Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: How to Maximize Their Utility and Mitigate Health Care Disparities.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a standardized assessment from the patient about their own health status. Although originally developed as research tools, PROMs can be used in clinical orthopaedic care to complement objective functional measures (eg, range of motion). When PROMs are used during clinical care, they can improve patient outcomes, engagement, well-being, and patient-physician communication. Therefore, PROMs are increasingly integrated into shared decision-making approaches to guide treatment decisions, enhance treatment plans, and predict outcomes. They are also being used in quality measurement and value-based health care arrangements. However, methods to communicate PROMs with patients have not been fully developed, and there continue to be barriers to implementing their collection and communication at scale. In addition, measuring care quality and communicating PROMs with patients may have unintended consequences, such as when used in measurement without accounting for confounding factors (eg, psychological and social health), or in perpetuating health care disparities when used imprecisely (eg, lack of linguistic or cultural validation). It is important to describe the current state of PROM use in orthopaedic surgery, highlight opportunities and challenges of PROM use in clinical care, and provide a roadmap for how to incorporate PROMs to equitably improve patient health and build orthopaedic surgery practices.

Prediction of post-interventional physical function in diabetic foot ulcer patients using patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS).

BACKGROUND: Infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) patients present with an impaired baseline physical function (PF) that can be further compromised by surgical intervention to treat the infection. The impact of surgical interventions on Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) PF within the DFU population has not been investigated. We hypothesize that preoperative PROMIS scores (PF, Pain Interference (PI), Depression) in combination with relevant clinical factors can be utilized to predict postoperative PF in DFU patients. METHODS: DFU patients from a single academic physician's practice between February 2015 and November 2018 were identified (n = 240). Ninety-two patients met inclusion criteria with complete follow-up and PROMIS computer adaptive testing records. Demographic and clinical factors, procedure performed, and wound healing status were collected. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Chi-Squared tests and multidimensional modelling were applied to all variables' pre- and postoperative values to assess patients' postoperative PF. RESULTS: The mean age was 60.5 (33-96) years and mean follow-up was 4.7 (3-12) months. Over 70 % of the patients' initial PF were 2-3 standard deviations below the US population (n = 49; 28). Preoperative PF (p < 0.01), PI (p < 0.01), Depression (p < 0.01), CRF (p < 0.02) and amputation level (p < 0.04) showed significant univariate correlation with postoperative PF. Multivariate model (r = 0.55) showed that the initial PF (p = 0.004), amputation level (p = 0.008), and wound healing status (p = 0.001) predicted postoperative PF. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of DFU patients present with poor baseline PF. Preoperative PROMIS scores (PF, PI, Depression) are predictive of postoperative PROMIS PF in DFU patients. Postoperative patient's physical function can be assessed by PFpostoperative = 29.42 + 0.34 (PFinitial) - 5.87 (Not Healed) - 2.63 (Amputation Category). This algorithm can serve as a valuable tool for predicting post-operative physical function and setting expectations.

Operative Intervention Does Not Change Pain Perception in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers.

Researchers investigated pain perception in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) by analyzing pre- and postoperative physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression domains of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). They hypothesized that 1) because of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), a majority of patients with DFUs would have high PROMIS PI scores unchanged by operative intervention, and 2) the initially assessed PI, PF, and depression levels would be correlated with final outcomes. Seventy-five percent of patients with DFUs reported pain, most likely because of painful DPN. Those who reported high PI and low PF were likely to report depression. PF, PI, and depression levels were unchanged after operative intervention or healing of DFUs.

