Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Data Collection in a Private Orthopedic Surgery Practice

Young or Old Age and Non-White Race Are Associated With Poor Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Compliance After Orthopaedic Surgery

Purpose

To investigate orthopaedic patient compliance with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and identify factors that improve response rates.

Methods

Our search strategy comprised a combination of key words and database-specific subject headings for the concepts of orthopaedic surgical procedures, compliance, and PROMs from several research databases from inception to October 11, 2022. Duplicates were removed. A total of 97 studies were included. A table was created for the remaining articles to be appraised and analyzed. The collected data included study characteristics, follow-up/compliance rate, factors that increase/decrease compliance, and type of PROM. Follow-up/compliance rate was determined to be any reported response rate. The range and average used for analysis was based on the highest or lowest number reported in the specific article.

Results

The range of compliance reported was 11.3% to 100%. The overall response rate was 68.6%. The average baseline (preoperative/previsit) response rate was 76.6%. Most studies (77%) had greater than 50% compliance. Intervention/reminder of any type (most commonly phone call or mail) resulted in improved compliance from 44.6% to 70.6%. Young and elderly non-White male patients had the lowest compliance rate. When directly compared, phone call (71.5%) resulted in a greater compliance rate than electronic-based (53.2%) or paper-based (57.6%) surveys.

Conclusions

The response rates for PROMs vary across the orthopaedic literature. Patient-specific factors, such as age (young or old) and race (non-White), may contribute to poor PROM response rate. Reminders and interventions significantly improve PROM response rates.

Clinical Relevance

PROMs are important tools in many aspects of medicine. The data generated from these tools not only provide information about individual patient outcomes but also make hypothesis-driven comparisons possible. Understanding the factors that affect patient compliance with PROMs is vital to our accurate understanding of patient outcomes and the overall advancement of medical care.

Bringing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Into Practice: A Review of the Latest Developments in PROM Use in the Evaluation and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

As health care systems globally shift toward optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full cycle of care, there has been increasing focus on using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to gauge success. Patient-reported outcome measures are validated questionnaires that allow patients to share their health status across several domains (eg, pain or physical function). This trend has been particularly notable in hand surgery, with PROM use investigated for many common hand conditions, including carpal tunnel syndrome, Dupuytren contracture, trigger finger, osteoarthritis, and wrist ganglion. The purpose of this article is to review recent developments in the use of PROM instruments, including the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, for the evaluation and treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. The considerable progress in establishing PROMs for use in carpal tunnel syndrome is reviewed, and future improvements are proposed to standardize PROM use and bring PROMs into day-to-day clinical practice for individualized patient treatment decision-making and counseling.

A Review of PROM Implementation in Surgical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current state of PROM implementation and collection in routine surgical practice through a review of the literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant in the delivery of high quality, individualized patient care. For surgeons, PROMs can provide valuable insight into changes in patient quality of life before and after surgical interventions. Despite consensus within the surgical community regarding the promise of PROMs, little is known about their real-world implementation.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase for studies published after 2012. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the current state of implementation of PROs across all sizes and types of surgical practices. Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients ≥18 years 2) routine surgical practice, (3) use of a validated PRO instrument in the peri-operative period to report on general or disease-specific health-related quality of life, (4) primary or secondary outcome was implementation. Two independent reviewers screened 1524 titles and abstracts.

FINDINGS

16 studies were identified that reported on the implementation of PROMs for surgical patients. Sample size ranged from 41 patients in a single-center pilot study to 1324 patients in a study across 17 institutions. PROs were collected pre-operatively in 3 studies, post-operatively in 10, and at unspecified times in 4. The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (12) and feasibility (11). Less than half of studies analyzed nonrespondents. All studies concluded that collection of PROMs was successful based on outcomes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies suggest that implementation metrics including minimum standards of collection pre- and postintervention, reporting for response rates in the context of patient eligibility and analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, in addition to transparency regarding the resources utilized and cost, can facilitate adoption of PROMs in clinical care and accountability for surgical outcomes.

Electronic health record-integrated approach for collection of patient-reported outcome measures: a retrospective evaluation

Background

The integration of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into clinical care presents many challenges for health systems. PROMs provide quantitative data regarding patient-reported health status. However, the most effective model for collecting PROMs has not been established. Therefore the purpose of this study is to report the development and preliminary evaluation of the standardized collection of PROMs within a department of orthopedic surgery at a large academic health center.

