"3DT" concept as a model for integrating trauma and orthopedic services into priority areas of development and national projects of the Russian Federation

Introduction. In the year of anniversaries of two leading national centers for traumatology and orthopedics, the authors analyzed the main problems and current challenges in specialized trauma and orthopedic care (TOC). Historical parallels in the development of TOC in our country and its problems and trends abroad motivated the authors to conduct an analysis while the need for their comparative assessment determined the purpose of the work which is a brief analysis of the organizational model of TOC and substantiation of a "3DT" concept as a contemporary organizational model of trauma and orthopedic service in the Russian Federation.

Results and discussion. The analysis of current trends in the trauma and orthopedic (TO) service showed its variability over the past three decades. However, the original organizational structure of specialized TO care remained almost the same. A comparative assessment of organizational models has shown that the models for providing specialized care in developed countries are extremely diverse. The availability of assistance does not depend on the population density and tariffs even in the regions of developed countries. In addition, the monetary assessment of treatment of spinal pathology, as an example, has not been standardized and harmonized across countries and regions. It is also important to evaluate the steady increase in high technology care with the use of more developed systems of diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and, accordingly, its growing costs. The challenges that our specialty faces may be conditionally divided into technical, socio-economic and organizational ones with the need to create a clear vertical structure of organization, control and referral of patients with organizational decisions for selection of patients with a TO profile according to flows within various areas of subspecialties, the need for justification and feed-back control of financing systems for various types of TO assistance. The challenges described above motivated us to propose a new “3DT” organizational concept as a basis for a more stable and understandable model for the functioning of the national trauma and orthopedic service. The proposed basic model includes 4 direction sectors: D1 (pediatric diseases of the musculoskeletal system and their outcomes); D2 (degenerative and involuntary pathology of the musculoskeletal system); D3 (destructive diseases of the musculoskeletal system of tumor or infectious origin); T (trauma of the musculoskeletal system and its consequences), that all have fundamentally different approaches to organization and planning. The main requirement for the model is its simple application by all participants directly or indirectly involved in the provision of care: orthopedic and trauma specialists, doctors of other specialties, authorities and financial institutions, patients, their relatives and patient communities.

Conclusion. The advantages of the 3DT model lie in the possibility of extrapolating this concept to any region of the Russian Federation, taking into account the difference in their resources. The integral criterion of its effectiveness may be the assessment of the development of these areas as a whole, rather than separate types of assistance. In each sector, it is necessary to indicate the basic, additional and optional amount of assistance. All regions must have the basic level, while the state funding of additional and, moreover, optional assistance should not be carried out without providing the basic one.

1. Labrum J.T. 4th, Paziuk T., Rihn T.C., Hilibrand A.S., Vaccaro A.R., Maltenfort M.G., Rihn J.A. Does Medicaid insurance confer adequate access to adult orthopaedic care in the era of the patient protection and affordable care act? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 2017, vol. 475, no. 6, pp. 1527-1536. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5263-3

2. Pierce T.R., Mehlman C.T., Tamai J., Skaggs D.L. Access to care for the adolescent anterior cruciate ligament patient with Medicaid versus private insurance. J. Pediatr. Orthop., 2012, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 245-248. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31824abf20

3. Skaggs D.L., Clemens S.M., Vitale M.G., Femino J.D., Kay R.M. Access to orthopedic care for children with Medicaid versus private insurance in California. Pediatrics, 2001, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 1405-1408. DOI: 10.1542/peds.107.6.1405

4. Skaggs D.L., Lehmann C.L., Rice C., Killelea B.K., Bauer R.M., Kay R.M., Vitale M.G. Access to orthopaedic care for children with Medicaid versus private insurance: results of a national survey. J. Pediatr. Orthop., 2006, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 400-404. DOI: 10.1097/01.bpo.0000217715.87857.24

5. Baraga M.G., Smith M.K., Tanner J.P., Kaplan L.D., Lesniak B.P. Anterior cruciate ligament injury and access to care in South Florida: does insurance status play a role? J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 2012, vol. 94, no. 24, pp. e183. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00852

6. Hinman A., Bozic K.J. Impact of payer type on resource utilization, outcomes and access to care in total hip arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty, 2008, vol. 23, no. 6 Suppl. 1, pp. 9-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.05.010

7. Kim C.Y., Wiznia D.H., Hsiang W.R., Pelker R.R. The effect of insurance type on patient access to knee arthroplasty and revision under the Affordable Care Act. J. Arthroplasty, 2015, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1498-1501. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.03.015

8. Wolinsky P., Kim S., Quackenbush M. Does insurance status affect continuity of care for ambulatory patients with operative fractures? J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 2011, vol. 93, no. 7, pp. 680-685. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00020

9. Patterson B.M., Draeger R.W., Olsson E.C., Spang J.T., Lin F.C., Kamath G.V. A regional assessment of Medicaid access to outpatient orthopaedic care: the influence of population density and proximity to academic medical centers on patient access. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 2014, vol. 96, no. 18, pp. e156. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01188

10. Goz V., Rane A., Abtahi AM., Lawrence B.D., Brodke D.S., Spiker W.R. Geographic variations in the cost of spine surgery. Spine, 2015, vol. 40, no. 17, pp. 1380-1389. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001022

