Consensus Guidelines for Assessment and Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation in Rural Pain Clinics

Recent advancements in nurse anesthesiology fellowship training programs have helped to establish advanced pain management services for rural communities. Consensus guidelines to direct the rural provider toward the most valid and reliable measures for pain assessment and functional outcomes evaluation are not presently available. The primary aim of this initiative was to establish consensus guidelines for a comprehensive outcome evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments that can be utilized by all rural pain clinics. The American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology Nonsurgical Pain Management Advisory Panel members provided formative and expert feedback for this initiative. The Delphi model was utilized to achieve consensus through multiple rounds of surveys. Items achieving >70% agree/strongly agree were kept; items with >70% disagree/strongly disagree were rejected; items meeting neither advanced to the following round for evaluation until consensus was met. During round I, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the Numerical Rating Scale for pain severity; and (2) timing of pain severity & functional pain outcomes on each office visit and before/after each intervention. Round II, consensus was achieved for: (1) the use of Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale as a suitable instrument when literacy or communication pose a barrier but not as a primary assessment; and (2) the use of the Brief Pain Index-Short Form for functional outcome measures. During round III, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the Oswestry Disability Index as a functional outcome measure; and (2) pain reassessment being performed within 14 days of intervention. This initiative provides rural pain clinics with a comprehensive outcome evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments.

Measuring Signs of Atopic Dermatitis in Clinical Practice: A HOME-CP Consensus Statement

Importance

Outcome measurement is an essential component of value-based health care and can aid patient care, quality improvement, and clinical effectiveness evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice initiative aims to identify a list of validated, feasible, outcome measurement instruments recommended to measure atopic dermatitis (AD) in the clinical practice setting. The clinical practice set is a list of instruments that clinicians can pick and choose from to suit their needs in the context of clinical care.

Objective

To recommend instruments to measure clinical signs of AD in clinical practice.

Evidence Review

Following the predefined roadmap, a mixed methods design was implemented and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods. Previous systematic reviews identified few clinical signs instruments with sufficient validation for recommendation. An updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments informed an international meeting to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement. An in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, on October 16, 2022. The 34 attendees included patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives.

Findings

The updated systematic review found that the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis, and objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis were the only instruments that demonstrated sufficient performance in all assessed measurement properties. The modified EASI and Signs Global Assessment × Body Surface Area instruments were also recommended. The EASI, Validated Investigator Global Assessment, and Investigator's Global Assessment multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area measure achieved consensus in criteria and were adopted.

Conclusions and Relevance

This consensus statement by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative suggests that when assessing and documenting clinical signs of AD, there are several valid and feasible instruments that can best fit a clinician's specific practice needs. These instruments should improve and standardize the documentation of signs severity, help determine the effect of treatment, facilitate the generation of clinical effectiveness evidence, and enhance the implementation of value-based health care.

Protocol-based assessment and management of first episode psychosis: Comparison of short and medium-term outcomes in psychopathology, quality of life, functioning and family burden across two sites in India

BACKGROUND

Standard assessment and management protocols exist for first episode psychosis (FEP) in high income countries. Due to cultural and resource differences, these need to be modified for application in low-and middle-income countries.

AIMS

To assess the applicability of standard assessment and management protocols across two cohorts of FEP patients in North and South India by examining trajectories of psychopathology, functioning, quality of life and family burden in both.

METHOD

FEP patients at two sites (108 at AIIMS, North India, and 115 at SCARF, South India) were assessed using structured instruments at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Standard management protocols consisted of treatment with antipsychotics and psychoeducation for patients and their families. Generalised estimating equation (GEE) modelling was carried out to test for changes in outcomes both across and between sites at follow-up.

RESULTS

There was an overall significant improvement in both cohorts for psychopathology and other outcome measures. The trajectories of improvement differed between the two sites with steeper improvement in non-affective psychosis in the first three months at SCARF, and affective symptoms in the first three months at AIIMS. The reduction in family burden and improvement in quality of life were greater at AIIMS than at SCARF during the first three months.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite variations in cultural contexts and norms, it is possible to implement FEP standard assessment and management protocols in North and South India. Preliminary findings indicate that FEP services lead to significant improvements in psychopathology, functioning, quality of life, and family burden within these contexts.

Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS): A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Negative symptoms are very important for the overall loss of functioning observed in patients with schizophrenia. There is a need for valid tools to assess these symptoms.

STUDY DESIGN

We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) systematic review guideline to evaluate the quality of the clinical assessment interview for negative symptoms (CAINS) as a clinician-rated outcome measurement (ClinROM).

STUDY RESULTS

The search strategy resulted in the retrieval of 13 articles, 11 of which were included in this evaluation. In terms of risk of bias, most articles reported on measures of internal consistency and construct validity, which were overall of good quality. Structural validity, reliability, measurement error, and cross-cultural validity were reported with less than optimum quality. There was a risk of bias in ClinROM development. According to the updated criteria of good measurement properties, structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability showed good results. In contrast, hypothesis testing was somewhat poorer. Results for cross-cultural validity were indeterminate. According to the updated GRADE approach from the COSMIN group the scale received a moderate grade.

CONCLUSIONS

The COSMIN standard allows a judgment of the CAINS as an instrument with the potential to be recommended for use, but which requires further research to assess its quality, in particular in the domains of content validity, internal consistency, and cross-cultural validity.

The sensitivity outcome index system for home care of elderly liver transplant patients was developed based on the Omaha problem classification system

OBJECTIVE

Based on the Omaha problem classification system, a sensitivity outcome index system for home nursing of elderly liver transplant patients was established.

METHODS

Through a comprehensive literature review and rigorous application of the Delphi method, a panel of 20 experts completed two rounds of effective letter consultation to obtain expert consensus opinions. The contents of indicators were determined based on this process, and the analytic hierarchy process was employed to confirm the weightage assigned to each indicator. Consequently, we established a sensitivity outcome index system for home care in elderly liver transplant patients.

RESULTS

The effective recovery rate of the questionnaire in two rounds of expert consultation was 100%, and the proportion of experts who gave opinions was 55% and 15%, respectively, indicating that the experts were highly active. The expert authority coefficients were calculated as 0.904 and 0.905, respectively, indicating a high degree of expert authority. In the second round, Kendall's coordination coefficients for primary, secondary, and tertiary indicators were determined to be 0.419, 0.418, and 0.394 (P < 0.001), indicating that expert opinions tended to be consistent. Finally, we established a comprehensive sensitivity outcome index system comprising 4 first-level indexes, 20 s-level indexes, and 72 third-level indexes specifically designed for elderly liver transplantation patients.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity outcome index system of home nursing for elderly liver transplant patients can provide theoretical basis for nursing staff to build accurate individualized continuous nursing model.

Development of an International Standard Set of Outcomes and Measurement Methods for Routine Practice for Infants, Children, and Adolescents with Epilepsy: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Consensus Recommendations

At present, there is no internationally accepted set of core outcomes or measurement methods for epilepsy clinical practice. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy, and their representatives to develop minimum sets of standardized outcomes and outcome measurement methods for clinical practice. Using modified Delphi consensus methods with consecutive rounds of online voting over 12 months, a core set of outcomes and corresponding measurement tool packages to capture the outcomes were identified for infants, children, and adolescents with epilepsy. Consensus methods identified 20 core outcomes. In addition to the outcomes identified for the ICHOM Epilepsy adult standard set, behavioral, motor, and cognitive/language development outcomes were voted as essential for all infants and children with epilepsy. The proposed set of outcomes and measurement methods will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centered outcomes in daily practice.

Let's get aligned! Developing a core outcome set for clinical trials in eating disorders

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to review the outcome measures/assessment instruments used and to assess their heterogeneity/homogeneity in eating disorders (EDs) randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

APA PsycInfo, PubMed, and Embase were searched in December 2022 to identify studies published between and inclusive of January 2012 and December 2022. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were: (1) complete articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which were: (2) randomised trials, (3) in a clinical setting (4) with human subjects, (5) with an ICD or DSM diagnosis of Anorexia Nervosa, Binge Eating Disorder, or Bulimia Nervosa. The selected papers also: (6) used one or more standardised instruments designed to measure one or more psychometric characteristics associated with ED as a primary or secondary outcome, as judged by the authors of this systematic review, and (7) were published in English or Danish.

