Factors Associated With Met Expectations in Patients With Hand and Upper Extremity Disorders: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: The degree to which patients' expectations are met during an office visit consistently correlates with patients' satisfaction, whereas the relationship between previsit expectations and satisfaction varies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to preliminarily assess the relationship of psychosocial factors, pain intensity, and magnitude of disability to previsit expectations, met expectations, and satisfaction with medical care in patients with hand and upper extremity conditions in a surgical outpatient clinic. METHODS: A cohort of 85 outpatients with upper extremity illnesses indicated their previsit expectations (Patients Intention Questionnaire), degree to which these expectations were met (Expectations Met Questionnaire), level of depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), confidence about the ability to achieve one's goals in spite of pain (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale for pain), disability (Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand, short version; QuickDASH), and satisfaction with the medical visit (Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale). RESULTS: Higher previsit expectations were associated with more depressive symptoms, lower pain self-efficacy, higher pain intensity, and fewer years of education. Patients in the low and moderate met expectations categories had significantly more symptoms of depression, fewer years of education, and more pain compared to those in the high-met expectations category. Fewer years of education and higher pain intensity predicted higher previsit expectations and explained 19% of variance. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial factors affect both previsit expectations and met expectations during an outpatient visit to a hand surgeon. Met expectations, but not previsit expectations, affect satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level II.

Is Social Support Associated With Upper Extremity Disability?

BACKGROUND: Pain intensity and disability correlate with psychosocial factors such as depression and pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with activities of daily living) as much or more than pathophysiology in upper extremity illness. However, other factors like emotional support (perception of being cared for and valued as a person), instrumental support (perception of availability of tangible assistance when needed), positive psychosocial impact (perception and focus on the positive side of a difficult situation, sometimes characterized as posttraumatic growth, benefit-finding, or meaning making), also might be associated with disability in patients with upper extremity orthopaedic illness. This is the first published study, to our knowledge, addressing the potential association of emotional support, instrumental support, and positive psychosocial illness impact with disability in patients with upper extremity illness. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Is there a correlation between the QuickDASH and the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) emotional support Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)? (2) Is there a correlation between the QuickDASH and PROMIS(®) instrumental support CAT? (3) Is there a correlation between the QuickDASH and PROMIS(®) positive psychosocial illness impact CAT? (4) Among the PROMIS(®) measures of depression, emotional support, instrumental support, positive illness impact, and pain interference, which accounts for the most variance in QuickDASH scores? METHODS: One hundred ninety-three patients with upper extremity illness (55% women; average age, 51 ± 18 years) of 213 approached (91% recruitment rate) completed the QuickDASH, and five different PROMIS(®) CATs: pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with accomplishing one's goals), depression, emotional support, psychosocial illness impact, and instrumental support. We recruited patients from the practice of three surgeons in hand service of the department of orthopaedic surgery at a major urban university hospital. RESULTS: Pearson Product Moment Correlations showed that emotional support (r = -0.18; p = 0.014) and instrumental support (r = -0.19; p = 0.008) were weakly and inversely associated with the QuickDASH), while positive psychosocial illness impact was moderately and inversely associated with the QuickDASH (r = -0.36; p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, pain interference, but not the social support measures, was the only psychosocial factor associated with the QuickDASH and alone explained 66% of variance. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional support, instrumental support and positive psychosocial illness impact are all individually associated with disability to a small degree, but pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with accomplishing one's goals) has the strongest influence on magnitude of disability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, prognostic study.

Quantitative three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of glenoid fracture patterns according to the AO/OTA classification.