11. Alvin M.D., Lubelski D., Alam R., Williams S.K., Obuchowski N.A., Steinmetz M.P., Wang J.C., Melillo A.J., Pahwa A., Benzel E.C., Modic M.T., Quencer R., Mroz T.E. Spine surgeon treatment variability: the impact on costs. Global Spine J., 2018, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 498-506. DOI: 10.1177/2192568217739610

12. Mallow G.M., Siyaji Z.K., Galbusera F., Espinoza-Orías A.A., Giers M., Lundberg H., Ames C., Karppinen J., Louie P.K., Phillips F.M., Pourzal R., Schwab J., Sciubba D.M., Wang J.C., Wilke H.J., Williams F.M.K., Mohiuddin S.A., Makhni M.C., Shepard N.A., An H.S., Samartzis D. Intelligence-Based Spine Care Model: A New Era of Research and Clinical Decision-Making. Global Spine J., 2021, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 135-145. DOI: 10.1177/2192568220973984

13. McGirt M.J., Sivaganesan A., Asher A.L., Devin C.J. Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability. Neurosurg. Focus, 2015, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. E13. DOI: 10.3171/2015.8.FOCUS15338

14. Patel M.S., Foschini L., Kurtzman G.W., Zhu J., Wang W., Rareshide C.A.L., Zbikowski S.M. Using wearable devices and smartphones to track physical activity: initial activation, sustained use, and step counts across sociodemographic characteristics in a national sample. Ann. Intern. Med., 2017, vol. 167, no. 10, pp. 755-757. DOI: 10.7326/M17-1495

15. Devedžić G., Cuković S., Luković V., Milošević D., Subburaj K., Luković T. ScolioMedIS: web-oriented information system for idiopathic scoliosis visualization and monitoring. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 2012, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 736-749. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2012.04.008

16. Zhang M., Pu F., Xu L., Zhang L., Liang H., Li D., Wang Y., Fan Y. Development of an integrated CAD-FEA system for patient-specific design of spinal cages. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin., 2017, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 355-364. DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2016.1233401

17. Naylor C.D. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995. Vol. 345, No 8953. P. 840-842. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92969-x

18. Wenger D.R. Limitations of evidence-based medicine: the role of experience and expert opinion. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2012. Vol. 32, No Suppl. 2. P. S187-S192. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e318259f2ed

19. Paltsev M.A., Belushkina N.N., Chaban E.A. 4p-meditsina kak novaia model zdravookhraneniia v rossiiskoi federatsii [4p-medicine as a new model in the RF Health Service]. ORGZDRAV: novosti, mneniia, obuchenie. Vestnik VShOUZ, 2015, no. 2 (2), pp. 48-54. (in Russian)

20. Osmanov E.M., Maniakov R.R., Osmanov R.E., Zhabina U.V., Koniaev D.A., Agafonova Iu.V., Peshkova A.A. Meditsina 4 «p» kak osnova novoi sistemy zdravookhraneniia [4 “p” medicine as the basis of the new system of the Health Service]. Vestnik Tambovskogo Universiteta. Estestvennye i Tekhnicheskie Nauki, 2017, vol. 22, no. 6-2, pp. 1680-1685. (in Russian)

21. Evseveva M.E., Sergeeva O.V. O podkhodakh k formirovaniiu uchebnykh programm po prediktivnoi, preventivnoi, personalizirovannoi i partisipativnoi meditsine (4p-meditsine) [About approaches to the formation of educational programs in predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory medicine]. Sovremennye Problemy Nauki i Obrazovaniia, 2018, no. 6, pp. 155. (in Russian)

22. Bakirova M.A., Serebrennikova Iu. Pravovye problemy vnedreniia meditsiny 4P [Legal problems of introducing medicine 4P]. Materialy VIII Mezhdunarodnoi Zaochnoi Nauchno-prakticheskoi Konferentsii Molodykh Uchenykh “Aktualnye problemy sovremennykh obshchestvennykh nauk i puti ikh resheniia v usloviiakh informatsionnogo obshchestva” [Proceedings of the VIII International Correspondence Scientific-Practical Conference of young scientists “Relevant Problems of Modern Social Sciences and Ways to Solve them in the Information Society”]. Ufa, 2019, p. 35. (in Russian)

23. Prikaz Ministerstva Zdravookhraneniia RF ot 24 aprelia 2018 g. № 186 “Ob utverzhdenii kontseptsii prediktivnoi, preventivnoi i personalizirovannoi meditsiny” [Russian Federation. Order of the RF Ministry of Health of April 24, 2018 N 186 “On the Approval of the Concept of Predictive, Preventive and Personalized Medicine”]. Available at: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/71847662/ (accessed 01.02.2021) (in Russian)

24. Ipatova O.M., Medvedeva N.V., Archakov A.I., Grigorev A.I. Transliatsionnaia meditsina – put ot fundamentalnoi biomeditsinskoi nauki v Zdravookhranenie [Translational medicine — the path from basic biomedical science to Healthcare]. Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Meditsinskikh Nauk, 2012, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 57-65. (in Russian)

25. “O vnesenii izmenenii v otdelnye Zakonodatelnye Akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii po voprosam primeneniia informatsionnykh tekhnologii v sfere okhrany zdorovia”: Federalnyi zakon ot 29 iiulia 2017 g. № 242-FZ [The Federal Law of the Russian Federation N 242-FZ “On amendments to certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the application of information technologies in the field of health protection”]. Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_221184/ (accessed 01.02.2021) (in Russian)