Patient-reported outcomes use during orthopaedic surgery clinic visits improves the patient experience

Clinical Improvement After Lumbar Fusion: Using PROMIS to Assess Recovery Kinetics

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of a single institution cohort.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to identify features that predict delayed achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) following elective lumbar spine fusion using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Preoperative prediction of delayed recovery following lumbar spine fusion surgery is challenging. While many studies have examined factors impacting the achievement of MCID for patient-reported outcomes in similar cohorts, few studies have assessed predictors of early functional improvement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing elective one-level posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on achievement of MCID for each respective PROMIS domain either before six months ("early responders") or after six months ("late responders") following surgical intervention. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine features associated with odds of achieving distribution-based MCID before or after six months follow up.

RESULTS

147 patients were included. The average age was 64.3±13.0 years. At final follow-up, 57.1% of patients attained MCID for PI and 72.8% for PF. However, 42 patients (49.4%) reached MCID for PI by six months, compared to 44 patients (41.1%) for PF. Patients with severe symptoms had the highest probability of attaining MCID for PI (OR 10.3; P =0.001) and PF (OR 10.4; P =0.001) Preoperative PROMIS symptomology did not predict early achievement of MCID for PI or PF. Patients who received concomitant iliac crest autograft during their lumbar fusion had increased odds of achieving MCID for PI (OR 8.56; P =0.001) before six months.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that the majority of patients achieved MCID following elective one-level lumbar spine fusion at long-term follow-up, although less than half achieved this clinical benchmark for each PROMIS metric by six months. We also found that preoperative impairment was not associated with when patients would achieve MCID. Further prospective investigations are warranted to characterize the trajectory of clinical improvement and identify the risk factors associated with poor outcomes more accurately.

Equitable Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Practice-Opportunities, Challenges, and a Roadmap for Implementation

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a standardized assessment from the patient about their own health status. Although originally developed as research tools, PROMs can be used in clinical care to complement objective functional measures (eg, range of motion) and are increasingly integrated to guide treatment decisions and predict outcomes. In some situations, when PROMs are used during clinical care they can improve patient mortality, outcomes, engagement, well-being, and patient-physician communication. Guidance on how PROMs should be communicated with patients continued to be developed. However, PROM use may have unintended consequences, such as when used implemented without accounting for confounding factors (eg, psychological and social health) or in perpetuating healthcare disparities when used imprecisely (eg, lack of linguistic or cultural validation). In this review, we describe the current state of PROM use in orthopaedic surgery, highlight opportunities and challenges of PROM use in clinical care, and provide a roadmap to support orthopaedic surgery practices in incorporating PROMs into routine care to equitably improve patient health.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Collection and Utilization: A Survey of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Members

Given the benefits of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation and future reporting policies, the PROMs Workgroup conducted a study to evaluate the sentiment and practice patterns related to PROM collection and utilization. A survey including questions regarding sentiment and practice patterns related to PROM importance, collection, and utilization was administered to all members. Data were reported descriptively, and open-ended responses were analyzed using content and frequency analysis. Six hundred twelve surgeons (4%) participated. Most of them (52%) feel that PROMs are important. Forty-six percent collect and 35% use PROMs in practice. The greatest barriers to adoption include concerns about staff burden (72%), challenges in patients completing PROMs (69%), and cost (47%). While most of the surgeons feel that PROMs are important, many do not collect nor use PROMs in practice. The identified barriers may be informative in the development of resources to help comply with mandates and use PROMs to improve patient care.

The implementation, use and impact of patient reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare programmes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on the value of patient outcomes and is achieved by ensuring resources already available are managed to realise the best possible individual and population health outcomes. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure the impact of illnesses from the patient perspective. We conducted a scoping review to understand how PROMs were implemented and used, and their impact in the context of VBHC.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's overarching framework supplemented by principles from mixed-methods Framework Synthesis were used. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched. An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included with 60,200 participants. Few studies reported a well-developed programme theory and we found little robust evidence of effect. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. Evidence is currently limited on how PROMs work and how best to optimally implement PROMs to achieve the target outcome. Implementation challenges commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patients generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used to support their own self-management.

CONCLUSION

PROMSs have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients. Future studies should explore different models of PROM implementation and use within VBHC programmes to understand what works best and why for each specific context, condition, and population.

Identifying Patient Characteristics Associated With Opioid Use to Inform Surgical Pain Management

Objective

Balancing surgical pain management and opioid stewardship is complex. Identifying patient-level variables associated with low or no use can inform tailored prescribing.

Methods

A prospective, observational study investigating surgical procedures, prescription data, and patient-reported outcomes at an academic health system in Pennsylvania. Surgical patients were consented following surgery, and prospective data were captured using automated text messaging (May 1, 2021-February 29, 2022). The primary outcome was opioid use.

Results

Three thousand six hundred three (30.2%) patients consented. Variation in patient reported used included 28.1% of men reported zero use versus 24.3% of women, 20.5% of Black patients reported zero use versus 27.2% of white patients. Opioid-naïve patients reported more zero use as compared with chronic use (29.7% vs 9.8%). Patients reporting higher use had more telephone calls and office visits within 30 days but no change in emergency department utilization or admissions. Higher discharge pain score was associated with higher use. In the adjusted analysis, opioid use relative to the guideline, higher use was associated with age, male sex, obesity, discharge pain score, and history of mental health disorder. In the adjusted model, younger age and being opioid-naïve to be associated with low to zero use across procedures.

Conclusions

Younger age, being opioid-naïve, and lower discharge pain score are associated with low or no postoperative opioid use. These characteristics can be used by clinicians to help tailor opioid prescribing to specific patients to reduce the risk of prolonged exposure and unused `ts in the community.

Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Hallux Metatarsophalangeal-Interphalangeal Joint Scale

BACKGROUND

The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Hallux Metatarsophalangeal-Interphalangeal (AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP) scale is one of the most widely used outcome measures to evaluate hallux pathologies. This study aimed to translate the AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP scale into Turkish and investigate its psychometric properties.

METHODS

The psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP (AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP-T) scale were tested in 66 patients with hallux pathologies (52 women; mean age, 47.64 ± 12.75 years). Cronbach's alpha was used to assess internal consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to estimate test-retest. Construct validity was analyzed with the Turkish version of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and 12-item Short-Form Health Survey(SF-12).

RESULTS

The AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP-T scale had adequate internal consistency (α = 0.71) and test-retest reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.93 for pain, ICC2,1 = 0.97 for function, and ICC2,1 = 0.97 for total score). The AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP-T total score has a moderate to strong correlation with VAS-activity and MOXFQ (ρ = -0.77, P = .001; ρ = -0.69, P = .001, respectively). The weakest correlation was found between the AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP-T and the SF-12 mental component scale (ρ = 0.31, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

AOFAS Hallux MTP-IP-T has sufficient reliability and validity to evaluate Turkish-speaking individuals with a variety of forefoot pathologies including the hallux.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

PROMIS Global Physical Health Subscale Strongly Correlates and Performs Similarly to the QuickDASH in Hand and Upper Extremity Patients

BACKGROUND

The Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) is a validated, static hand and upper extremity patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) commonly used. However, with the growth of PROM implementation across orthopedic and plastic surgery clinics, it is beneficial to determine whether a more general PROM can be used to capture the same insights. This would ease implementation broadly. There is a paucity of literature assessing whether the QuickDASH and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 are correlated and perform similarly.

METHODS

Between June 2016 and December 2020, hand and upper extremity patients seeking care at clinics associated with a single quaternary academic medical center were identified. Those who completed the PROMIS Global-10 and QuickDASH as part of routine care were identified. The PROMIS Global-10 is divided into the PROMIS Global Physical Health and PROMIS Global Mental Health subscores. Spearman rho (ρ) correlations were calculated across PROMs, and ceiling and floor effects were determined.

