Patient Reported Outcome Measures Collected via Telephonic Interviews versus Self-Administered Forms after Lumbar Spine Surgery: Does Data Collection Methodology Make a Difference?

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. S159-S160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott L. Parker ◽  
Saniya S. Godil ◽  
Kristin Archer ◽  
Susan Vanston ◽  
Stephen Wegener ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported

Impact of Depression on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Lumbar Spine Decompression

Spine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 434-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Merrill ◽  
Lukas P. Zebala ◽  
Colleen Peters ◽  
Sheeraz A. Qureshi ◽  
Steven J. McAnany
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals A pain relieving reimbursement program? Effects of a value-based reimbursement program on patient reported outcome measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thérèse Eriksson ◽  
Hans Tropp ◽  
Ann-Britt Wiréhn ◽  
Lars-Åke Levin
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
A Value ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Cherry Picking ◽  
Inpatient And Outpatient Care

Abstract Background Value-based reimbursement programs have become increasingly common. However, little is known about the effect of such programs on patient reported outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the effect of introducing a value-based reimbursement program on patient reported outcome measures and to explore whether a selection bias towards less complicated patients occurred. Methods This is a retrospective observational study with a before and after design based on the introduction of a value-based reimbursement program in Region Stockholm, Sweden. We analyzed patient level data from inpatient and outpatient care of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery during 2006–2015. Patient reported outcome measures used was Global Assessment, EQ-5D-3L and Oswestry Disability Index. The case-mix of surgically treated patients was analyzed using medical and socioeconomic factors. Results The value-based reimbursement program did not have any effect on targeted or non-targeted patient reported outcome measures. Moreover, the share of surgically treated patients with risk factors such as having comorbidities and being born outside of Europe increased after the introduction. Hence, the value-based reimbursement program did not encourage discrimination against sicker patients. However, the income was higher among patients surgically treated after the introduction of the value-based reimbursement. This indicates that a value-based reimbursement program may contribute to increased inequalities in access to healthcare. Conclusions The value-based reimbursement program did not have any effect on patient reported outcome measures. Our study contributes to the understanding of the effects of a value-based reimbursement program on patient reported outcome measures and to what extent cherry-picking arises.

Cost-effectiveness Applications of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Spine Surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 140-145
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Lee ◽  
Alexander A. Thomas ◽  
Nikhil R. Grandhi ◽  
Matthew S. Galetta ◽  
Dhruv K.C. Goyal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Impact of preoperative diagnosis on patient satisfaction following lumbar spine surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 709-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles H. Crawford ◽  
Leah Y. Carreon ◽  
Mohamad Bydon ◽  
Anthony L. Asher ◽  
Steven D. Glassman
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Preoperative Diagnosis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Patient Reported

OBJECTIVEPatient satisfaction is a commonly used metric in the current health care environment. While factors that affect patient satisfaction following spine surgery are complex, the authors of this study hypothesized that specific diagnostic groups of patients are more likely to be satisfied after spine surgery and that this is reflected in patient-reported outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine if the preoperative diagnosis—disc herniation, stenosis, spondylolisthesis, adjacent segment degeneration, or mechanical disc collapse—would impact patient satisfaction following surgery.METHODSPatients enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database, formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD), completed patient-reported outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP) preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Patients were stratified by diagnosis and by their response to the satisfaction question: 1) surgery met my expectations; 2) I did not improve as much as I hoped, but I would undergo the same operation for the same results; 3) surgery helped, but I would not undergo the same operation for the same results; or 4) I am the same or worse as compared with before surgery.RESULTSA greater proportion of patients with primary disc herniation or spondylolisthesis reported that surgery met expectations (66% and 67%, respectively), followed by recurrent disc herniation and stenosis (59% and 60%, respectively). A smaller proportion of patients who underwent surgery for adjacent segment degeneration or mechanical disc collapse had their expectations met (48% and 41%, respectively). The percentage of patients that would undergo the same surgery again, by diagnostic group, was as follows: disc herniation 88%, recurrent disc herniation 79%, spondylolisthesis 86%, stenosis 82%, adjacent segment disease 75%, and mechanical collapse 73%. Regardless of diagnosis, mean improvement and ultimate 1-year postoperative ODI, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP reflected patient satisfaction.CONCLUSIONSPreoperative diagnosis was predictive of patient satisfaction following spine surgery. The mean change in and 1-year ODI, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP reflected patient satisfaction regardless of preoperative diagnosis.

National Implementation of an Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures Program for Joint Replacement Surgery (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma L. Heath ◽  
Ilana I. Ackerman ◽  
Michelle F. Lorimer ◽  
Sophia Rainbird ◽  
Grace O’Donohue ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Replacement Surgery ◽  
Patient Registration ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND There is a global emphasis on expanding data collection for joint replacement procedures beyond implant attributes and progression to revision surgery. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly considered as an important measure of surgical outcomes from a patient’s perspective. However, a major limitation preventing wider use of PROMs data in national data collection has been the inability to systematically collect and share electronic information with relevant stakeholders in a comprehensive and financially sustainable manner. OBJECTIVE We aim to report on the development of an electronic data capture and reporting system by a national registry for the collection of PROMs and the processes used to identify and overcome barriers to implementation and uptake. We also aim to provide a cost breakdown of establishing and maintaining a nationwide electronic PROMs program. METHODS Between 2018 and 2020 three governance and advisory committees were established to develop and implement a PROMs pilot program nested within a nationwide joint replacement registry. The program involved electronic collection of pre- and 6-month post-operative data for hip, knee or shoulder replacement surgery from 44 Australian hospitals. Resource requirements for the program included a Project Manager, Software Developers, Data Manager and Statistician. An online platform was tested, refined, and implemented for electronic PROMs collection with scalability considered for future expansion to all Australian hospitals and additional data fields. Technical capabilities included different access for multiple user types, patient registration, automatic reminders via SMS and email, online consent and patient outcome real-time dashboards accessible for different user groups (surgeons, patients, hospitals and project stakeholders). RESULTS During the PROMs pilot period, there were 14,890 procedures registered in the electronic system. This equated to 60% of people who had a joint replacement at participating hospitals during this period. Patient registration and data collection were efficient (20-30 seconds and 10-12 minutes, respectively). Engagement with the reporting dashboards (proportion of those who viewed their dashboard) varied by user group: 197 (71.1%) hospital administrators, 68 (52.7%) project stakeholders, 177 (45.3%) surgeons and 1138 (12.9%). Cost analysis determined an overall cost per patient of AUD7 - AUD15 (approximately USD5 - USD12) for two PROMs collections per joint replacement procedure once the program was established. CONCLUSIONS Successful implementation of an orthopaedic PROMs program with planned scalability for a broader national rollout requires significant funding and staffing resources. However, this expenditure can be considered worthwhile, given that collection and reporting of PROMs can drive healthcare improvement processes. Further consideration of strategies to improve stakeholder engagement with electronic reporting dashboards (particularly for patients and surgeons) will be critical to the ongoing success of a national PROMs program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document