Do Patient Sociodemographic Factors Impact the PROMIS Scores Meeting the Patient-Acceptable Symptom State at the Initial Point of Care in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Patients?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) allow surgeons to evaluate the most important outcomes to patients, including function, pain, and mental well-being. However, PROMIS does not provide surgeons with insight into whether patients are able to successfully cope with their level of physical and/or mental health limitations in day-to-day life; such understanding can be garnered using the Patient-acceptable Symptom State (PASS). It remains unclear whether or not the PASS status for a given patient and his or her health, as evaluated by PROMIS scores, differs based on sociodemographic factors; if it does, that could have important implications regarding interpretation of outcomes and fair delivery of care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a tertiary-care foot and ankle practice, (1) Is the PASS associated with sociodemographic factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and income)? (2) Do PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression scores differ based on income level? (3) Do PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression thresholds for the PASS differ based on income level? METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of longitudinally obtained data, all patients with foot and ankle conditions who had new-patient visits (n = 2860) between February 2015 and December 2017 at a single tertiary academic medical center were asked to complete the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression survey and answer the following single, validated, yes/no PASS question: "Taking into account all the activity you have during your daily life, your level of pain, and also your functional impairment, do you consider that the current state of your foot and ankle is satisfactory?" Of the 2860 new foot and ankle patient visits, 21 patient visits (0.4%) were removed initially because all four outcome measures were not completed. An additional 225 patient visits (8%) were removed because the patient chart did not contain enough information to accurately geocode them; 15 patients visits (0.5%) were removed because the census block group median income data were not available. Lastly, two patient visits (0.1%) were removed because they were duplicates. This left a total of 2597 of 2860 possible patients (91%) in our study sample who had completed all three PROMIS domains and answered the PASS question. Patient sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity were recorded. Using census block groups as part of a geocoding method, the income bracket for each patient was recorded. A chi-square analysis was used to determine whether sociodemographic factors were associated with different PASS rates, two-way ANOVA analyses with pairwise comparisons were used to determine if PROMIS scores differed by income bracket, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine PASS thresholds for the PROMIS score by income bracket. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMIS PF in the literature in foot and ankle patients ranges from about 7.9 to 13.2 using anchor-based approaches and 4.5 to 4.7 using the ½ SD, distribution-based method. The MCID for PROMIS PI in the literature in foot and ankle patients ranges from about 5.5 to 12.4 using anchor-based approaches and about 4.1 to 4.3 using the ½ SD, distribution-based method. Both were considered when evaluating our findings. Such MCID cutoffs for PROMIS Depression are not as well established in the foot and ankle literature. Significance was set a priori at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The only sociodemographic factor associated with differences in the proportion of patients achieving PASS was age (15% [312 of 2036] of patients aged 18-64 years versus 11% [60 of 561] of patients aged ≥ 65 years; p = 0.006). PROMIS PF (45 ± 10 for the ≥ USD 100,000 bracket versus 40 ± 10 for the ≤ USD 24,999 bracket, mean difference 5 [95% CI 3 to 7]; p < 0.001), PI (57 ± 8 for ≥ USD 100,000 versus 63 ± 7 for ≤ USD 24,999, mean difference -6 [95% CI -7 to -4]; p < 0.001), and Depression (46 ± 8 for the ≥ USD 100,000 bracket versus 51 ± 11 for ≤ USD 24,999, mean difference -5 [95% CI -7 to -3]; p < 0.001) scores were better for patients in the highest income bracket compared with those in the lowest income bracket. For PROMIS PF, the difference falls within the score change range deemed clinically important when using a ½ SD, distribution-based approach but not when using an anchor-based approach; however, the score difference for PROMIS PI falls within the score change range deemed clinically important for both approaches. The PASS threshold of the PROMIS PF for the highest income bracket was near the mean for the US population (49), while the PASS threshold of the PROMIS PF for the lowest income bracket was more than one SD below the US population mean (39). Similarly, the PASS threshold of the PROMIS PI differed by 6 points when the lowest and highest income brackets were compared. PROMIS Depression was unable to discriminate the PASS. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions about functional and pain goals may need to be a greater focus of clinic encounters in the elderly population to ensure that patients understand the risks and benefits of given treatment options at their advanced age. Further, when using PASS in clinical encounters to evaluate patient satisfaction and the ability to cope at different symptom and functionality levels, surgeons should consider income status and its relationship to PASS. This knowledge may help surgeons approach patients with a better idea of patient expectations and which level of symptoms and functionality is satisfactory; this information can assist in ensuring that each patient's health goal is included in shared decision-making discussions. A better understanding of why patients with different income levels are satisfied and able to cope at different symptom and functionality levels is warranted and may best be accomplished using an epidemiologic survey approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Determining the Generalizability of the PROMIS Depression Domain's Floor Effect and Completion Time in Patients Undergoing Orthopaedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common and can decrease the likelihood that a patient undergoing an orthopaedic procedure will improve after that intervention. Research at a single institution using the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) showed that the PROMIS Depression domain had a substantial floor effect (lowest depressive symptoms measurable) in patients with orthopaedic conditions, although the instrument is designed to follow a population-based normal distribution. Patients with the lowest scores (floor) completed the questionnaire more quickly than those who did not have the lowest scores, which suggests that patients may not want to report or discuss depressive symptoms with their orthopaedic surgeon. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do the scores of a large population of patients with orthopaedic conditions completing the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression questionnaires follow the normal population distribution used to calibrate the PROMIS instrument? (2) Do the scores of a large population of patients with foot and ankle, spine, upper extremity, multiple orthopaedic subspecialty, or other orthopaedic conditions completing the PROMIS Depression questionnaire follow the normal population distribution used to calibrate the PROMIS instrument? (3) Do all orthopaedic patients with the lowest possible score (floor effect) on the PROMIS Depression questionnaire answer questions more quickly than those who do not? METHODS: Between February 12, 2015 and July 19, 2018, a total of 513,042 patients with orthopaedic conditions at a single urban, tertiary academic medical center were asked to complete the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains. The PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression questionnaires were administered at 433,939 patient encounters (85%), and 325,251 of 433,939 (75%) completed all three questionnaires and were included in our final sample. The remaining encounters were excluded from all analyses because of incomplete PROMIS data. Using this large sample size, we determined the distributions of the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains for all patients with orthopaedic conditions by visual inspection. We calculated the percentage of patients with the lowest possible score on the PROMIS Depression domain ("floor group") for all patients with orthopaedic conditions, as well for patients presenting to orthopaedic subspecialists (foot and ankle, spine, upper extremity, multiple subspecialties, or other specialists). We compared patient and PROMIS characteristics between patients in the floor group and all others ("standard group") using a bivariate analysis, including the total time it took to complete the questionnaires and average time it took to answer each question. RESULTS: Of the three PROMIS domains analyzed, only the PROMIS PF demonstrated a normal distribution on visual inspection. PROMIS PI scores had a measurable ceiling effect (more pain symptoms) (15,520 of 325,251 patient encounters; 5%), while PROMIS Depression scores demonstrated a clear floor effect (65,226 of 325,251; 20%). When analyzed by subspecialty, there was a clear floor effect for the PROMIS Depression in the specialties of foot and ankle (6031 of 29,273 patient encounters; 21%), spine (7611 of 58,266; 13%), upper extremity (9851 of 42,864; 23%), multiple subspecialties (276 of 1662; 17%), and other (41, 454 of 193,185; 22%). Generally, those in the floor group spent less time per question on the PROMIS Depression questionnaire than did those in the standard group (5.3 seconds ± 2.6 seconds versus 8.1 seconds ± 4.6 seconds; mean difference, 2.8 seconds; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial floor effect of the PROMIS Depression in the setting of hasty completion raises the question of whether such results truly indicate that these patients have minimal depression or whether they simply do not report their true mental health status in an orthopaedic setting. When such patients are seen in clinic, surgeons may benefit from using the PROMIS Depression as an educational opportunity to explain the importance of mental health in orthopaedic care and ensure the questionnaire is completed accurately. This study builds on previous work by suggesting these findings apply to other general and subspecialty orthopaedic patient populations at academic medical centers. Future work may seek to determine the best way of ensuring that the PROMIS Depression questionnaire is completed accurately in orthopaedic clinics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: How and Why They Are Collected.

