Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty

Assessing the Association of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Patient-Reported Outcomes on Shared Decision-Making among Multimorbid Individuals

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an essential component of patient-centered healthcare and disease management. However, the association of SDM with healthcare resource utilization and patient-reported outcomes among multimorbid individuals is not well understood. This study sought to evaluate the association of SDM with healthcare resource utilization and patient-reported outcomes among United States (US) adults with multimorbidity. Data were collected from the 2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for this cross-sectional study. Eligible participants were US adults with two or more comorbidities. The predictor variable was SDM (optimal versus not optimal). The outcome variables were healthcare resource utilization and patient-reported outcomes. Logistic regression models, adjusted for demographic characteristics, assessed associations with SDM for each healthcare resource utilization and patient-reported outcome variable. The analysis maintained the complex survey data and was weighted to produce nationally representative estimates. Individuals who reported optimal SDM in adjusted analyses utilized more healthcare resources compared to those who reported not optimal SDM. Individuals with optimal SDM had more than one outpatient visit (odds ratio OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.03-1.47), emergency room visit (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.17-2.06), and inpatient discharge (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.05-1.96). Additionally, these individuals had higher odds of reporting limitations in their ability to work or engage in other activities due to their physical health in the past four weeks (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.01-1.60). This study indicated evidence of increased healthcare resource utilization among patients who participate in SDM with their providers, which should be explored in future studies.

Systematic Review of Gender and Sex Terminology Use in Arthroplasty Research: There Is Room for Improvement

BACKGROUND

There is increasing appreciation of the distinction between gender and sex as well as the importance of accurately reporting these constructs. Given recent attention regarding transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) and intersex identities, it is more necessary than ever to understand how to describe these identities in research. This study sought to investigate the use of gender- and sex-based terminology in arthroplasty research.

METHODS

The 5 leading orthopaedic journals publishing arthroplasty research were reviewed to identify the first twenty primary clinical research articles on an arthroplasty topic published after January 1, 2022. Use of gender- or sex-based terminology, whether use was discriminate, and whether stratification or adjustment based on gender or sex was performed, were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 98 of 100 articles that measured a construct of gender or sex. Of these, 15 articles used gender-based terminology, 45 used sex-based terminology, and 38 used a combination of gender- and sex-based terminology. Of the 38 articles using a combination of terminology, none did so discriminately. All articles presented gender and sex as binary variables, and 2 attempted to explicitly define how gender or sex were defined. Of the 98 articles, 31 used these variables for statistical adjustments, though only 6 reported stratified results.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroplasty articles infrequently describe how gender or sex was measured, and frequently use this terminology interchangeably. Additionally, these articles rarely offer more than 2 options for capturing variation in sex and gender. Future research should be more precise in the treatment of these variables to improve the quality of results and ensure findings are patient-centered and inclusive.

The Impact of Text Messaging to Promote Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Completion in Orthopedic Practice: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Study

It is difficult to achieve high response rates to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) surveys collected as part of clinical care. However, they are operationally and clinically important. To understand the impact of text message reminders on response rates to PROMs collected via email as part of routine care for hip or knee replacement surgery, initial nonresponders were randomized to receive a text reminder or not at 7 and 12 days, if needed. At day 7, the overall survey response rate was 63%. Model-derived estimates for survey return after this point were 51.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48.0%-54.2%) in the text arm compared to 34.5% (95% CI, 31.6%-37.6%) in the no text arm. The effect of text messages on response rates did not vary by subpopulations considered nor were there differences in rates of key outcomes between the 2 groups, suggesting that it did not impact any underlying response bias. Given the relative low cost of text messages, they can be an efficient means to increase response rates.

Shared Decision Making in Hallux Valgus Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study

Patient-physician communication has the potential to improve outcomes and satisfaction through the shared decision-making process (SDM). This study aims to assess the relationship between perception of SDM and demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing Hallux Valgus (HV) correction. A prospective analysis of 306 patients scheduled for HV surgery was completed. The CollaboRATE score was used to measure SDM. Multivariable linear regression model was used to assess whether SDM scores were associated with preoperative characteristics or postoperative outcome scores. The mean CollaboRATE score was 2.9 (SD 0.9) and did not differ by age, socioeconomic status, or sex. Lower CollaboRATE scores were associated with more symptoms of depression, lower socioeconomic status, and lower general health scores (p-value < 0.05). There was no association between SDM scores and postoperative outcome scores. In this study, patients with depressive symptoms and lower socioeconomic status had worse perceptions of SDM. There was no difference in postoperative outcomes among participants based on SDM scores. Level of Evidence: Level III, prospective observational study.

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose

The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement.

Methods

Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers.

Results

During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome.

