Harnessing electronic healthcare data for wound care research: Standards for reporting observational registry data obtained directly from electronic health records

The Wound Healing Index for Predicting Venous Leg Ulcer Outcome

Objective: To develop a venous leg ulcer (VLU) risk stratification system for use in research and clinical practice. Approach: U.S. Wound Registry data were examined retrospectively and assigned an outcome. Bivariate analysis identified significant variables (p < 0.05) that were used to create a multivariable logistic regression model. Ulcers with data for wound area at the first visit before debridement were included in regression analysis, which was based on a 90% development sample. The model was validated on a hold-out 10% data sample. Results: The original dataset included 26,713 VLUs, of which 11,773 ulcers were eligible for preliminary analysis and 10,942 ulcers were eligible for regression analysis. The 90% development model included 9,898 ulcers, of which 7,498 healed (75.8%). The 10% validation sample included 1,044 ulcers, of which 809 healed (77.5%). The following variables significantly predicted healing: number of concurrent wounds of any etiology, wound size, wound age (in days), evidence of bioburden/infection, being nonambulatory, and hospitalization for any reason. Innovation: The VLU Wound Healing Index (WHI) is a comprehensive, validated risk stratification model for predicting VLU healing that incorporates patient- and wound-specific variables. Conclusions: The WHI can identify which VLUs most likely require adjunctive therapies to heal, prioritize referral to venous experts, risk-stratify ulcers to create more generalizable clinical trials and understand the impact of clinical interventions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accepts this method for reporting VLU outcome under the Quality Payment Program.

Matched-cohort study comparing bioactive human split-thickness skin allograft plus standard of care to standard of care alone in the treatment of diabetic ulcers: A retrospective analysis across 470 institutions

This retrospective, matched‐cohort study analyzed 1,556 patients with diabetic ulcers treated at 470 wound centers throughout the United States to determine the effectiveness of a cryopreserved bioactive split‐thickness skin allograft plus standard of care when compared to standard of care alone. There were 778 patients treated with the graft in the treatment cohort, who were paired with 778 patients drawn from a pool of 126,864 candidates treated with standard of care alone (controls), by using propensity matching to create nearly identical cohorts. Both cohorts received standard wound care, including surgical debridement, moist wound care, and offloading. Logistic regression analysis of healing rates according to wound size, wound location, wound duration, volume reduction, exposed deep structures, and Wagner grade was performed. Amputation rates and recidivism at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after wound closure were analyzed. Diabetic ulcers were 59% more likely to close in the treatment cohort compared to the control cohort (p = 0.0045). The healing rate with the graft was better than standard of care across multiple subsets, but the most significant improvement was noted in the worst wounds that had a duration of 90‐179 days prior to treatment (p = 0.0073), exposed deep structures (p = 0.036), and/or Wagner Grade 4 ulcers (p = 0.04). Furthermore, the decrease in recidivism was statistically significant at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, with and without initially exposed deep structures (p < 0.05). The amputation rate in the treatment cohort was 41.7% less than that of the control cohort at 20 weeks (0.9% vs. 1.5%, respectively). This study demonstrated that diabetic ulcers treated with a cryopreserved bioactive split‐thickness skin allograft were more likely to heal and remain closed compared to ulcers treated with standard of care alone.

The Health Economic Impact of Living Cell Tissue Products in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicare Claims Data

OBJECTIVE

To investigate differences in wound-related costs; product waste; lower-extremity amputations; and number of applications, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits among patients treated with three cellular and/or tissue-based products.

METHODS

This retrospective intent-to-treat matched-cohort study analyzed the full Medicare claims dataset from 2011 to 2014. Patients who received either a bilayer cellular construct (BLCC), dermal skin substitute (DSS), or cryopreserved human skin allograft (CHSA) were concurrently matched for Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region, resulting in 14,546 study patients. Key variables were reported at 60, 90, and 180 days after the first product application.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region among cohorts. Wound-related costs and product wastage were lower for CHSA patients relative to both BLCC and DSS patients at all time intervals (P < .05). Patients treated with CHSA received fewer product applications than DSS at 90 and 180 days (P < .05). Amputations were significantly higher among patients treated with DSS than either CHSA or BLCC (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The data demonstrate that wound-related costs, product waste, amputations, and frequency of applications are lower for CHSA than DSS. Wound-related costs and product waste are lower for CHSA compared with BLCC. Further claims analysis and prospective clinical trials could help develop appropriate quality measures and reimbursement models to ensure smarter spending for the growing population of patients with chronic wounds.