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) have become increasingly emphasized in the transition from volume-based to value-based orthopaedic care. Incorporation of PROM collection into daily clinical practice can be challenging, however, because of financial and logistic constraints. In modern orthopaedics, PROM are important and can be successfully and practically incorporated into clinical practice.

Treatment of first metatarsophalangeal joint arthritis using hemiarthroplasty with a synthetic cartilage implant or arthrodesis: A comparison of operative and recovery time.

BACKGROUND: First metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ1) hemiarthroplasty using a novel synthetic cartilage implant was as effective and safe as MTPJ1 arthrodesis in a randomized clinical trial. We retrospectively evaluated operative time and recovery period for implant hemiarthroplasty (n=152) and MTPJ1 arthrodesis (n=50). METHODS: Perioperative data were assessed for operative and anaesthesia times. Recovery and return to function were prospectively assessed with the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscales and SF-36 Physical Functioning (PF) subscore. RESULTS: Mean operative time for hemiarthroplasty was 35±12.3min and 58±21.5min for arthrodesis (p<0.001). Anaesthesia duration was 28min shorter with hemiarthroplasty (p<0.001). At weeks 2 and 6 postoperative, hemiarthroplasty patients demonstrated clinically and statistically significantly higher FAAM Sport, FAAM ADL, and SF-36 PF subscores versus arthrodesis patients. CONCLUSION: MTPJ1 hemiarthroplasty with a synthetic cartilage implant took less operative time and resulted in faster recovery than arthrodesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective case control study.