Methods

We utilized the Users’ Guide to Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Electronic Health Records by Gensheimer et al., 2018 as a framework to describe the development of PROMs collection initiative. We framed our initiative by operationalizing the three aspects of PROM collection development: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Next, we performed a preliminary evaluation of our initiative by assessing the response rate of patients completing PROMs (no. of PROMs completed/no. of PROMs administered) across the entire department (18 clinics), ambulatory clinics only (14 clinics), and hospital-based clinics only (4 clinics). Lastly, we reported on the mean response rates for the top 5 and bottom 5 orthopaedic providers to describe the variability across providers.

Results

We described the development of a fully-integrated, population health based implementation strategy leveraging the existing resources of our local EHR to maximize clinical utility of PROMs and routine collection. We collected a large volume of PROMs over a 13 month period (n = 10,951) across 18 clinical sites, 7 clinical specialties and over 100 providers. The response rates varied across the department, ranging from 29 to 42%, depending on active status for the portal to the electronic health record (MyChart). The highest single provider mean response rate was 52%, and the lowest provider rate was 13%. Rates were similar between hospital-based (26%) and ambulatory clinics (29%).

Conclusions

We found that our standardized PROMs collection initiative, informed by Gensheimer et al., achieved scope and scale, but faced challenges in achieving a high response rate commensurate with existing literature. However, most studies reported a targeted recruitment strategy within a narrow clinical population. Further research is needed to elucidate the trade-off between scalability and response rates in PROM collection initiatives.

Psychometric Properties of the Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Item Banks in a Dutch Clinical Sample of Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

Objective

To assess the psychometric properties of 8 pediatric Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks in a clinical sample of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Methods

A total of 154 Dutch children (mean ± SD age 14.4 ± 3.0 years; range 8–18 years) with JIA completed 8 pediatric version 1.0 PROMIS item banks (anger, anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, pain interference, peer relationships, physical function mobility, physical function upper extremity) twice and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) and the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (C‐HAQ) once. Structural validity of the item banks was assessed by fitting a graded response model (GRM) and inspecting GRM fit (comparative fit index [CFI], Tucker‐Lewis index [TLI], and root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]) and item fit (S‐X² statistic). Convergent validity (with PedsQL/C‐HAQ subdomains) and discriminative validity (active/inactive disease) were assessed. Reliability of the item banks, short forms, and computerized adaptive testing (CAT) was expressed as the SE of theta (SE[θ]). Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and smallest detectable change.

Results

All item banks had sufficient overall GRM fit (CFI >0.95, TLI >0.95, RMSEA <0.08) and no item misfit (all S‐X²P > 0.001). High correlations (>0.70) were found between most PROMIS T scores and hypothesized PedsQL/C‐HAQ (sub)domains. Mobility, pain interference, and upper extremity item banks were able to discriminate between patients with active and inactive disease. Regarding reliability, PROMIS item banks outperformed legacy instruments. Post hoc CAT simulations outperformed short forms. Test–retest reliability was strong (ICC >0.70) for all full‐length item banks and short forms, except for the peer relationships item bank.

Conclusion

The pediatric PROMIS item banks displayed sufficient psychometric properties for Dutch children with JIA. PROMIS item banks are ready for use in clinical research and practice for children with JIA.

Reporting and utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures in orthopedic research and practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information SystemⓇ (PROMISⓇ) is a dynamic system of psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. There has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS measures, yet little has been written about the reporting of these measures in the field of orthopedics. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the uptake of PROMIS measures across orthopedics and to identify the type of PROMIS measures and domains that are most commonly used in orthopedic research and practice.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus using keywords and database-specific subject headings to capture orthopedic studies reporting PROMIS measures through November 2018. Our inclusion criteria were use of PROMIS measures as an outcome or used to describe a population of patients in an orthopedic setting in patients ≥ 18 years of age. We excluded non-quantitative studies, reviews, and case reports.

RESULTS

Our final search yielded 88 studies published from 2013 through 2018, with 57% (50 studies) published in 2018 alone. By body region, 28% (25 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, hand), 36% (32 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot), 19% (17 studies) reported PROMIS measures in the spine, 10% (9 studies) reported PROMIS measures in trauma patients, and 6% (5 studies) reported PROMIS measures in general orthopedic patients. The majority of studies reported between one and three PROMIS domains (82%, 73 studies). The PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Test (CAT) approach was most commonly used (81%, 72 studies). The most frequently reported PROMIS domains were physical function (81%, 71 studies) and pain interference (61%, 54 studies).