RESULTS

Ninety one articles were included, and a total of 196 outcome measures were collected.

DISCUSSION

The diversity of outcome measures in ED trials hampers result comparability and data integration. We suggest creating a core outcome measure set using the Delphi method, including clinician and patient-reported ED assessments, along with relevant comorbidity scales.

Development of an International Standard Set of Outcomes and Measurement Methods for Routine Practice for Adults with Epilepsy: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Consensus Recommendations

At present, there is no internationally accepted set of core outcomes or measurement methods for epilepsy clinical practice. Therefore, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group of experts in epilepsy, people with epilepsy and their representatives to develop minimum sets of standardized outcomes and outcomes measurement methods for clinical practice that support patient-clinician decision-making and quality improvement. Consensus methods identified 20 core outcomes. Measurement tools were recommended based on their evidence of strong clinical measurement properties, feasibility, and cross-cultural applicability. The essential outcomes included many non-seizure outcomes: anxiety, depression, suicidality, memory and attention, sleep quality, functional status, and the social impact of epilepsy. The proposed set will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centered outcomes in daily practice, ensuring holistic care. They also encourage harmonization of outcome measurement, and if widely implemented should reduce the heterogeneity of outcome measurement, accelerate comparative research, and facilitate quality improvement efforts.

An examination of the criterion-related validity of varying methods of indexing clinically significant change in posttraumatic stress disorder treatment

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians, patients, and researchers need benchmarks to index individual-level clinically significant change (CSC) to guide decision making and inferences about treatment efficacy. Yet, there is no consensus best practice for determining CSC for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments. We examined criterion-related validity of the most common approach-Jacobson and Truax's (J&T; 1991) procedures for indexing CSC. We generated and compared four methods of calculating the J&T indices of CSC (two sets of sample-specific inputs, putatively norm-referenced benchmarks, and a combination of sample-specific and norm-referenced criteria) with respect to their association with a criterion index of quality of life (QoL).

METHOD

Participants were 91 women Veterans enrolled in a randomized clinical trial for PTSD who completed self-report measures on PTSD symptoms and various domains of QoL and functioning, pre- and posttreatment. For each of the four methods used to calculate CSC, the QoL composite was regressed onto the CSC categories.

RESULTS

All methods explained large variance in change in QoL. Across all methods, participants categorized as unchanged had smaller changes in QoL, compared with those who improved or had probable recovery. The norm-referenced benchmarks accounted for the relatively largest amount of variance in QoL, but categorized the fewest patients as having made CSC.

CONCLUSIONS

The J&T methodology for indexing CSC in PTSD symptoms has criterion-related validity, and a norm-referenced benchmark appears to be the most potent. However, the norm-referenced parameters may be overly specific, potentially leading to an underestimate of improvement. Research is needed to test the generalizability of these results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Categorization of the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis population via the clinical determinant of post-onset ΔFS for study design and medical practice

The amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) has become the most widely utilized measure of disease severity in patients with ALS, with change in ALSFRS-R from baseline being a trusted primary outcome measure in ALS clinical trials. This is despite the scale having several established limitations, and although alternative scales have been proposed, it is unlikely that these will displace ALSFRS-R in the foreseeable future. Here, we discuss the merits of delta FS (ΔFS), the slope or rate of ALSFRS-R decline over time, as a relevant tool for innovative ALS study design, with an as yet untapped potential for optimization of drug effectiveness and patient management. In our view, categorization of the ALS population via the clinical determinant of post-onset ΔFS is an important study design consideration. It serves not only as a critical stratification factor and basis for patient enrichment but also as a tool to explore differences in treatment response across the overall population; thereby, facilitating identification of responder subgroups. Moreover, because post-onset ΔFS is derived from information routinely collected as part of standard patient care and monitoring, it provides a suitable patient selection tool for treating physicians. Overall, post-onset ΔFS is a very attractive enrichment tool that is, can and should be regularly incorporated into ALS trial design.

Accuracy of Early Neuroprognostication in Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

BACKGROUND

Children with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) are at risk for neurological sequelae impacting function. Clinicians are tasked with neuroprognostication to assist in decision-making. We describe a single-center study assessing clinicians' neuroprognostication accuracy.