High incidence of hemiarthroplasty for shoulder osteoarthritis among recently graduated orthopaedic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis is a common indication for shoulder arthroplasty. Historically, both total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemi-shoulder arthroplasty (HSA) have been used to treat primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The choice between procedures is a topic of debate, with HSA proponents arguing that it is less invasive, faster, less expensive, and technically less demanding, with quality of life outcomes equivalent to those of TSA. More recent evidence suggests TSA is superior in terms of pain relief, function, ROM, strength, and patient satisfaction. We therefore investigated the practice of recently graduated orthopaedic surgeons pertaining to the surgical treatment of this disease. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We hypothesized that (1) recently graduated, board eligible, orthopaedic surgeons with fellowship training in shoulder surgery are more likely to perform TSA than surgeons without this training; (2) younger patients are more likely to receive HSA than TSA; (3) patient sex affects the choice of surgery; (4) US geographic region affects practice patterns; and (5) complication rates for HSA and TSA are not different. METHODS: We queried the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery's database to identify practice patterns of orthopaedic surgeons taking their board examination. We identified 771 patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with TSA or HSA from 2006 to 2011. The rates of TSA and HSA were compared based on the treating surgeon's fellowship training, patient age and sex, US geographic region, and reported surgical complications. RESULTS: Surgeons with fellowship training in shoulder surgery were more likely (86% versus 72%; OR 2.32; 95% CI, 1.56-3.45, p<0.001) than surgeons without this training to perform TSA rather than HSA. The mean age for patients receiving HSA was not different from that for patients receiving TSA (66 versus 68, years, p=0.057). Men were more likely to receive HSA than TSA when compared to women (RR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-2.00, p=0.0012). The proportions of TSA and HSA were similar regardless of US geographic region (Midwest HSA 21%, TSA 79%; Northeast HSA 25%, TSA 75%; Northwest HSA 16%, TSA 84%; South HSA 27%, TSA 73%; Southeast HSA 24%, TSA 76%; Southwest HSA 23%, TSA 77%; overall p=0.708). The overall complication rates were not different with the numbers available: 8.4% (15/179) for HSA and 8.1% (48/592) for TSA (p=0.7555). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study are at odds with the recommendations in the current clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. These guidelines favor using TSA over HSA in the treatment of shoulder arthritis. Further investigation is needed to clarify if these practice patterns are isolated to recently graduated board eligible orthopaedic surgeons or if the use of HSA continues with orthopaedic surgeons applying for recertification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures: patterns of use among newly trained orthopedic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the use of reverse and hemishoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures among orthopedic surgeons taking part II of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery board examination. We hypothesized that the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fractures in the elderly is increasing amongst newly trained orthopedic surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database for the cases of proximal humeral fractures treated with arthroplasty submitted between 2005 and 2012. We evaluated the prosthesis used, patient-specific factors, complications, and the difference in use by shoulder fellowship-trained surgeons. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2012, 5395 board-eligible orthopedic surgeons submitted cases to the database. Of these, 435 (mean, 54 per year) were proximal humeral fractures treated with arthroplasty. The overall incidence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture increased from 2% to 4% during 2005 to 2007 to 38% in 2012. Shoulder surgeons treated 5 times more proximal humeral fractures with shoulder arthroplasty and were also more than 20 times more likely to use a reverse implant (P < .0001). The difference in complication rates between reverse and hemishoulder arthroplasty was not significant (P = .49). Patients who received a hemiarthroplasty tended to be younger (mean age, 70.8 vs 75.7 years; P = .0015). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the use of a hemiarthroplasty for fracture is still more common (62% in 2012), although the relative proportion of reverse implants is rising. Among shoulder surgeons, more than 50% of the arthroplasties performed for fractures during the past 3 years (2010-2012) have been reverse arthroplasties.

Validation of PROMIS ® Physical Function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society(®) established a national network for collecting and sharing data on treatment outcomes and improving patient care. One of the network's initiatives is to explore the use of computerized adaptive tests (CATs) for patient-level outcome reporting. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether the CAT from the NIH Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System(®) (PROMIS(®)) Physical Function (PF) item bank provides efficient, reliable, valid, precise, and adequately covered point estimates of patients' physical function. METHODS: After informed consent, 288 patients with a mean age of 51 years (range, 18-81 years) undergoing surgery for common foot and ankle problems completed a web-based questionnaire. Efficiency was determined by time for test administration. Reliability was assessed with person and item reliability estimates. Validity evaluation included content validity from expert review and construct validity measured against the PROMIS(®) Pain CAT and patient responses based on tradeoff perceptions. Precision was assessed by standard error of measurement (SEM) across patients' physical function levels. Instrument coverage was based on a person-item map. RESULTS: Average time of test administration was 47 seconds. Reliability was 0.96 for person and 0.99 for item. Construct validity against the Pain CAT had an r value of -0.657 (p < 0.001). Precision had an SEM of less than 3.3 (equivalent to a Cronbach's alpha of ≥ 0.90) across a broad range of function. Concerning coverage, the ceiling effect was 0.32% and there was no floor effect. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS(®) PF CAT appears to be an excellent method for measuring outcomes for patients with foot and ankle surgery. Further validation of the PROMIS(®) item banks may ultimately provide a valid and reliable tool for measuring patient-reported outcomes after injuries and treatment.