RESULTS

Across the 18 744 included patients, there was a strong correlation and strong-moderate correlation found between the QuickDASH and PROMIS Global Physical Health (ρ = 0.70, P < .001) and PROMIS Global Mental Health (ρ = 0.69, P < .001), respectively. Although small, QuickDASH demonstrates the worst floor effect (2.6%, [n = 478]), whereas PROMIS Global Mental Health demonstrated a much more notable ceiling effect (11%, [n = 2034]).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS Global-10 can be used to assess the functional status of patients presenting for hand and upper extremity concerns, while also capturing aspects of mental health. The PROMIS Global-10 may ease PROM implementation broadly.

Development and Validation of a Canine Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire and a Human-Canine Bond Questionnaire for Use in Veterinary Practice

The use of valid questionnaires to assess dogs' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in veterinary practice can improve canine health outcomes and communications between veterinarians and caretakers of dogs. The Canine HRQoL Questionnaire (Canine HRQoL-Q) and the Human-Canine Bond Questionnaire (HCBQ) were developed and validated to fulfill this need. A literature review, interviews with veterinarians, and focus groups with caretakers were conducted to generate questionnaire items and develop draft questionnaires, which were piloted with caretakers to establish their content validity. Measurement properties were evaluated using data from a prospective survey study (N = 327). Draft Canine HRQoL-Q and HCBQ measures were developed, including a domain structure, items, recall period, and scale/response options. Refinements were made via iterative cognitive interviews with caretakers. When no additional revisions were indicated and content validity was established, the questionnaires were psychometrically tested. Ceiling effects were observed for all items, and factor analyses indicated that the pre-specified domains are appropriate. Internal consistency was demonstrated for the HCBQ (α = 0.79-0.86) and all but the social functioning domain of the Canine HRQoL-Q (α = 0.60). Test-retest reliability for the Canine HRQoL-Q was generally moderate-to-good (with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) > 0.79). Test-retest reliability for the HCBQ was moderate (ICCs: 0.70-0.79) except for the trust domain (ICC: 0.58). Known-groups validity was demonstrated via significant differences (p < 0.05) in scores for health/bonding groups. Convergent validity was supported (r > 0.40) between all domains and the total scores for both questionnaires. The Canine HRQoL-Q and the HCBQ are valid, reliable measures of canine HRQoL for use in veterinary clinics and appear to measure related but distinct concepts that contribute to canine health and wellness.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice and Clinical Decision Making

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are highly effective measures of quality of care and outcomes that matter to patients regarding their physical, mental, and social health. While PROMs have played a notable role in research and registry reporting, they are also useful as clinical tools. Real-time PROM collection can be integrated into routine clinical care with immediate access to scores within the electronic health record. This can be integral when discussing treatment options and using decision aids. PROM scores can also be useful for postoperative monitoring. Various approaches to quantifying clinical efficacy have been developed, including the minimal clinically important difference, the substantial clinical benefit, and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). As the patient experience and patient-reported outcome measurement of health-related outcomes become increasingly emphasized in patient-centered, high value care, so too will the importance of methods to gauge clinical benefit using these instruments for improved clinical decision-making.

Operationalizing PROMs at the Musculoskeletal Practice and Policy Levels

There continues to be growing interest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), especially as value-based healthcare initiatives gain more traction. Although it is well-established that PROMs can be useful in clinical research, how to operationalize PROMs in clinical care and policy initiatives remains a "work in progress." Following the design of a comprehensive PROM administration and routine collection system, orthopaedic surgeons and their patients can reap the benefits of PROMs in practice through improved shared clinical decision-making discussions at the individual patient level and closer symptom monitoring on a large scale, with improved resource allocation at the population health level. Although certain government and payer incentives exist to collect PROMs at present, it is reasonable to assume that future policy initiatives will begin to use the actual PROM scores to assess clinical outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons with interest in this area should prioritize their involvement in policy discussion to ensure PROMs are being used appropriately in novel payment models and policy endeavors so that they are both evaluated and compensated fairly. Specifically, orthopaedic surgeons can help ensure appropriate risk adjustment of patients when this is being done. Undoubtedly, PROMs will only become a larger part of musculoskeletal care moving forward.

Evaluating and Comparing the Correlation and Performance of PROMIS and FAAM ADL in a Foot and Ankle Patient Population

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature assessing 2 of the commonly used static Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms (PROMIS Global-10 and PROMIS Physical Function Short Form 10a [PF SF 10a]) and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living (FAAM ADL).

METHODS

The PROMIS Global-10, PROMIS PF SF 10a, and FAAM ADL were compared among new foot and ankle patients. Spearman rho (ρ) correlations were calculated, and ceiling and floor effects were determined.

RESULTS

The FAAM ADL demonstrated strong correlations with PROMIS PF SF 10a, P = .88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-0.90, P < .001, and PROMIS Global-10 Physical Health (P = .75, 95% CI: 0.71-0.78, p < .001). The FAAM ADL and PROMIS Global-10 Mental Health demonstrated a moderate correlation (P = .41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.47, P < .001). No PROM demonstrated an appreciable floor effect. The PROMIS Global-10 Physical Health demonstrated the lowest ceiling effect (n=11 [1.6%]).

CONCLUSION

Because the PROMIS Global-10 captures physical health adequately, provides mental health insight, and performs as well (if not better), we recommend the PROMIS Global-10 among the PROMs studied.Level of Evidence: Level III.

Does value-based healthcare support patient-centred care? A scoping review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care.

DESIGN

A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.

Does Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Use at New Foot and Ankle Patient Clinic Visits Improve Patient Activation, Experience, and Satisfaction?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can help predict clinical outcomes and improve shared clinical decision-making discussions. There remains a paucity of research assessing how the use of PROMs may drive improved patient experience and patient activation.

METHODS

New foot and ankle patients completed PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression assessments. Patients were then randomized to viewing and discussing their PROMIS scores with their surgeon or not. Following the clinic visit, patients completed a series of Clinician & Group Survey-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) questions and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Responses to the CG-CAHPS questions and PAM were compared between the 2 groups and after clustering on surgeon. Potential interaction effects by social deprivation were also explored.

RESULTS

After enrolling patients but removing those lost to follow-up or with missing data, 97 and 116 patients remained in the intervention control cohorts, respectively. No difference was found in CG-CAHPS responses nor PAM scores between the 2 groups (P > .05). All surgeons were highly rated by all patients. When clustered by surgeon, intervention subjects were less likely to indicate "top box" scores for the understanding domain of the CG-CAHPS question (OR 0.51, P < .001) and had decreased odds of high patient activation compared to control subjects (OR 0.67; P = .005). Among the most socially disadvantaged patients, there was no difference in control and intervention subjects in their likelihood of having high patient activation (P = .09).

CONCLUSION

Highly rated foot and ankle surgeons who show and discuss PROM results may not improve patient experience or activation and may, in fact, decrease understanding or patient activation in select populations. Future work is needed to determine when PROM discussions are most beneficial and how best to present PROMs data, as we suspect that how the information was presented-and not the use of PROMs-resulted in our findings. Health literacy tools and/or communication training may better engage different patient groups regarding PROMs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

The immaturity of patient engagement in value-based healthcare-A systematic review

Introduction

In recent years, Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) has been gaining traction, particularly in hospitals. A core VBHC element is patient value, i.e., what matters most to the patient and at what cost can this be delivered. This interpretation of value implies patient engagement in patient-doctor communication. Although patient engagement in direct care in the VBHC setting is well described, patient engagement at the organizational level of improving care has hardly been studied. This systematic review maps current knowledge regarding the intensity and impact of patient engagement in VBHC initiatives. We focus on the organizational level of a continuous patient engagement model.