Qualified Clinical Data Registries: How Wound Care Practitioners Can Make the Most Out of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

Significance: Wound care practitioners have no professional society to promote participation in a Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR), which is essential to thrive under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and until recently have lacked relevant quality measures to report. Practitioners can now participate in the nonprofit U.S. Wound Registry (USWR) QCDR for MIPS credit, which can receive data from any certified electronic health record (EHR) and, in so doing, generate data useful for comparative effectiveness research. Recent Advances: For 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has approved 12 wound care and hyperbaric medicine-relevant quality measures and several clinical practice Improvement Activities, which can be reported for MIPS credit through the USWR. Several QCDR measures have met the CMS 3-year reporting criteria to establish national benchmark rates, likely enabling practitioners to achieve higher quality scores than possible with standard MIPS measures. The structured registry data generated have been harnessed to evaluate adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, understand real-world patient healing rates, and demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of wound therapies. Critical Issues: Wound care practitioners can participate in a QCDR for MIPS credit, which enables them to optimize their MIPS score, particularly if they transmit data directly from their EHR. Utilizing structured data for comparative effectiveness research may help ensure patient access to advanced therapeutics. Future Directions: By 2019, to overcome technological barriers to participation, USWR quality measures will be available as "apps" for EHRs that support the interface required to achieve the next stage of EHR certification as part of the open Application Programming Initiative.

Why Is Calculating the "True" Cost-to-Heal Wounds So Challenging?

Objective: The aim of the study was to illustrate the differences in the cost-to-heal wounds using two methods: (1) reimbursement-based costing and (2) activity-based costing (ABC). Approach: A small cohort (100 patients with multiple wounds of which 1 was a diabetic foot ulcer [DFU]) was randomly selected from the U.S. Wound Registry to be representative of all patients with DFUs in the registry. Unit costs, resource utilization, and total costs were estimated through both methods. For the ABC method, costs were calculated in ranges: low, mid, and high. Results: The mean cost to heal through the reimbursement-based costing method was US$20,618 compared with a range of US$18,627-US$35,185 for the ABC method. About 20% of DFUs that cost US$10,000-US$20,000 to heal with the reimbursement-based costing method shifted to much higher values based on the ABC method. The percentage of costs represented by inpatient procedures was much lower for the reimbursement method compared with the ABC method. Innovation and Conclusions: The results show that (1) the "true" cost-to-heal DFUs strongly depend on the method used to calculate the costs, and (2) the reimbursement-based costing method may not accurately reflect real costs. The concept of aggregating episodes of care to obtain a single value equating to cost to heal is likely to remain a challenging exercise for the foreseeable future. A better approach may be to provide a range of cost values that are dependent on specific methods, such as the ABC method.

Publicly Reported Wound Healing Rates: The Fantasy and the Reality

Significance: We compare real-world data from the U.S. Wound Registry (USWR) with randomized controlled trials and publicly reported wound outcomes and develop criteria for honest reporting of wound outcomes, a requirement of the new Quality Payment Program (QPP). Recent Advances: Because no method has existed by which wounds could be stratified according to their likelihood of healing among real-world patients, practitioners have reported fantastically high healing rates. The USWR has developed several risk-stratified wound healing quality measures for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and venous leg ulcers (VLUs) as part of its Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR). This allows practitioners to report DFU and VLU healing rates in comparison to the likelihood of whether the wound would have healed. Critical Issues: Under the new QPP, practitioners must report at least one practice-relevant outcome measure, and it must be risk adjusted so that clinicians caring for the sickest patients do not appear to have worse outcomes than their peers. The Wound Healing Index is a validated risk-stratification method that can predict whether a DFU or VLU will heal, leveling the playing field for outcome reporting and removing the need to artificially inflate healing rates. Wound care practitioners can report the USWR DFU and VLU risk-stratified outcome measure to satisfy the quality reporting requirements of the QPP. Future Directions: Per the requirements of the QPP, the USWR will begin publicly reporting of risk-stratified healing rates once quality measure data have met the reporting standards of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Some basic rules for data censoring are proposed for public reporting of healing rates, and others are needed, which should be decided by consensus among the wound care community.

Comparative cost and clinical effectiveness of clostridial collagenase ointment for chronic dermal ulcers

Chronic dermal ulcers affect approximately 2.4-4.5 million people in the USA and are associated with loss of function, decreased quality of life and significant economic burden. Debridement is a critical component of wound care involving removal of nonviable tissue from chronic wounds to stimulate the granulation and epithelialization process. Clostridial collagenase ointment has been used as a method of wound debridement for more than 50 years and is currently the only enzymatic debriding ointment with US FDA approval. This review discusses the results of recent real-world studies that build upon the evidence demonstrating the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of clostridial collagenase ointment across wound types and care settings.