METHODS

Clinicians of various specialties caring for children with sTBI were asked to predict their patients' functioning three to six months postinjury. Clinicians were asked to participate in the study if their patient had survived but not returned to baseline between day 4 and 7 postinjury. The outcome tool utilized was the functional status scale (FSS), ranging from 6 to 30 (best-worst function). Predicted scores were compared with actual scores three to six months postinjury. Lin concordance correlation coefficients were used to estimate agreement between predicted and actual FSS. Outcome was dichotomized as good (FSS 6 to 8) or poor (FSS ≥9). Positive and negative predictive values for poor outcome were calculated. Pessimistic prognostic prediction was defined as predicted worse outcome by ≥3 FSS points. Demographic and clinical variables were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 107 surveys were collected on 24 patients. Two children died. Fifteen children had complete (FSS = 6) or near-complete (FSS = 7) recovery. Mean predicted and actual FSS scores were 10.8 (S.D. 5.6) and 8.6 (S.D. 4.1), respectively. Predicted FSS scores were higher than actual scores (P < 0.001). Eight children had collective pessimistic prognostic prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians predicted worse functional outcomes, despite high percentage of patients with near-normal function at follow-up clinic. Certain patient and provider factors were noted to impact accuracy and need to be studied in larger cohorts.

Rosacea Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials and Practice: A Consensus Statement

Importance

Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of rosacea is impeding and likely preventing accurate data pooling and meta-analyses. There is a need for standardization of outcomes assessed during intervention trials of rosacea.

Objective

To develop a rosacea core outcome set (COS) based on key domains that are globally relevant and applicable to all demographic groups to be used as a minimum list of outcomes for reporting by rosacea clinical trials, and when appropriate, in clinical practice.

Evidence Review

A systematic literature review of rosacea clinical trials was conducted. Discrete outcomes were extracted and augmented through discussions and focus groups with key stakeholders. The initial list of 192 outcomes was refined to identify 50 unique outcomes that were rated through the Delphi process Round 1 by 88 panelists (63 physicians from 17 countries and 25 patients with rosacea in the US) on 9-point Likert scale. Based on feedback, an additional 11 outcomes were added in Round 2. Outcomes deemed to be critical for inclusion (rated 7-9 by ≥70% of both groups) were discussed in consensus meetings. The outcomes deemed to be most important for inclusion by at least 85% of the participants were incorporated into the final core domain set.

Findings

The Delphi process and consensus-building meetings identified a final core set of 8 domains for rosacea clinical trials: ocular signs and symptoms; skin signs of disease; skin symptoms; overall severity; patient satisfaction; quality of life; degree of improvement; and presence and severity of treatment-related adverse events. Recommendations were also made for application in the clinical setting.

Conclusions and Relevance

This core domain set for rosacea research is now available; its adoption by researchers may improve the usefulness of future trials of rosacea therapies by enabling meta-analyses and other comparisons across studies. This core domain set may also be useful in clinical practice.

Consensus Recommendations for Clinical Outcome Assessments and Registry Development in Ataxias: Ataxia Global Initiative (AGI) Working Group Expert Guidance

To accelerate and facilitate clinical trials, the Ataxia Global Initiative (AGI) was established as a worldwide research platform for trial readiness in ataxias. One of AGI's major goals is the harmonization and standardization of outcome assessments. Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) that describe or reflect how a patient feels or functions are indispensable for clinical trials, but similarly important for observational studies and in routine patient care. The AGI working group on COAs has defined a set of data including a graded catalog of COAs that are recommended as a standard for future assessment and sharing of clinical data and joint clinical studies. Two datasets were defined: a mandatory dataset (minimal dataset) that can ideally be obtained during a routine clinical consultation and a more demanding extended dataset that is useful for research purposes. In the future, the currently most widely used clinician-reported outcome measure (ClinRO) in ataxia, the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA), should be developed into a generally accepted instrument that can be used in upcoming clinical trials. Furthermore, there is an urgent need (i) to obtain more data on ataxia-specific, patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), (ii) to demonstrate and optimize sensitivity to change of many COAs, and (iii) to establish methods and evidence of anchoring change in COAs in patient meaningfulness, e.g., by determining patient-derived minimally meaningful thresholds of change.