Methods

We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines using five electronic databases. The search strategy yielded 1,546 records, of which 21 studies were eligible for inclusion. Search terms were VBHC and patient engagement, or similar keywords, and we included only empirical studies in hospitals or transmural settings at the organizational level.

Results

We found that consultation, using either questionnaires or interviews by researchers, is the most common method to involve patients in VBHC. Higher levels of patient engagement, such as advisory roles, co-design, or collaborative teams are rare. We found no examples of the highest level of patient engagement such as patients co-leading care improvement committees.

Conclusion

This study included 21 articles, the majority of which were observational, resulting in a limited quality of evidence. Our review shows that patient engagement at the organizational level in VBHC initiatives still relies on low engagement tools such as questionnaires and interviews. Higher-level engagement tools such as advisory roles and collaborative teams are rarely used. Higher-level engagement offers opportunities to improve healthcare and care pathways through co-design with the people being served. We urge VBHC initiatives to embrace all levels of patient engagement to ensure that patient values find their way to the heart of these initiatives.

Pre-Visit Digital Messaging Improves Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Participation Prior to the Orthopaedic Ambulatory Visit: Results from a Double-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are metrics that assess physical health, mental health, pain, and satisfaction. However, PROM collection in orthopaedic clinics presents numerous logistical and financial challenges. These challenges are reduced when PROMs are completed before clinic encounters, relieving the workflow constraints of in-office PROM collection. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of 3 different methods with respect to pre-visit electronic PROM completion.

METHODS

Consecutive adult orthopaedic patients with no previous PROM participation were enrolled. Patients who registered with the electronic medical record (EMR) patient portal (MyChart) and with active e-mail addresses were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms: control (no pre-visit messages), MyChart (EMR patient portal pre-visit messages), and e-mail (e-mail pre-visit messages). The primary outcome measure was pre-visit PROM completion rates in orthopaedic patients, and the secondary outcome measures were time to pre-visit PROM form completion and PROM form completion rates according to patient demographic characteristics. By default, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms were available for completion through the portal by 7 days before scheduled visits. Pre-visit messages were sent 7 days prior to the scheduled visit except in the control group, with reminders sent 3 days prior if still not completed. The patients in each arm who completed all assigned forms were labeled as having total PROM completion, and those who completed at least 1 completed form were considered as having partial PROM completion. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess differences in PROM completion rates between study arms. Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to compare the date of the form completion.

RESULTS

A total of 291 patients were included. The pre-visit total completion rates for assigned PROMs were higher in the MyChart arm (49% of 97 patients; p = 0.005) and the e-mail arm (52% of 100 patients; p = 0.002) in comparison with the control arm (30% of 94 patients). Male patients were more likely than female patients to have partial pre-visit PROM completion (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; p = 0.03), and Caucasian patients were more likely to have partial pre-visit PROM completion than African American patients (OR, 2.28; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic patients receiving either e-mail or patient portal messages demonstrated higher pre-visit PROM completion rates. Pre-visit messaging appears to be a useful strategy for increasing PROM completion rates and limiting the clinical workflow strain imposed by in-clinic PROM administration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

USE OF THE uCentrum SYSTEM IN THE SURGICAL TREATMENT OF DISEASES OF THE VERTEBRAL SPINE

ABSTRACT Objectives: Evaluate the treatment outcome and the performance of the uCentum spinal fixation system in treating traumatic, degenerative, and tumoral diseases of the spine. Methods: This is a therapeutic study to investigate treatment outcomes and level of evidence III, including twenty-three adult patients of both sexes undergoing surgical treatment of degenerative (13 patients), traumatic (04 patients), or tumor diseases (06 patients). Patients were prospectively evaluated using clinical parameters: pain (visual analog scale), clinical and functional assessment questionnaires (SF-36, Oswestry and Roland-Morris), and radiological criteria (arthrodesis consolidation, loosening, breakage or deformation of the implants). Results: Twenty patients were followed for a period of 01 month to 12 month (mean 6,5±7,77). Three patients died due to complications unrelated to the primary disease (traumatic brain injury, septicemia, and lung tumor). Improvements were observed in clinical parameters and scores of the evaluation questionnaires used. No implant-related complications (breakage, loosening, deformation) were observed. Conclusion: the uCentum fixation system showed great versatility for performing the surgical treatment, allowing the performance of open, percutaneous procedures, the introduction of acrylic cement inside the implants, and conversion of polyaxial screws into monoaxial screws intraoperatively. Level of Evidence III; Therapeutic Studies - Investigating the Results of Treatment.

Injury rates remained elevated in the second National Football League season after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare the injury incidence of the 2018-2019 and 2020 National Football League (NFL) seasons with the 2021 season.

Methods

Publicly released NFL weekly injury reports were queried to identify players listed as "out" or placed on injured reserve (IR) for at least one game in the 2018-2021 seasons. Injuries were then categorized into upper extremity, lower extremity, spine/core, and head. Incidence per 1,000 athlete exposures were calculated for each season and proportions of injuries by position were calculated separately for the 2018-2019, 2020, and 2021 cohorts. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were used to compare injury rates.

Results

Overall injury incidence in the 2021 NFL season increased compared to the pre-COVID-19 seasons (2018-2019) in all anatomical zones except for the upper extremity. [28.70 vs. 23.09 per 1,000 exposures, IRR 1.24 (95% CI: 1.14-1.36); p< 0.001]. The injury rate remained elevated and further increased in 2021 compared to the 2020 season for all anatomical zones other than the spine/core [28.70 vs. 21.64 per 1,000 exposures, IRR 1.33 (1.19-1.47); p< 0.001]. No significant difference existed during the early season (weeks 1-4); however, injury rates after week 4 increased in 2021 compared to both the 2018-2019 and 2020 seasons.

Conclusion

The injury incidence in the 2021 season remained elevated and increased further compared to both the 2018-2019 and 2020 seasons. Traumatic injuries resulting in missed games increased despite return to a more traditional season since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The injury rates significantly increased in mid- to late season.

Level of Evidence

III, cross-sectional study.

Clinical integration of patient-reported outcome measures to enhance the care of patients with SLE: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and impact of integrating electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into the routine outpatient care of patients with SLE.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study, utilizing a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, of SLE outpatients receiving rheumatology care at two academic medical centres. Participants completed electronic PROMs at enrolment and then prior to their next two routine rheumatology visits. PROM score reports were shared with patients and rheumatologists before visits. Patients and rheumatologists completed post-visit surveys evaluating the utility of PROMs in the clinical encounters. Focus groups of patients and interviews with treating rheumatologists were conducted to further explore their experience utilizing PROMs.

RESULTS

A total of 105 SLE patients and 17 rheumatologists participated in the study. Patients completed PROMs in 159 of 184 encounters (86%), with 93% of surveys completed remotely. Patients reported that PROMs were 'quite a bit' or 'very' useful (55% of encounters) and beneficial to communication (55% of encounters). In contrast, physicians found PROMs useful (20%) and beneficial to communication (17%) less frequently. There was no significant change in visit length, health-related quality of life or disease activity after implementation of PROMs; however, patient satisfaction improved slightly. Qualitative analyses revealed that patients felt PROMs provided utility primarily by facilitating communication, particularly when physicians discussed the surveys.

CONCLUSION

The remote capture and integration of electronic PROMs into clinical care was feasible in a diverse cohort of SLE outpatients. PROMs were useful to patients and enhanced their clinical experience primarily by facilitating communication.

