Utility of Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System measures in predicting shoulder arthroplasty in patients with shoulder osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The decision to treat shoulder osteoarthritis (OA) definitively with shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is multifactorial, considering objective findings, subjective information, and patient goals. The first goal of this study was to determine if Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures correlated with patients with shoulder OA who underwent SA within 1 year. The second goal of this study was to determine if score cut-offs in PROMIS domains could further discriminate which shoulder OA patients underwent SA within 1 year. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study examined patients with a diagnosis of shoulder OA who consulted an orthopedic provider from November 1, 2020 to May 23, 2022, and recorded PROMIS measures in the domains of Physical Function, Depression, and/or Pain Interference. A surgical group was defined as patients who underwent SA within 1 year of the most recent PROMIS measures and the nonsurgical patients were defined as the control group. Mean PROMIS scores were compared between the surgical and control groups. Separate logistic regression models controlling for age, race, ethnicity, and comorbidity count were performed for each PROMIS domain as a 1) continuous variable, and then as 2) binary variable defined by PROMIS score cut-off points to determine which scores correlated with undergoing SA to further characterize the potential clinical utility of PROMIS score cut-offs in relating to undergoing SA. RESULTS: The surgical group of 478 patients was older (68.2 vs. 63.8 years), more often of White race (82.6% vs. 70.9%), and less often of Hispanic Ethnicity (1.5% vs. 2.9%) than the control group of 3343 patients. Using optimal cut-offs in PROMIS scores, Pain Interference ≥63 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.97 (2.41-3.64), P < .001), Physical Function ≤39 (OR = 1.81 (95% confidence interval, 1.48-2.22), P < .001), and depression ≥49 (OR = 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.50-2.22), P < .001) were all found to correlate with undergoing SA within 1 year in multivariable logistic regressions. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that cut-off scores for PROMIS measures differentiated patients undergoing SA within 1 year. These cut-off scores may have clinical utility in aiding in decision-making regarding surgical candidates for SA. Further research is needed to validate these cut-off scores and determine how they relate to patient outcomes after SA.

Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization.

Background: While there is recognition by the greater medical community and physical therapists to address the biopsychosocial needs of people with chronic, persistent pain, there are challenges in implementation and delivery including wide variability in interventions, lack of clear rationale, and absence of clinical models that are feasible and acceptable on a large scale. Important components for psychologically informed physical therapy (PiPT) for pain care include behavioral approaches (e.g., Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), mindfulness, pain neuroscience education, motivational interviewing (MI), and interoceptive skills-building. The Empower Veterans Program (EVP) Mindful Movement framework blends these components and emphasizes a mindfulness and self-compassion approach with MI and body-based experiential learning. This program was offered in-person at the Atlanta and Maryland VA Health Care Centers with published positive Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) pre-COVID 19 crisis and shifted to entirely remote delivery in March 2020. Objective: This paper offers an evidence-based and theory driven framework to operationalize a remotely delivered group-based psychologically informed mindful movement physical therapy intervention as part of an interdisciplinary pain care program. Methods: Since 2021 PRO and demographics are collected using a survey administered through Qualtrics over a 12-month period at baseline, immediately post TelePain EVP, at 6 months, and at 12 months, with findings forthcoming. Discussion/Results: Tele-pain EVP offers 6-9 groups a week with 7-9 veterans from Atlanta based team and 3-4 groups a week with 5-9 veterans from Maryland based team. Adaptations for remote delivery optimized mindfulness and active learning strategies including interoceptive skills-building and use of MI to support self-efficacy to trust, restore a sense of safety in the body, and explore adaptations for safe movement. Conclusion: TelePain-EVP Mindful Movement provides a framework for other programs to translate for their populations and systems to further develop best practices in PiPT for pain care and integration into interdisciplinary care.

Group physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability and one of the most common conditions treated in outpatient physical therapy (PT). Because of the high and growing prevalence of knee OA, there is a need for efficient approaches for delivering exercise-based PT to patients with knee OA. A prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that a 6-session Group Physical Therapy Program for Knee OA (Group PT) yields equivalent or greater improvements in pain and functional outcomes compared with traditional individual PT, while requiring fewer clinician hours per patient to deliver. This manuscript describes the protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial comparing two implementation packages to support delivery of Group PT. METHODS: In this 12-month embedded trial, a minimum of 16 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) will be randomized to receive one of two implementation support packages for their Group PT programs: a standard, low-touch support based on Replicating Effective Programs (REP) versus enhanced REP (enREP), which adds tailored, high-touch support if sites do not meet Group PT adoption and sustainment benchmarks at 6 and 9 months following launch. Implementation outcomes, including penetration (primary), adoption, and fidelity, will be assessed at 6 and 12 months (primary assessment time point). Additional analyses will include patient-level effectiveness outcomes (pain, function, satisfaction) and staffing and labor costs. A robust qualitative evaluation of site implementation context and experience, as well as site-led adaptations to the Group PT program, will be conducted. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the impact of tailored, high-touch implementation support on implementation outcomes when compared to standardized, low-touch support for delivering a PT-based intervention. The Group PT program has strong potential to become a standard offering for PT, improving function and pain-related outcomes for patients with knee OA. Results will provide information regarding the effectiveness and value of this implementation approach and a deeper understanding of how healthcare systems can support wide-scale adoption of Group PT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on March 7, 2022 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT05282927 ).

