Impact of evidence-based standardized assessment on the disability clinical interview for diagnosis of service-connected PTSD: a cluster-randomized trial.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is one of the fastest growing compensated medical conditions. The present study compared usual disability examiner practices for PTSD with a standardized assessment that incorporates evidence-based assessments. The design was a multicenter, cluster randomized, parallel-group study involving 33 clinical examiners and 384 veterans at 6 Veterans Affairs medical centers. The standardized group incorporated the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-II into their assessment interview. The main outcome measures were completeness and accuracy of PTSD diagnosis and completeness of functional assessment. The standardized assessments were 85% complete for diagnosis compared to 30% for nonstandardized assessments (p < .001), and, for functional impairment, 76% versus 3% (p < .001). The findings demonstrate that the quality of PTSD disability examination would be improved by using evidence-based assessment.

Variation in practices and attitudes of clinicians assessing PTSD-related disability among veterans.

One hundred thirty-eight Veterans Affairs mental health professionals completed a 128-item Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Practice Inventory that asked about their practices and attitudes related to disability assessment of PTSD. Results indicate strikingly wide variation in the attitudes and practices of clinicians conducting disability assessments for PTSD. In a high percentage of cases, these attitudes and practices conflict with best-practice guidelines. Specifically, 59% of clinicians reported rarely or never using testing, and only 17% indicated routinely using standardized clinical interviews. Less than 1% of respondents reported using functional assessment scales.

Identifying neck and back pain in administrative data: defining the right cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed existing methods for identifying patients with neck and back pain in administrative data. We compared these methods using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs. OBJECTIVE: To answer the following questions: (1) what diagnosis codes should be used to identify patients with neck pain and back pain in administrative data; (2) because the majority of complaints are characterized as nonspecific or mechanical, what diagnosis codes should be used to identify patients with nonspecific or mechanical problems in administrative data; and (3) what procedure and surgical codes should be used to identify patients who have undergone a surgical procedure on the neck or back. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Musculoskeletal neck and back pain are pervasive problems, associated with chronic pain, disability, and high rates of health care utilization. Administrative data have been widely used in formative research, which has largely relied on the original work of Volinn, Cherkin, Deyo, and Einstadter and the Back Pain Patient Outcomes Assessment Team first published in 1992. Significant variation in reports of incidence, prevalence, and morbidity associated with these problems may be due to nonstandard or conflicting methods to define study cohorts. METHODS: A literature review produced 7 methods for identifying neck and back pain in administrative data. These code lists were used to search Veterans Health Administration data for patients with back and neck problems, and to further categorize each case by spinal segment involved, as nonspecific/mechanical and as surgical or not. RESULTS: There is considerable overlap in most algorithms. However, gaps persist. CONCLUSION: Gaps are evident in existing methods and a new framework to identify patients with neck pain and back pain in administrative data is proposed.