The Effect of the Severity of Preoperative Leg Pain on Patient-Reported Outcomes, Minimum Clinically Important Difference Achievement, and Patient Satisfaction After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), satisfaction, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in patients stratified by preoperative leg pain.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF were collected through retrospective review of a prospectively maintained single-surgeon database. PROMs administered preoperatively/postoperatively included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) Physical/Mental Component Score (PCS/MCS). Patients were grouped based on preoperative VAS leg scores: VAS leg ≤7 or VAS leg >7. Inferential statistics were used to compare PROMs, MCID achievement rates, and postoperative satisfaction between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 562 patients were eligible (168 VAS leg score ≤7; 394 VAS leg score >7). Significant differences between cohorts in postoperative mean PROMs were noted for PROMIS-PF at 6 weeks/2 years, SF-12 PCS at 6 weeks/2 years, SF-12 MCS at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/1 year, VAS back score at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months, VAS leg score at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/2 years and ODI at all postoperative time points (P < 0.045, all). In the VAS leg score >7 cohort, a greater proportion achieving MCID for VAS leg score at all postoperative time points and ODI at 12 weeks (P < 0.010, all). Postoperative satisfaction was greater in VAS back score ≤7 cohort for VAS leg score at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/2 years, VAS back score at 12 weeks/2 years, and ODI at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/2 years (P < 0.046, all).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe preoperative leg pain showed worse postoperative PROM scores and patient satisfaction for disability and back/leg pain. MCID achievement rates across cohorts were similar. Patients with severe leg pain may have expectations for surgical benefits incongruent with their postoperative outcomes, and physicians may seek to manage the preoperative expectations of their patients to reflect likely outcomes after MIS-TLIF.

Den Patienten wirklich verstehen lernen: Real-world-Evidenz aus der „patient journey“

Hintergrund

Die COVID-19-Pandemie („coronavirus disease 2019“) hat die Bedeutung von Real World Data (RWD) im klinischen Alltag unterstrichen und die fatalen Folgen von längst existierenden Problemen wie Lücken in der Primärdatenerfassung, Hürden bei der Auswertung von Patientendaten sowie erschwertem Patientendatenaustausch zwischen verschiedenen Einrichtungen nochmal deutlich gemacht. Darüber hinaus haben Entwicklungen weg von einem paternalistischen hin zu einem partnerschaftlichen Modell der Arzt-Patienten-Beziehung sowie die zunehmende Digitalisierung unser Verständnis von Gesundheitsversorgung geprägt, das Thema der Patientenautonomie und Selbstwirksamkeit in den Vordergrund gebracht und den Bedarf an innovativen, patientenzentrierten Lösungsansätzen verdeutlicht.

Methoden

Wir nutzen die „patient journey“ als theoretisches Konstrukt, entlang dessen wir die Sammlung von verschiedenen Typen von RWD, ihre Bedeutung und Umgang damit beschreiben.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Abbildung der „patient journey“ in Verbindung mit der Nutzung eines einheitlichen Datenstandards kann zur Erfassung von Primärdaten im Gesundheitswesen führen, die von allen medizinischen Behandlungseinrichtungen genutzt werden können. Dies wird den Austausch von Daten zwischen Einrichtungen erleichtern. Darüber hinaus könnte die fortlaufende Auswertung von patientenberichteten Ereignissen als Standard in der klinischen Routine die Patientenautonomie stärken und die Behandlung optimieren. Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass der Behandlungserfolg, das Gesamtüberleben und das Wohlbefinden der Patienten durch die Schaffung einer gemeinsamen Datensprache und eines ganzheitlichen, menschenzentrierten Ansatzes verbessert werden können.

A scoping review of complication prediction models in spinal surgery: An analysis of model development, validation and impact

Background

Predictive analytics are being used increasingly in the field of spinal surgery with the development of models to predict post-surgical complications. Predictive models should be valid, generalizable, and clinically useful. The purpose of this review was to identify existing post-surgical complication prediction models for spinal surgery and to determine if these models are being adequately investigated with internal/external validation, model updating and model impact studies.

Methods

This was a scoping review of studies pertaining to models for the prediction of post-surgical complication after spinal surgery published over 10 years (2010-2020). Qualitative data was extracted from the studies to include study classification, adherence to Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Model evaluation was determined using area under the curve (AUC) when available. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was used as a basis for the search methodology in four different databases.

Results

Thirty studies were included in the scoping review and 80% (24/30) included model development with or without internal validation. Twenty percent (6/30) were exclusively external validation studies and only one study included an impact analysis in addition to model development and internal validation. Two studies referenced the TRIPOD guidelines and there was a high ROB in 100% of the studies using the PROBAST tool.

Conclusions

The majority of post-surgical complication prediction models in spinal surgery have not undergone standardized model development and internal validation or adequate external validation and impact evaluation. As such there is uncertainty as to their validity, generalizability, and clinical utility. Future efforts should be made to use existing tools to ensure standardization in development and rigorous evaluation of prediction models in spinal surgery.

Construct Validity of Pediatric PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Testing Measures in Children With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

BACKGROUND

The use of patient-reported outcome measures, especially Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, has increased in recent years. Given this growth, it is imperative to ensure that the measures being used are validated for the intended population(s)/disease(s). Our objective was to assess the construct validity of 8 PROMIS computer adaptive testing (CAT) measures among children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 200 children (aged 10 to 17 y) with AIS, who completed 8 PROMIS CATs (Anxiety, Depressive Symptoms, Mobility, Pain Behavior, Pain Interference, Peer Relationships, Physical Activity, Physical Stress Experiences) and the Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r) electronically. Treatment categories were observation, bracing, indicated for surgery, or postoperative from posterior spinal fusion. Construct validity was evaluated using known group analysis and convergent and discriminant validity analyses. Analysis of variance was used to identify differences in PROMIS T -scores by treatment category (known groups). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient ( rs ) was calculated between corresponding PROMIS and SRS-22r domains (convergent) and between unrelated PROMIS domains (discriminant). Floor/ceiling effects were calculated.

RESULTS

Among treatment categories, significant differences were found in PROMIS Mobility, Pain Behavior, Pain Interference, and Physical Stress Experiences and in all SRS-22r domains ( P <0.05) except Mental Health ( P =0.15). SRS-22r Pain was strongly correlated with PROMIS Pain Interference ( rs =-0.72) and Pain Behavior ( rs =-0.71) and moderately correlated with Physical Stress Experiences ( rs =-0.57). SRS-22r Mental Health was strongly correlated with PROMIS Depressive Symptoms ( rs =-0.72) and moderately correlated with Anxiety ( rs =-0.62). SRS-22r Function was moderately correlated with PROMIS Mobility ( rs =0.64) and weakly correlated with Physical Activity ( rs =0.34). SRS-22r Self-Image was weakly correlated with PROMIS Peer Relationships ( rs =0.33). All unrelated PROMIS CATs were weakly correlated (| rs |<0.40). PROMIS Anxiety, Mobility, Pain Behavior, and Pain Interference and SRS-22r Function, Pain, and Satisfaction displayed ceiling effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the construct validity of 6 PROMIS CATs in evaluating AIS patients. Ceiling effects should be considered when using specific PROMIS CATs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prognostic.

Impetus of US hospital leaders to invest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Though hospital leaders across the USA have invested significant resources in collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), there are very limited data on the impetus for hospital leadership to establish PROM programmes. In this qualitative study, we identify the drivers and motivators of PROM collection among hospital leaders in the USA.

DESIGN

Exploratory qualitative study.

SETTING

Thirty-seven hospital leaders representing seven different institutions with successful PROMs programs across twenty US states.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews conducted with hospital leaders. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Leaders strongly believe that collecting PROMs is the 'right thing to do' and that the culture of the institution plays an important role in enabling PROMs. The study participants often believe that their institutions deliver superior care and that PROMs can be used to demonstrate the value of their services to payors and patients. Direct financial incentives are relatively weak motivators for collection of PROMs. Most hospital leaders have reservations about using PROMs in their current state as a meaningful performance metric.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that hospital leaders feel a strong moral imperative to collect PROMs, which is also supported by the culture of their institution. Although PROMs are used in negotiations with payors, direct financial return on investment is not a strong driver for the collection of PROMs. Understanding why leaders of major healthcare institutions invest in PROMs is critical to understanding the role that PROMs play in the US healthcare system.