Partner engagement for planning and development of non-pharmacological care pathways in the AIM-Back trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Embedded pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly recommended for non-pharmacological pain care research due to their focus on examining intervention effectiveness within real-world settings. Engagement with patients, health care providers, and other partners is essential, yet there is limited guidance for how to use engagement to meaningfully inform the design of interventions to be tested in pain-related pragmatic clinical trials. This manuscript aims to describe the process and impacts of partner input on the design of two interventions (care pathways) for low back pain currently being tested in an embedded pragmatic trial in the Veterans Affairs health care system. METHODS: Sequential cohort design for intervention development was followed. Engagement activities were conducted with 25 participants between November 2017 and June 2018. Participants included representatives from multiple groups: clinicians, administrative leadership, patients, and caregivers. RESULTS: Partner feedback led to several changes in each of the care pathways to improve patient experience and usability. Major changes to the sequenced care pathway included transitioning from telephone-based delivery to a flexible telehealth model, increased specificity about pain modulation activities, and reduction of physical therapy visits. Major changes to the pain navigator pathway included transitioning from a traditional stepped care model to one that offers care in a feedback loop, increased flexibility regarding pain navigator provider type, and increased specificity for patient discharge criteria. Centering patient experience emerged as a key consideration from all partner groups. CONCLUSION: Diverse input is important to consider before implementing new interventions in embedded pragmatic trials. Partner engagement can increase acceptability of new care pathways to patients and providers and enhance uptake of effective interventions by health systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT#04411420. Registered on 2 June 2020.

The Psychologically Informed Practice Consultation Roadmap: A Clinical Implementation Strategy.

Psychologically informed practice (PiP) includes a special focus on psychosocial obstacles to recovery, but research trials have revealed significant difficulties in implementing PiP outside of research environments. Qualitative studies have identified problems of both competence and confidence in tackling the psychosocial aspects of care, with a tendency to prefer dealing with the more mechanical aspects of care. In PiP, the distinction between assessment and management is not clear-cut. Analysis of the problem is part of the intervention, and guided self-management begins with the initial detective work by the patient, who is encouraged to develop successful and relevant behavior change. This requires a different style and focus of communication that some clinicians find difficult to enact. In this Perspective, the PiP Consultation Roadmap is offered as a guide for clinical implementation to establish a therapeutic relationship, develop patient-centered communication, and guide effective pain self-management. These strategies are illustrated through the metaphor of the patient learning to drive, with the therapist as a driving instructor and the patient as a student driver. For convenience, the Roadmap is depicted in 7 stages. Each stage represents aspects of the clinical consultation in a recommended order, although the Roadmap should be viewed as a general guide with a degree of flexibility to accommodate individual differences and optimize PiP interventions. It is anticipated that the experienced PiP clinician will find it progressively easier to implement the Roadmap as the building blocks and style of consultation become more familiar.

Psychologically Informed Practice: The Importance of Communication in Clinical Implementation.

There has been increasing interest in the secondary prevention of chronic pain and pain-associated disability over the past 3 decades. In 2011, psychologically informed practice (PiP) was suggested as a framework for managing persistent and recurrent pain, and, since then, it has underpinned the development of stratified care linking risk identification (screening). Although PiP research trials have demonstrated clinical and economic advantage over usual care, pragmatic studies have been less successful, and qualitative studies have identified implementation difficulties in both system delivery and individual clinical management. Effort has been put into the development of screening tools, the development of training, and the assessment of outcomes; however, the nature of the consultation has remained relatively unexplored. In this Perspective, a review of the nature of clinical consultations and the clinician-patient relationship is followed by reflections on the nature of communication and the outcome of training courses. Consideration is given to the optimization of communication, including the use of standardized patient-reported measures and the role of the therapist in facilitating adaptive behavior change. Several challenges in implementing a PiP approach in day-to-day practice are then considered. Following brief consideration of the impact of recent developments in health care, the Perspective concludes with a brief introduction to the PiP Consultation Roadmap (the subject of a companion paper), the use of which is suggested as a way of structuring the consultation with the flexibility required for a patient-centered approach to guided self-management of chronic pain conditions.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of improvement coaching: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high-quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach. AIMS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE® , Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically-informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process). CONCLUSION: Improvement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework.

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Coaching on Process Outcomes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low. CONCLUSION: QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

Implementation of Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy for Low Back Pain: Where Do We Stand, Where Do We Go?