Methods for Neuroscience Drug Development: Guidance on Standardization of the Process for Defining Clinical Outcome Strategies in Clinical Trials

Neurosciences clinical trials continue to have notoriously high failure rates. Appropriate outcomes selection in early clinical trials is key to maximizing the likelihood of identifying new treatments in psychiatry and neurology. The field lacks good standards for designing outcome strategies, therefore The Outcomes Research Group was formed to develop and promote good practices in outcome selection. This article describes the first published guidance on the standardization of the process for clinical outcomes in neuroscience. A minimal step process is defined starting as early as possible, covering key activities for evidence generation in support of content validity, patient-centricity, validity requirements and considerations for regulatory acceptance. Feedback from expert members is provided, regarding the risks of shortening the process and examples supporting the recommended process are summarized. This methodology is now available to researchers in industry, academia or clinics aiming to implement consensus-based standard practices for clinical outcome selection, contributing to maximizing the efficiency of clinical research.

Composite outcome measures in high-impact critical care randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of composite outcome measures (COM) in clinical trials is increasing. Whilst their use is associated with benefits, several limitations have been highlighted and there is limited literature exploring their use within critical care. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the use of COM in high-impact critical care trials, and compare study parameters (including sample size, statistical significance, and consistency of effect estimates) in trials using composite versus non-composite outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of 16 high-impact journals was conducted. Randomised controlled trials published between 2012 and 2022 reporting a patient important outcome and involving critical care patients, were included.

RESULTS

8271 trials were screened, and 194 included. 39.1% of all trials used a COM and this increased over time. Of those using a COM, only 52.6% explicitly described the outcome as composite. The median number of components was 2 (IQR 2-3). Trials using a COM recruited fewer participants (409 (198.8-851.5) vs 584 (300-1566, p = 0.004), and their use was not associated with increased rates of statistical significance (19.7% vs 17.8%, p = 0.380). Predicted effect sizes were overestimated in all but 6 trials. For studies using a COM the effect estimates were consistent across all components in 43.4% of trials. 93% of COM included components that were not patient important.

CONCLUSIONS

COM are increasingly used in critical care trials; however effect estimates are frequently inconsistent across COM components confounding outcome interpretations. The use of COM was associated with smaller sample sizes, and no increased likelihood of statistically significant results. Many of the limitations inherent to the use of COM are relevant to critical care research.

Clinician's Approach to Advanced Statistical Methods: Win Ratios, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Responder Analyses, and Standardized Mean Differences

Novel statistical methods have emerged in recent medical literature, which clinicians must understand to properly appraise and integrate evidence into their practice. Some of these key concepts include win ratios, restricted mean survival time, responder analyses, and standardized mean difference. This article offers guidance to busy clinicians on the comprehension and practical applicability of the results to patients. Win ratios provide an alternative method to analyze composite outcomes by prioritizing individual components of the composite; prioritization of the outcomes should be evidence-based, pre-specified, and patient-centered. Restricted mean survival time presents a method to analyze Kaplan-Meier curves when assumptions required for Cox proportional hazards analysis are not met. As it only considers outcomes that occur within a specific timeframe, the duration of follow-up must be appropriately defined and based on prior epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence. Researchers can analyze continuous outcomes with responder analyses, in which participants are dichotomized into "responders" or "non-responders." While clinicians and patients may more easily grasp outcomes analyzed in this way, they should be aware of the loss of information and resulting imprecision, as well as potential to manipulate data presentation. When meta-analyzing continuous outcomes, point estimates can be converted to standardized mean differences to facilitate the combination of data utilizing various outcome measures. However, clinicians may find it challenging to grasp the clinical meaningfulness of a standardized mean difference, and may benefit from converting it to well-known outcomes. By providing the background knowledge of these statistical methods, along with practical applicability, benefits, and inevitable limitations, this article aims to provide clinicians with an approach to appraise the literature and apply the results in clinical practice.

Limited English Proficiency and Outcomes in the Intensive Care Unit: An Integrated Review

INTRODUCTION

Language barriers place patients at risk of substandard care. Hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) face unique challenges, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The purpose of this review is to critique and synthesize quantitative evidence on LEP and ICU outcomes.

METHODOLOGY

Quantitative studies published in English between 1999 and 2022 were queried using intentional terminology.