Optimizing the implementation of a multisite feasibility trial of a mind-body program in acute orthopedic trauma

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind-body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers' lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients' psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers' confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings.

How Do PROMIS Scores Correspond to Common Physical Abilities?

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Report Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly used as a general-purpose tool for measuring orthopaedic surgery outcomes. This set of questionnaires is efficient, precise, and correlates well with specialty-specific measures, but impactful implementation of patient-specific data, especially at the point of care, remains a challenge. Although clinicians may have substantial experience with established patient-reported outcome measures in their fields, PROMIS is relatively new, and the real-life meaning of PROMIS numerical summary scores may be unknown to many orthopaedic surgeons.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We aimed to (1) identify a small subset of important items in the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) item bank that are answered by many patients with orthopaedic conditions and (2) graphically display characteristic responses to these items across the physical function spectrum in order to translate PROMIS numerical scores into physical ability levels using clinically relevant, familiar terms.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, 97,852 PROMIS PF assessments completed by 37,517 patients with orthopaedic conditions presenting to a tertiary-care academic institution were pooled and descriptively analyzed. Between 2017 and 2020, we evaluated 75,354 patients for outpatient orthopaedic care. Of these, 67% (50,578) were eligible for inclusion because they completed a PROMIS version 2.0 physical function assessment; 17% (12,720) were excluded because they lacked information in the database on individual item responses, and another < 1% (341) were excluded because the assessment standard error was greater than 0.32, leaving 50% of the patients (37,517) for analysis. The PROMIS PF is scored on a 0-point to 100-point scale, with a population mean of 50 and SD of 10. Anchor-based minimum clinically important differences have been found to be 8 to 10 points in a foot and ankle population, 7 to 8 points in a spine population, and approximately 4 points in a hand surgery population. The most efficient and precise means of administering the PROMIS PF is as a computerized adaptive test (CAT), whereby an algorithm intelligently tailors each follow-up question based on responses to previous questions, requiring only a few targeted questions to generate an accurate result. In this study, the mean PROMIS PF score was 41 ± 9. The questions most frequently used by the PROMIS CAT software were identified (defined in this study as any question administered to > 0.1% of the cohort). To understand the ability levels of patients based on their individual scores, patients were grouped into score categories: < 18, 20 ± 2, 25 ± 2, 30 ± 2, 35 ± 2, 40 ± 2, 45 ± 2, 50 ± 2, 55 ± 2, 60 ± 2, and > 62. For each score category, the relative frequency of each possible response (ranging from "cannot do" to "without any difficulty") was determined for each question. The distribution of responses given by each score group for each question was graphically displayed to generate an intuitive map linking PROMIS scores to patient ability levels (with ability levels represented by how patients responded to the PROMIS items).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight items from the 165-question item bank were used frequently (that is, administered to more than 0.1% of the cohort) by the PROMIS CAT software. The top four items constituted 63% of all items. These top four items asked about the patient's ability to perform 2 hours of physical labor, yard work, household chores, and walking more than 1 mile. Graphical displays of responses to the top 28 and top four items revealed how PROMIS scores correspond to patient ability levels. Patients with a score of 40 most frequently responded that they experienced "some difficulty" with physical labor, yard work, household chores, and walking more than 1 mile, compared with "little" or "no" difficulty for patients with a score of 50 and "cannot do" for patients with a score of 30.

CONCLUSION

We provided a visual key linking PROMIS numerical scores to physical ability levels using clinically relevant, familiar terms. Future studies might investigate whether using similar graphical displays as a patient education tool enhances patient-provider communication and improves the patient experience.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The visual explanation of PROMIS scores provided by this study may help new users of the PROMIS understand the instrument, feel empowered to incorporate it into their practices, and use it as a tool for counseling patients about their scores.

Comparison of 2 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: A Systematic Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are integral to clinical practice. While new instruments bring updated methodology and delivery methods, they must be compared with existing measures to ensure that they are comparable with currently used instruments and allow ongoing comparison. In this study, we evaluated 2 PRO measures for patients with brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI): the legacy Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI) and the newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). We hypothesized that the PROMIS and PODCI would be correlated, with high convergent validity, and that PROMIS assessment would have higher discriminant validity and take less time to complete than the PODCI.

METHODS

A cross-sectional prospective study was undertaken at a tertiary referral center. Subjects (n = 50) completed the PODCI and PROMIS, both as short form (SF) and computer-adaptive testing (CAT) measures, in randomized order. Patient and parent questionnaires were completed according to subject age. Physicians completed upper-extremity (UE) physical function tests. Correlations between PODCI and PROMIS scores were analyzed to determine convergent validity, UE subscores were analyzed relative to physical function scores to assess discriminant validity, and completion times were calculated to determine survey time to completion.

RESULTS

High convergent validity was found between the parent-reported PODCI, PROMIS SF, and PROMIS CAT measures. A ceiling effect was found for the PODCI but not for the PROMIS. The PROMIS CAT had better discriminant validity than either the PROMIS SF or PODCI. Patient and parent outcome scores did not highly correlate. Survey time to completion varied by PRO measure and method of delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

There was high convergent validity between the UE domains of the PROMIS and PODCI, with a lower time to completion for the PROMIS SF. Although results show that the PROMIS CAT may take longer to complete, there are notable benefits to its adoption, including high convergent validity with the PODCI and better discriminant validity than the PODCI and PROMIS SF measures.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders?

METHODS

A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process.

RESULTS

Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

The implementation of value-based healthcare: a scoping review

Background

The aim of this study was to identify and summarize how value-based healthcare (VBHC) is conceptualized in the literature and implemented in hospitals. Furthermore, an overview was created of the effects of both the implementation of VBHC and the implementation strategies used.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted by searching online databases for articles published between January 2006 and February 2021. Empirical as well as non-empirical articles were included.

Results

1729 publications were screened and 62 were used for data extraction. The majority of the articles did not specify a conceptualization of VBHC, but only conceptualized the goals of VBHC or the concept of value. Most hospitals implemented only one or two components of VBHC, mainly the measurement of outcomes and costs or Integrated Practice Units (IPUs). Few studies examined effects. Implementation strategies were described rarely, and were evaluated even less.

Conclusions

VBHC has a high level of interpretative variability and a common conceptualization of VBHC is therefore urgently needed. VBHC was proposed as a shift in healthcare management entailing six reinforcing steps, but hospitals have not implemented VBHC as an integrative strategy. VBHC implementation and effectiveness could benefit from the interdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare and management science.

Trial registration

This scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/jt4u7/ (OSF | The implementation of Value-Based Healthcare: a Scoping Review). 

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07489-2.

Value-Based Healthcare From the Perspective of the Healthcare Professional: A Systematic Literature Review

Introduction: Healthcare systems increasingly move toward “value-based healthcare” (VBHC), aiming to further improve quality and performance of care as well as the sustainable use of resources. Evidence about healthcare professionals' contributions to VBHC, experienced job demands and resources as well as employee well-being in VBHC is scattered. This systematic review synthesizes this evidence by exploring how VBHC relates to the healthcare professional, and vice versa.

Method: Seven databases were systematically searched for relevant studies. The search yielded 3,782 records, of which 45 were eligible for inclusion based on a two-step screening process using exclusion criteria performed by two authors independently. The quality of the included studies was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Based on inductive thematic analysis, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model was modified. Subsequently, this modified model was applied deductively for a second round of thematic analysis.