Low back pain continues to be a leading cause of disability and cost throughout the world. Evidence-based guidelines recommend use of non-pharmacological interventions to address decreases in physical function due to low back pain. Psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT) is one way to effectively and efficiently address the need for non-pharmacological approaches. However, adoption of psychologically informed practice (PiP) by physical therapists has shown mixed results due to implementation challenges. In this perspective, we discuss the current state of PIPT training and implementation. We also propose a conceptual roadmap for future implementation needs related to increasing delivery of PIPT-informed approaches.

Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back): Protocol for an Embedded Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coordinated efforts between the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs have built the capacity for large-scale clinical research investigating the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic pain treatments. This is an encouraging development; however, what constitutes best practice for nonpharmacologic management of low back pain (LBP) is largely unknown. DESIGN: The Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back) trial is an embedded pragmatic cluster-randomized trial that will examine the effectiveness of two different care pathways for LBP. Sixteen primary care clinics will be randomized 1:1 to receive training in delivery of 1) an integrated sequenced-care pathway or 2) a coordinated pain navigator pathway. Primary outcomes are pain interference and physical function (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form [PROMIS-SF]) collected in the electronic health record at 3 months (n=1,680). A subset of veteran participants (n=848) have consented to complete additional surveys at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months for supplementary pain and other measures. SUMMARY: AIM-Back care pathways will be tested for effectiveness, and treatment heterogeneity will be investigated to identify which veterans may respond best to a given pathway. Health care utilization patterns (including opioid use) will also be compared between care pathways. Therefore, the AIM-Back trial will provide important information that can inform the future delivery of nonpharmacologic treatment of LBP.

Introduction of a psychologically informed educational intervention for pre-licensure physical therapists in a classroom setting.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing need for physical therapists to address psychosocial aspects of musculoskeletal pain. Psychologically informed practice is one way to deliver this type of care through the integration of biopsychosocial interventions into patient management. An important component of psychologically informed practice is patient centered communication. However, there is little research on how to effectively implement patient centered communication into pre-licensure training for physical therapists. METHODS: Thirty Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students took part in an educational intervention that consisted of one 4-h didactic teaching session and three 1-h experiential learning sessions. Prior to the first session, students performed an examination of a standardized patient with chronic low back pain and were assessed on psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT) adherent behaviors via a rating scale. Students also completed the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS-PT). After the last experiential session, students evaluated another standardized patient and were reassessed on PIPT adherent behaviors. Students retook the PABS-PT and qualitative data was also collected. RESULTS: After the educational intervention, students had positive changes in their pain attitudes and belief scores indicating a stronger orientation toward a psychosocial approach to patient care (p < 0.05). Additionally, after the intervention, students showed improvements in their adherence to using PIPT behaviors in their simulated patient interactions (p < 0.05). Qualitatively, students reported a high acceptability of the educational intervention with common themes indicating improved confidence with treating and communicating with complex patients. CONCLUSION: Students had attitudes and beliefs shift towards a more psychosocial orientation and demonstrated improved PIPT behaviors in simulated patient interactions after a brief educational intervention. Future research should investigate best practices for implementation of psychologically informed physical therapy for licensed clinicians.

Treatment monitoring as a component of psychologically informed physical therapy: A case series of patients at high risk for persistent low back pain related disability.

BACKGROUND: Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy (PIPT) aims to identify individuals at high risk for transitioning to chronicity and merge impairment-focused physical therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy principles. Treatment monitoring is an important part of PIPT and involves identifying changes in clinical measures to inform clinical decision making. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this case series is to describe treatment monitoring using psychological and physical impairment measures for patients identified as 'high-risk' for persistent low back pain (LBP) related disability. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of patients (n = 23) identified as 'high-risk' using the STarT Back Tool and enrolled in two-phased, sequential study that evaluated feasibility and generated preliminary PIPT treatment effects for 4-week clinical outcomes. METHOD: Physical therapists (n = 5) used psychological [Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ-PA, FABQ-W), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Fear of Daily Activities Questionnaire (FDAQ)] and the Physical Impairment Index (PII) measures for PIPT treatment monitoring. Clinical outcome measures [Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] were administered at intake and 4-weeks later. Linear regression models evaluated independent contribution of intake and 4-week changes in psychological measures and PII scores as predictors of 4-week NPRS and ODI scores. RESULTS: FABQ-PA and PCS changes provided largest contributions to prediction of 4-week ODI scores. Treatment monitoring measures did not explain additional variability in 4-week NPRS scores after baseline scores were considered. CONCLUSIONS: For patients at high risk for persistent LBP psychological measures consistently performed better as treatment monitoring variables compared to physical impairment measures. Treatment monitoring for PIPT with psychological measures provides opportunities to refine prediction of disability outcomes. Findings from this exploratory case series should be interpreted with caution based on its small sample size and lack of statistical power which prohibits definitive conclusions to be made on any of the treatment monitoring measures.