RESULTS

Searches yielded 138 results, with 12 meeting inclusion criteria. The analysis resulted in the extrapolation of five themes pertinent to outcomes of ICU patients or families with LEP: (a) knowledge deficit relating to conditions and care; (b) lack of language-appropriate care; (c) alienation from care process; (d) decreased confidence and ownership of care; and (e) relationship to clinical quality indicators.

DISCUSSION

Outcomes associated with LEP were largely negative and revealed unmet needs for ICU patients with LEP. More research is needed to improve linguistically and culturally congruent care in the ICU.

Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement.

RESULTS

We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%-100%).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.

ICF-linking and psychometric properties of upper extremity mobility outcome measures in spinal cord injury - a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the outcome measures used in upper extremity rehabilitation and research in spinal cord injury and to investigate their psychometry.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, the Cochrane library, PEDro, Medline (Ovid).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

The search process and study selection was carried out as follows: Firstly, a systematic search was carried out for articles on upper extremity rehabilitation after SCI. Performance or observational outcome measures which were designed for a clinical setting were collected from selected studies. Secondly, eligible outcome measures were linked to the ICF. The ICF-linked outcome measures were further screened for inclusion according to how comprehensively they covered ICF categories. Finally, a search of the selected outcome measures was performed to investigate their psychometry.

RESULTS

A total of four outcome measures and nine psychometric studies were selected for the scoping review; six studies addressed GRASSP, one addressed AuSpinal, one addressed SHFT and one addressed TRI-HFT. Of the 13 COSMIN measurement properties, studies of GRASSP covered seven, AuSpinal covered five and both SHFT and TRI-HFT covered three properties.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychometric properties of GRASSP were most extensively studied showing eligible reliability and validity. Although there are still some measurement properties to be explored, GRASSP can be recommended for use in the evaluation of upper extremity mobility in the SCI rehabilitation and research. More research is needed on the psychometrics of other outcome measures in people with spinal cord injuries before the outcome measures can be unconditionally recommended.

Changes in Hospital Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes Associated With Private Equity Acquisition

Importance

The effects of private equity acquisitions of US hospitals on the clinical quality of inpatient care and patient outcomes remain largely unknown.

Objective

To examine changes in hospital-acquired adverse events and hospitalization outcomes associated with private equity acquisitions of US hospitals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662 095 hospitalizations at 51 private equity-acquired hospitals were compared with data for 4 160 720 hospitalizations at 259 matched control hospitals (not acquired by private equity) for hospital stays between 2009 and 2019. An event study, difference-in-differences design was used to assess hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after private equity acquisition using a linear model that was adjusted for patient and hospital attributes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hospital-acquired adverse events (synonymous with hospital-acquired conditions; the individual conditions were defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as falls, infections, and other adverse events), patient mix, and hospitalization outcomes (including mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and readmissions).

Results

Hospital-acquired adverse events (or conditions) were observed within 10 091 hospitalizations. After private equity acquisition, Medicare beneficiaries admitted to private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those treated at control hospitals (4.6 [95% CI, 2.0-7.2] additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10 000 hospitalizations, P = .004). This increase in hospital-acquired conditions was driven by a 27.3% increase in falls (P = .02) and a 37.7% increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections (P = .04) at private equity hospitals, despite placing 16.2% fewer central lines. Surgical site infections doubled from 10.8 to 21.6 per 10 000 hospitalizations at private equity hospitals despite an 8.1% reduction in surgical volume; meanwhile, such infections decreased at control hospitals, though statistical precision of the between-group comparison was limited by the smaller sample size of surgical hospitalizations. Compared with Medicare beneficiaries treated at control hospitals, those treated at private equity hospitals were modestly younger, less likely to be dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and more often transferred to other acute care hospitals after shorter lengths of stay. In-hospital mortality (n = 162 652 in the population or 3.4% on average) decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals; there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge.

Conclusions and Relevance

Private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events, including falls and central line-associated bloodstream infections, along with a larger but less statistically precise increase in surgical site infections. Shifts in patient mix toward younger and fewer dually eligible beneficiaries admitted and increased transfers to other hospitals may explain the small decrease in in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals relative to the control hospitals, which was no longer evident 30 days after discharge. These findings heighten concerns about the implications of private equity on health care delivery.