Results: Ten behaviors of healthcare professionals to enhance value in care were identified. These behaviors and associated changes in professionals' work content and work environment impacted the experienced job demands and resources and, in turn, employee well-being and job strain. This review revealed 16 constructs as job demand and/or job resource. Examples of these include role strain, workload and meaning in work. Four constructs related to employee well-being, including engagement and job satisfaction, and five constructs related to job strain, including exhaustion and concerns, were identified. A distinction was made between job demands and resources that were a pure characteristic of VBHC, and job demands and resources that resulted from environmental factors such as how care organizations shaped VBHC.

Conclusion and Discussion: This review shows that professionals experience substantial job demands and resources resulting from the move toward VBHC and their active role therein. Several job demands are triggered by an unsupportive organizational environment. Hence, increased organizational support may contribute to mitigating or avoiding adverse psychosocial factors and enhance positive psychosocial factors in a VBHC context. Further research to estimate the effects of VBHC on healthcare professionals is warranted.

The promise of computer adaptive testing in collection of orthopaedic outcomes: an evaluation of PROMIS utilization

Background

A crucial component to improving patient care is better clinician understanding of patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In orthopaedic surgery, HRQoL assessment instruments such as the NIH developed Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), provide surgeons with a framework to assess how a treatment or medical condition is affecting each patient’s HRQoL. PROMIS has been demonstrated as a valuable instrument in many diseases; however, the extent to which orthopaedic surgery subspecialties have used and validated PROMIS measures in peer-reviewed research is unclear.

Methods

Systematic scoping methodology was used to investigate the characteristics of studies using PROMIS to assess HRQoL measures as orthopaedic surgical outcomes as well as studies validating computerized adaptive test (CAT) PROMIS physical health (PH) domains including: Physical Function (PF), Upper Extremity (UE), Lower Extremity (LE).

Results

A systematic search of PubMed identified 391 publications utilizing PROMIS in orthopaedics; 153 (39%) were PROMIS PH CAT validation publications. One-hundred publications were in Hand and Upper Extremity, 69 in Spine, 44 in Adult Reconstruction, 43 in Foot and Ankle, 43 in Sports, 37 in Trauma, 31 in General orthopaedics, and 24 in Tumor. From 2011 through 2020 there was an upward trend in orthopaedic PROMIS publications each year (range, 1–153) and an increase in studies investigating or utilizing PROMIS PH CAT domains (range, 1–105). Eighty-five percent (n = 130) of orthopaedic surgery PROMIS PH CAT validation publications (n = 153) analyzed PF; 30% (n = 46) analyzed UE; 3% (n = 4) analyzed LE.

Conclusions

PROMIS utilization within orthopaedics as a whole has significantly increased within the past decade, particularly within PROMIS CAT domains. The existing literature reviewed in this scoping study demonstrates that PROMIS PH CAT domains (PF, UE, and LE) are reliable, responsive, and interpretable in most contexts of patient care throughout all orthopaedic surgery subspecialties. The expanded use of PROMIS CATs in orthopaedic surgery highlights the potential for improved quality of patient care. While challenges of integrating PROMIS into electronic medical records exist, expanded use of PROMIS CAT measurement instruments throughout orthopaedic surgery should be performed.

Plain english summary In orthopaedic surgery, health-related quality of life tools such as the NIH developed Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), offer patients an opportunity to better understand their medical condition and be involved in their own care. Additionally, PROMIS provides surgeons with a framework to assess how a treatment or medical condition is affecting each patient’s functional status and quality of life. The efficacy of PROMIS has been demonstrated in many diseases; however, its application throughout orthopaedic care has yet to be depicted. This study sought to identify the extent to which all orthopaedic surgery subspecialties have used and validated PROMIS measures in peer-reviewed research in order to identify its potential as an applicable and valuable tool across specialties. We determined that PROMIS utilization has significantly increased within the past decade. The existing literature reviewed in this scoping study demonstrates that the PROMIS computerized adaptive test domains evaluating physical function status are reliable, responsive, and interpretable in most contexts of patient care throughout all orthopaedic surgery subspecialties. Based on these results, this study recommends the expanded and more uniform use of PROMIS computerized adaptive test measurement instruments in the clinical care of orthopaedic patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00407-w.

The Effect of the Severity of Preoperative Disability on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), satisfaction, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion stratified by preoperative disability.

METHODS

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions were grouped by preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score: ODI <41 or ODI ≥41. PROMs administered pre/postoperatively included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF), visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg, ODI, and 12-Item Short-Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS)/12-Item Short-Form Mental Composite Score (SF-12 MCS). Satisfaction scores were collected for VAS back/leg and ODI. Coarsened exact match controlled for differences between cohorts. T tests compared mean PROMs and postoperative improvement/satisfaction between cohorts. Simple logistic regression compared MCID achievement.

RESULTS

After coarsened exact matching, there were 118 patients in the ODI ≤41 and 377 patients in the ODI >41 cohort. The ODI >41 cohort saw greater postoperative inpatient VAS pain score and narcotic consumption on days 0/1 (P < 0.018, all). PROMs differed between cohorts: PROMIS-PF, SF-12 PCS, ODI, VAS back/leg at all postoperative time points and SF-12 MCS at 6 weeks/12 weeks/6 months/1 year (P < 0.045, all). Patients in the ODI >41 cohort demonstrated greater proportion achieving MCID for ODI at all postoperative time points and for SF-12 MCS 6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year (P < 0.040, all). The ODI ≤41 cohort demonstrated greater MCID achievement for overall PROMIS-PF and SF-12 PCS 6 months (P < 0.047, all). Postoperative satisfaction was greater in the ODI ≤41 cohort for VAS leg 6 weeks/12 weeks, VAS back 6 weeks/12 weeks, and ODI all postoperative time points (P < 0.048, all).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative disability associated with worse postoperative PROMs and patient satisfaction for disability, back/leg pain at multiple time points. MCID achievement rates across cohorts were similar for most PROMs at most postoperative time points. Patients with severe disability may have unrealistic expectations for surgical benefits, influencing corresponding postoperative satisfaction.

Real-world patient data: Can they support decision making and patient engagement?

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture data related to patients' perception of their health status and aspects of health care delivery. In parallel, digital innovations have advanced the administration, storage, processing, and accessibility of PROs, allowing these data to become actively incorporated in day-to-day clinical practice along the entire patient care pathway. Further, the emergence of shared decision making, where patients are engaged in informed treatment selection aligned with their preferences, values, and needs, can be realized by PROs and technology. This technology-enabled, data-driven approach provides insights which, when actioned, can enhance musculoskeletal care of patients and populations, while enriching the clinician-patient experience of decision making. In this review, we provide an overview of the opportunities enabled by PROs and technology for the cycle of orthopedic care.

The Effect of the Severity of Preoperative Back Pain on Patient-Reported Outcomes, Recovery Ratios, and Patient Satisfaction Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF)

BACKGROUND

Limited literature has addressed impact of preoperative back pain severity on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), recovery ratios (RRs), and patient satisfaction following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).

METHODS

MIS TLIFs were retrospectively identified and grouped: preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) back ≤7 or VAS back >7. PROMs, including PROMIS-PF, VAS back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-12 Physical Composite Score and Mental Composite Score (MCS), were collected pre- and postoperatively. A PROM's RR was calculated as proportion of postoperative improvement to overall potential improvement.