CONCLUSION

Our review found an increase in the reporting of PROMIS measures over the recent years. Utilization of PROMIS measures in orthopedic populations is clinically appropriate and can facilitate communication of outcomes across different provider types and with reduced respondent burden.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was designed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42018088260).

Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Contribute to Primary Care Performance Measurement: a Mixed Methods Approach

New models of primary care include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote patient-centered care. PROMs provide information on patient functional status and well-being, can be used to enhance care quality, and are proposed for use in assessing performance. Our objective was to identify a short list of candidate PROMs for use in primary care practice and to serve as a basis for performance measures (PMs). We used qualitative and quantitative methods to identify relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for use in performance measurement (PRO-PM) and their associated PROMs. We collected data from key informant groups: patients (n = 13; one-on-one and group interviews; concept saturation analysis), clinical thought leaders (n = 9; group discussions; thematic analysis), primary care practices representatives (n = 37; six focus groups; thematic analysis), and primary care payer representatives (n = 10; 12-question survey; frequencies of responses). We merged the key informant group information with findings from environmental literature scans. We conducted a targeted evidence review of measurement properties for candidate PROMs. We used a scoping review and key informant groups to identify PROM evaluation criteria, which were linked to the National Quality Forum measure evaluation criteria. We developed a de novo schema to score candidate PROMs against our criteria. We identified four PRO domains and 10 candidate PROMs: 3 for depressive symptoms, 2 for physical function, 3 for self-efficacy, 2 for ability to participate. Five PROMs met ≥ 70% of the evidence criteria for three PRO domains: PHQ-9 or PROMIS Depression (depression), PF-10 or PROMIS-PF (physical functioning), and PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Treatments and Medications (self-efficacy). The PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities met 68% of our criteria and might be considered for inclusion. Existing evidence and key informant data identified 5 candidate PROMs to use in primary care. These instruments can be used to develop PRO-PMs.

Patient Reported Outcomes: The Foundation of Value

As we transition from volume-based to value-based health care, orthopedic surgeons must understand the role of outcomes in measuring value. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer a number of advantages in orthopedic trauma compared with traditional clinical and radiographic results while also being an important indicator of the patient's perception of their condition. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, developed and funded by the National Institutes of Health, has a number of features that make PRO date collection less burdensome for providers and patients. Patient-specific factors, including comorbidities, mental health, social support, and preinjury function need to be accounted for in our assessment, because all of these factors have demonstrated an impact on outcomes. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware of how they can transition their practice in an era of value-based health care in a manner that will benefit their patients and provide insight into their own clinical practice. Prospective collection of PROs is no longer limited to academic surgeons conducting research, and all orthopedic surgeons should consider incorporating PROs into their daily clinical practice. Orthopedic surgeons must maintain an active role in the development of policies and reimbursement models to advocate for and serve our patients.

Comparison of a Patient-Centered Weight Loss Program starting before versus after knee replacement: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Most patients risk gaining weight in the years after knee replacement, adding further concern to a population that is mostly overweight/obese prior to surgery.

OBJECTIVE

Via a randomised pilot study, we assessed changes in weight during a Patient Centered Weight Loss Program (PACE) initiated either before or after knee replacement, while simultaneously examining the feasibility of recruiting and retaining participants over 26 weeks.

METHODS

Recruitment outreach was made to 133 patients scheduled for knee replacement. Sixteen participants were randomised to a 14-session weight loss program that started either ≤6 weeks before surgery (PACE) or at 12 weeks post-op (Delayed PACE). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine preliminary changes in weight, function, patient-reported outcomes, and physical activity across time (baseline/pre-op, 12 and 26 weeks after surgery) and group.

RESULTS

Retention was 75% and 69% at 12 and 26 weeks after surgery, respectively. Weight significantly decreased across the 26 weeks (P<0.001). A group by time interaction (P=0.03) demonstrated Delayed PACE [-7.6±5.9kg (-7.9±5.9%)] lost significantly more weight than PACE [-2.5±2.7kg (-2.6±2.6%)] participants at 26 weeks. Significant improvements across time were seen for all function and patient reported outcomes, however activity did not change.

CONCLUSION

Conducting a behavioural intervention was challenging but feasible in a knee replacement population, with preliminary evidence suggesting that initiating a program 12 weeks after surgery produces greater weight losses at 26 weeks compared to a program starting before knee replacement.