW: The orthopaedic clinician-scientist. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2001.83: 131-5, 83131  2001  [PubMed]
 
Gross CP; Anderson GF; and Powe NR: The relationship between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med,1999.340: 1881-7, 3401881  1999  [PubMed]
 
Watson TJ Jr.A business and its beliefs. The ideas that helped build IBM. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1963. 
 
Accreditation Statement
These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
CME Activities Associated with This Article
Submit a Comment
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe




Related Articles
Related Cases
Related Content
Topic Collections
Related Audio and Videos
Clinical Trials
Readers of This Also Read...
jbjs jobs
12/22/2011
ME - Central Maine Medical Center
12/22/2011
VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
12/22/2011
Virginia - Charleston Area Medical Center