RESULTS

In total, 740 patients were included: 359 patients with VAS back ≤7 and 381 patients with VAS back >7. The VAS back >7 cohort reported significantly greater postoperative inpatient pain (P ≤ .003, both). All preoperative and the following postoperative PROMs favored the VAS back ≤7 cohort: PROMIS-PF 2-years, VAS back overall, SF-12 Physical Composite Score 12 weeks and 1 year, SF-12 MCS 6 weeks/12 weeks, VAS leg 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 2 years, and ODI overall (P ≤ 0.048, all). The VAS back >7 cohort demonstrated greater delta PROMs for all VAS back and ODI except 2 years (P ≤ 0.021, all). A greater proportion of patients in the VAS back >7 group achieved minimal clinically important difference for VAS back overall, ODI 6 weeks/12 weeks, PROMIS-PF 6 weeks, and SF-12 MCS 6 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.044, all). The VAS back>7 cohort RR was significantly greater for VAS back 6 months and VAS leg 6 months/2 years (P ≤ 0.034, all). The VAS back ≤7 cohort's postoperative satisfaction was significantly greater for VAS back 12 weeks, VAS leg 12 weeks, and ODI 6 weeks/12 weeks (P ≤ 0.046, all).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with greater preoperative back pain demonstrated significantly worse postoperative scores for most PROMs at most time points and significantly worse patient satisfaction for disability, back and leg pain at multiple time points.

Patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures

PURPOSE

To identify patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in a hand and upper extremity clinic in Baltimore, Maryland.

METHODS

We conducted 12 h of direct observation of PROM completion (October-November, 2020). Ethnographic observation memos were qualitatively analyzed for barriers and facilitators using rapid thematic analysis. Informed by observation findings, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with mixed-literacy patients, caregivers, and clinic staff to understand the patient experience when completing PROMs (November 2020-March 2021). We identified initial themes through inductive and deductive framework analysis and validated findings through subsequent interviews with member-checking.

RESULTS

We identified nine patient-level factors that influence PROM completion: platform design, print literacy, health literacy, technology literacy, language proficiency, physical functioning, vision, cognitive functioning, and time.

CONCLUSIONS

There are multiple distinct patient-level factors that affect PROM completion. Failure to consider these factors in PROM design and implementation may lower completion rates or prevent accurate completion, undermining PROM validity. Because certain factors affect minority populations at disproportionate rates, this may also contribute to existing health disparities.

Testing Digital Methods of Patient-Reported Outcomes Data Collection: A prospective, cluster randomized trial to test text messaging and mobile surveys. (Preprint)

Background

Health care delivery continues to evolve, with an effort being made to create patient-centered care models using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data. Collecting PROs has remained challenging and an expanding landscape of digital health offers a variety of methods to engage patients.

Objective

The aim of this study is to prospectively investigate two common methods of remote PRO data collection. The study sought to compare response and engagement rates for bidirectional SMS text messaging and mobile surveys following orthopedic surgery.

Methods

The study was a prospective, block randomized trial of adults undergoing elective orthopedic procedures over 6 weeks. The primary objective was to determine if the method of digital patient engagement would impact response and completion rates. The primary outcome was response rate and total completion of PRO questionnaires.

Results

A total of 127 participants were block randomized into receiving a mobile survey (n=63) delivered as a hyperlink or responding to the same questions through an automated bidirectional SMS text messaging system (n=64). Gender, age, number of comorbidities, and opioid prescriptions were similar across messaging arms. Patients receiving the mobile survey were more likely to have had a knee-related surgery (n=50, 83.3% vs n=40, 62.5%; P=.02) but less likely to have had an invasive procedure (n=26, 41.3% vs n=39, 60.9%; P=.03). Overall engagement over the immediate postoperative period was similar. Prolonged engagement for patients taking opioids past postoperative day 4 was higher in the mobile survey arm at day 7 (18/19, 94.7% vs 9/16, 56.3%). Patients with more invasive procedures showed a trend toward being responsive at day 4 as compared to not responding (n=41, 59.4% vs n=24, 41.4%; P=.05).

Conclusions

As mobile patient engagement becomes more common in health care, testing the various options to engage patients to gather data is crucial to inform future care and research. We found that bidirectional SMS text messaging and mobile surveys were comparable in response and engagement rates; however, mobile surveys may trend toward higher response rates over longer periods of time.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03532256; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03532256

Editorial Commentary: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Needs an Anchor to Correlate Pain and Satisfactory Function in New Patient Orthopaedic Visits

In today's health care climate, the patient perspective is becoming increasingly important. As the health care paradigm shifts toward value-based health care, patient-reported outcomes are becoming increasingly important for not only research but for routine clinical care. While there are many outcome instruments used for musculoskeletal care, the addition of the simple question of "how are you doing" or "are your symptoms manageable" can provide additional valuable insight to the provider and help improve care using a shared decision model. In other words, if you want to know how the patient is doing, you have to ask them. This biopsychosocial approach demonstrates caring for the entire patient. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a patient-reported outcome instrument that was developed using the biopsychosocial model and has the advantage of being administered as a computer adaptive test. It can be used across health care and is comparable across medical specialties as the scores are standardized to US population-based norms. When used in isolation, PROMIS provides an idea of how the patient is doing compared with the population but does not give the insight as to how the patient is coping with their condition. The addition of an anchor question, such as their patient acceptable symptom state, adds further understanding to the individual patient.

Preoperative Patient-Centric Predictors of Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Meniscectomy

PURPOSE

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer-adaptive testing assessments in patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. The secondary purpose was to identify which preoperative patient factors are associated with MCID achievement.

METHODS

Three PROMIS computer-adaptive testing assessments (Physical Function [PF], Pain Interference [PI], and Depression [D]) were administered to all patients presenting to 1 of 2 board-certified, sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons. Patients with Current Procedural Terminology codes of 29880 or 29881 were chart reviewed for a host clinical and demographic factors. PROMIS scores were assessed for improvement and patient characteristics were assessed for influence on any improvement. MCID was calculated according to the distribution methodology and receiver operating characteristics were used to assess preoperative scores predictive ability.

RESULTS

In total, 166 patients met inclusion criteria (58 exclusions). Postoperative PROMIS-PF (45.6), PROMIS-PI (54.6), and PROMIS-D (44.1) significantly improved at least 3 months after surgery when compared with baseline (P = .002). MCID values for PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D were 3.5, 3.3, and 4.4, respectively. Individuals with PROMIS-PF scores below 34.9 yielded an 82% probability of achieving MCID, while PROMIS-PI scores above 67.5 yielded an 86% probability of achieving MCID and a cutoff of 58.9 for PROMIS-D yielded a 60% probability of achieving MCID, with 90% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS scores, obtained preoperatively, were shown to be valid predictors of postoperative clinical improvement in patients undergoing meniscectomy. Our findings suggest that patients with physical function scores of 34.9 or less have an increased probability of reaching a minimal clinically important difference. Similarly, patients with pain interference scores of 67.5 and above have increased probability of reaching MCID for pain interference. These cutoffs may be used by physicians to aid in the counseling of patients considering arthroscopic meniscectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Case Series.

URMC Universal Depression Screening Initiative: Patient Reported Outcome Assessments to Promote a Person-Centered Biopsychosocial Population Health Management Strategy

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote person-centered biopsychosocial health care by measuring outcomes that matter to patients, including functioning and well-being. Data support feasibility and acceptability of PRO administration as part of routine clinical care, but less is known about its effects on population health, including detection of unmet healthcare needs. Our objectives were to examine differences in rates of clinically significant depression across sociodemographic groups and clinical settings from universal depression screens in a large health system, estimate the number of patients with untreated depression detected by screenings, and examine associations between biopsychosocial PROs-physical, psychological, and social health. Methods: We analyzed data from over 200,000 adult patients who completed depression screens-either PROMIS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) or PHQ-2/9-as part of routine outpatient care. Results: Depression screens were positive in 14.2% of the sample, with more positive screens among younger vs. older adults, women vs. men, non-White vs. White, and Hispanics vs. non-Hispanics. These same sociodemographic indicators, as well as completing screening in primary care (vs. specialty care) were also associated with greater likelihood of detected depression in the medical record. Discussion: Universal screening for depression symptoms throughout a large health system appears acceptable and has the potential to detect depression in diverse patient populations outside of behavioral health. Expanded delivery of PROs to include physical and social health as well as depression should be explored to develop a clinically-relevant model for addressing patients' biopsychosocial needs in an integrated fashion across the health system.