Conclusions

Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

Expert Consensus for the Use of Outpatient Rehabilitation Visits After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Delphi Study

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus for how to use rehabilitation visits after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We sought to develop expert recommendations for outpatient rehabilitation visit usage after TKA. DESIGN: Delphi study. METHODS: First, we developed a broad list of preliminary visit usage recommendations, which were specific to patients' recovery status (ie, slow, typical, or fast recovery) and time since surgery. We then invited 49 TKA experts to participate on a Delphi panel. During round 1, we surveyed panelists regarding their level of agreement with each preliminary recommendation. We conducted additional Delphi rounds as needed to build consensus, which we defined using the RAND/UCLA method. We updated the survey each round based on panelist feedback and responses from the previous round. RESULTS: Thirty panelists agreed to participate, and 29 panelists completed 2 Delphi rounds. The panel reached consensus on recommendations related to visit frequency, visit timing, and the use of telerehabilitation. The panel recommended that outpatient rehabilitation should begin within 1 week after surgery at a frequency of 2 times per week for the first postoperative month regardless of recovery status. The panel recommended different visit frequencies depending on the patient's recovery status for postoperative months 2 to 3. The panel agreed that telerehabilitation can be recommended for most patients after TKA, but not for patients recovering slowly. CONCLUSION: We used the Delphi process to develop expert recommendations for the use of outpatient rehabilitation visits after TKA. We envision these recommendations could help patients decide how to use visits based on their own preferences. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-9. Epub: 10 July 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11840.

The Skeletal Oncology Research Group Machine Learning Algorithm (SORG-MLA) for predicting prolonged postoperative opioid prescription after total knee arthroplasty: an international validation study using 3,495 patients from a Taiwanese cohort

BACKGROUND

Preoperative prediction of prolonged postoperative opioid use (PPOU) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) could identify high-risk patients for increased surveillance. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine learning algorithm (SORG-MLA) has been tested internally while lacking external support to assess its generalizability. The aims of this study were to externally validate this algorithm in an Asian cohort and to identify other potential independent factors for PPOU.

METHODS

In a tertiary center in Taiwan, 3,495 patients receiving TKA from 2010-2018 were included. Baseline characteristics were compared between the external validation cohort and the original developmental cohorts. Discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] and precision-recall curve [AUPRC]), calibration, overall performance (Brier score), and decision curve analysis (DCA) were applied to assess the model performance. A multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate other potential prognostic factors.

RESULTS

There were notable differences in baseline characteristics between the validation and the development cohort. Despite these variations, the SORG-MLA ( https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/tjaopioid/ ) remained its good discriminatory ability (AUROC, 0.75; AUPRC, 0.34) and good overall performance (Brier score, 0.029; null model Brier score, 0.032). The algorithm could bring clinical benefit in DCA while somewhat overestimating the probability of prolonged opioid use. Preoperative acetaminophen use was an independent factor to predict PPOU (odds ratio, 2.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The SORG-MLA retained its discriminatory ability and good overall performance despite the different pharmaceutical regulations. The algorithm could be used to identify high-risk patients and tailor personalized prevention policy.

Protocol paper for SMART OPS: Shared decision-making Multidisciplinary Approach - a Randomised controlled Trial in the Older adult Population considering Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The Australian population presenting with surgical pathology is becoming older, frailer and more comorbid. Shared decision-making is rapidly becoming the gold standard of care for patients considering high-risk surgery to ensure that appropriate, value-based healthcare decisions are made. Positive benefits around patient perception of decision-making in the immediacy of the decision are described in the literature. However, short-term and long-term holistic patient-centred outcomes and cost implications for the health service require further examination to better understand the full impact of shared decision-making in this population.

METHODS

We propose a novel multidisciplinary shared decision-making model of care in the perioperative period for patients considering high-risk surgery in the fields of general, vascular and head and neck surgery. We assess it in a two arm prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients are randomised to either 'standard' perioperative care, or to a multidisciplinary (surgeon, anaesthetist and end-of-life care nurse practitioner or social worker) shared decision-making consultation. The primary outcome is decisional conflict prior to any surgical procedure occurring. Secondary outcomes include the patient's treatment choice, how decisional conflict changes longitudinally over the subsequent year, patient-centred outcomes including life impact and quality of life metrics, as well as morbidity and mortality. Additionally, we will report on healthcare resource use including subsequent admissions or representations to a healthcare facility up to 1 year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH13349). Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and within scientific research journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619001543178.

Instruments to assess appropriateness of hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess criteria and psychometric properties of instruments for assessing appropriateness of elective joint arthroplasty (JA) for adults with primary hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Eligible articles include all study designs developing, testing, and/or using an instrument to assess JA appropriateness. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. Instruments were compared with Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Psychometric properties of instruments were described and appraised guided by Fitzpatrick's and COSMIN approaches.

RESULTS

Of 55 instruments included, none met all Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Criteria the most met were pain (n = 50), function (n = 49), quality of life (n = 33), and radiography (n = 24). Criteria the least met were clinical evidence of OA (n = 18), expectations (n = 15), readiness for surgery (n = 11), conservative treatments (n = 8), and patient/surgeon agree benefits outweigh risks (n = 0). Instrument by Arden et al. met the most criteria (6 of 9). The most tested psychometric properties were appropriateness (n = 55), face/content validity (n = 55), predictive validity (n = 29), construct validity and feasibility (n = 24). The least tested psychometric properties were intra-rater reliability (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 5), and inter-rater reliability (n = 13). Instruments by Gutacker et al. and Osborne et al. met the most psychometric properties (4 of 10).

CONCLUSION

Most instruments included traditional criteria for assessing JA appropriateness but did not include a trial of conservative treatments or shared decision-making elements. There was limited evidence on psychometric properties.