Compilation and Analysis of Web-Based Orthopedic Personalized Predictive Tools: A Scoping Review

Web-based personalized predictive tools in orthopedic surgery are becoming more widely available. Despite rising numbers of these tools, many orthopedic surgeons may not know what tools are available, how these tools were developed, and how they can be utilized. The aim of this scoping review is to compile and synthesize the profile of existing web-based orthopedic tools. We conducted two separate PubMed searches-one a broad search and the second a more targeted one involving high impact journals-with the aim of comprehensively identifying all existing tools. These articles were then screened for functional tool URLs, methods regarding the tool's creation, and general inputs and outputs required for the tool to function. We identified 57 articles, which yielded 31 unique web-based tools. These tools involved various orthopedic conditions (e.g., fractures, osteoarthritis, musculoskeletal neoplasias); interventions (e.g., fracture fixation, total joint arthroplasty); outcomes (e.g., mortality, clinical outcomes). This scoping review highlights the availability and utility of a vast array of web-based personalized predictive tools for orthopedic surgeons. Increased awareness and access to these tools may allow for better decision support, surgical planning, post-operative expectation management, and improved shared decision-making.

Implementing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in health systems to support value-based care

Models of Care (MoCs), and their local Models of Service Delivery, for people with musculoskeletal conditions are becoming an acceptable way of supporting effective implementation of value-based care. MoCs can support the quadruple aim of value-based care through providing people with musculoskeletal disease improved access to health services, better health outcomes and satisfactory experience of their healthcare; ensure the health professionals involved are experiencing satisfaction in delivering such care and health system resources are better utilised. Implementation of MoCs is relevant at the levels of clinical practice (micro), service delivery organisations (meso) and health system (macro) levels. The development, implementation and evaluation of MoCs has evolved over the last decade to more purposively engage people with lived experience of their condition, to operationalise the Chronic Care Model and to employ innovative solutions. This paper explores how MoCs have evolved and are supporting the delivery of value-based care in health systems.

Patient-reported outcomes in RA care improve patient communication, decision-making, satisfaction and confidence: qualitative results

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinics, from the perspective of patients with RA, clinicians and other staff.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study using a mixed methods sequential explanatory design at an academic arthritis clinic. RA patients completed selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures on tablets in the waiting room. Results were immediately available to discuss during the visit. Post-visit surveys with patients and physicians evaluated topics discussed and their impact on decision making; patients rated confidence in treatment. Focus groups or interviews with patients, treating rheumatologists and clinic staff were conducted to understand perspectives and experiences.

RESULTS

Some 196 patients and 20 rheumatologists completed post-visit surveys at 816 and 806 visits, respectively. Focus groups were conducted with 24 patients, 10 rheumatologists and 4 research/clinic staff. PROs influenced medical decision-making and RA treatment changes (38 and 18% of visits, respectively). Patients reported very high satisfaction and treatment confidence. Impact on clinical workflow was minimal after a period of initial adjustment. PROs were valued by patients and physicians, and provided new insight into how patients felt and functioned over time. Reviewing results together improved communication, and facilitated patient-centred care, shared decision making, and the identification of new symptoms and contributing psychosocial/behavioural factors.

CONCLUSION

PRO use at RA visits was feasible, increased understanding of how disease affects how patients feel and function, facilitated shared decision-making, and was associated with high patient satisfaction and treatment confidence.

Do PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Correlate to the Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index in Spine Trauma Patients?

STUDY DESIGN

Correlational study.

OBJECTIVE

In spine trauma patients, we aimed to assess the correlation of patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and Depression scores with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) ODI/NDI scores.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The ODI and NDI were intended as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients seeking spine care. To date, the PROMIS has not been studied in the spine trauma population.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2015 and December 13, 2017, patients presenting to a single, level 1 trauma center spine clinic with known spine trauma were identified. A total of 56 patients (52 operative, 4 nonoperative) representing 181 encounters were identified. PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression, as well as the ODI or NDI, were administered to patients. Spearman rho (ρ) were calculated between PROMs.

RESULTS

A strong correlation exists between PROMIS PI and the ODI (ρ = 0.79, P < 0.001), while a strong-moderate correlation exists between PROMIS PF and the ODI (ρ = -0.61, P < 0.001). A moderate correlation exists between PROMIS Depression and the ODI (ρ = 0.54, P < 0.001). Strong correlations exist between PROMIS PI and the NDI (ρ = 0.71, P < 0.001) and PROMIS Depression and the NDI (ρ = 0.73, P < 0.001). A poor correlation exists between PROMIS PF and the NDI (ρ = -0.28, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains significantly correlate with the ODI and NDI; however, only PROMIS PI strongly correlates with both the NDI and ODI. This suggests that PROMIS PI can be used to capture similar information to that of the ODI or NDI but that PROMIS PF and Depression may offer additional clinical information.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Predicting Patient-Centered Outcomes from Spine Surgery Using Risk Assessment Tools: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature in patients undergoing spine surgery in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine to determine the available risk assessment tools to predict the patient-centered outcomes of pain, disability, physical function, quality of life, psychological disposition, and return to work after surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk assessment tools can assist surgeons and other healthcare providers in identifying the benefit-risk ratio of surgical candidates. These tools gather demographic, medical history, and other pertinent patient-reported measures to calculate a probability utilizing regression or machine learning statistical foundations. Currently, much is still unknown about the use of these tools to predict quality of life, disability, and other factors following spine surgery. A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines that identified risk assessment tools that utilized patient-reported outcome measures as part of the calculation. From 8128 identified studies, 13 articles met inclusion criteria and were accepted into this review. The range of c-index values reported in the studies was between 0.63 and 0.84, indicating fair to excellent model performance. Post-surgical patient-reported outcomes were identified in the following categories (n = total number of predictive models): return to work (n = 3), pain (n = 9), physical functioning and disability (n = 5), quality of life (QOL) (n = 6), and psychosocial disposition (n = 2). Our review has synthesized the available evidence on risk assessment tools for predicting patient-centered outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery and described their findings and clinical utility.

The utility of PROMIS domain measures in dermatologic care

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures play an important role in clinical care. Currently, a broad-spectrum, validated PRO measure suitable for all dermatology patients, as part of clinical care, does not exist. Patient-reported Outcome Measures Information System (PROMIS) measures track specific domain outcomes across all diseases. To assess the relevance and utility of a computer-adaptive health assessment consisting of three PROMIS domains in routine dermatologic care. This retrospective study evaluated a PROMIS health assessment, consisting of three computer-adaptive test domains (pain interference, anxiety, and depression), administered as part of routine clinical care in three dermatology clinics at an academic medical center. The primary objective was to identify clinically significant associations between high PROMIS domain scores (i.e., t score > 55) and dermatologic disease, as well as change in PROMIS domain scores in response to treatment. The majority of patients who initiated the assessment completed all domains (88.7%). In patients with atopic dermatitis, acne, hidradenitis suppurativa, and psoriasis, high PROMIS scores correlated with clinically relevant outcomes, such as severe disease, unsuccessful treatment, uncontrolled disease, and the presence of a mental health condition. PROMIS Pain Interference, anxiety and depression identified patients with severe disease, unsuccessful treatment regimens, poorly-controlled disease, and/or mental health comorbidities for multiple skin conditions. Further utilization of PROMIS domains in routine clinical care will promote patient-centered care and improve quality of care.