HYPOTHESIS/BACKGROUND: This study measures the characteristics of glenoid fractures to determine if the AO Foundation and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification captures the most common fracture patterns. The primary null hypothesis was that surface area and degree of fragmentation do not differ among the different fracture types. Secondarily, we tested if there was a relationship between high- vs. low-energy trauma and fracture classification. METHODS: Three-dimensional models were created for a consecutive series of 53 fractures. The fracture classifications, the number of fragments, and the fragmented articular surface area were related to the type of injury. The difference of articular surface size and number of fragments among classification groups was analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: There is a significant difference in fractured articular surface area among classification groups. Compared with transverse and multifragmented fractures, both anterior and posterior fractures involved significantly less of the articular surface area. High-energy trauma is associated with transverse and multifragmented fractures in 93% of the cases. It is associated with a greater number of fracture fragments and fracture of a larger percentage of the glenoid surface area, with a mean fractured surface of 60% for high-energy fractures and 25% for low-energy injuries. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Quantitative 3-dimensional CT analysis confirms that the current AO/OTA classification adequately characterizes and discriminates glenoid fracture patterns. The classification groups are related to the fragmented articular surface area and the number of fragments. Also, the mechanism of injury is related to the classification group, which supports the clinical relevance of the classification.

Does verbal and nonverbal communication of pain correlate with disability?

BACKGROUND: Illness (symptoms and disability) consistently correlates more with coping strategies and symptoms of depression than with pathophysiology or impairment. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the primary null hypothesis that there is no correlation between verbal and nonverbal communication of pain (pain behavior) and upper extremity-specific disability in patients with hand and upper extremity illness. METHODS: A total of 139 new and followed up adult patients completed the QuickDASH, an ordinal rating of pain, and 4 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Computer Adaptive Testing instruments: (1) PROMIS pain behavior, (2) PROMIS pain interference (measuring the degree to which pain interferes with achieving ones physical goals), (3) PROMIS physical function, and (4) PROMIS depression. RESULTS: Factors associated with a higher QuickDASH score in bivariate analysis included a higher PROMIS pain behavior score, not working, being separated/divorced or widowed, having sought treatment before, having other pain conditions, a higher PROMIS pain interference score, a higher PROMIS depression score, and lower education level. The final multivariable model of factors associated with QuickDASH included PROMIS pain interference, having other pain conditions, and being separated/divorced or widowed, and it explained 64% of the variability. CONCLUSION: PROMIS pain behavior (verbal and nonverbal communication of pain) correlates with upper extremity disability, but PROMIS pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with activity) is a more important factor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, cross-sectional study.

Opioid Use, Satisfaction, and Pain Intensity After Orthopedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients in other countries use fewer opioids than patients in the United States with satisfactory pain relief. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the null hypothesis that opioid intake after orthopedic surgery does not influence satisfaction with pain management. METHODS: A total of 232 orthopedic surgical inpatients completed measures of pain self-efficacy and symptoms of depression at enrollment and commonly used measures of pain intensity, satisfaction with pain relief, and satisfaction with hospital staff attention to pain approximately 14 days after surgery. Inpatient opioid intake per 24-hour period was quantified. RESULTS: At a phone evaluation approximately 2 weeks after discharge from the hospital, patients who were always satisfied with their pain relief in hospital and always satisfied with staff attention to pain used significantly less opioids on day 1 compared with patients who were not always satisfied. There were no differences in satisfaction by type of surgery. The final multivariable model for not always satisfied with pain relief included greater opioid use on day 1 (odds ratio = 1.2), and preadmission diagnosis of depression (odds ratio = 2.6). Greater opioid use on day 1 was the only factor associated with less than always satisfied with the staff attention to pain relief (odds ratio = 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who take more opioids report less satisfaction with pain relief and greater pain intensity. Evidence-based interventions to increase self-efficacy merit additional study for the management of postoperative pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Level 1.

Do 360-degree feedback survey results relate to patient satisfaction measures?

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that feedback from 360-degree surveys-combined with coaching-can improve physician team performance and quality of patient care. The Physicians Universal Leadership-Teamwork Skills Education (PULSE) 360 is one such survey tool that is used to assess work colleagues' and coworkers' perceptions of a physician's leadership, teamwork, and clinical practice style. The Clinician & Group-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CG-CAHPS), developed by the US Department of Health and Human Services to serve as the benchmark for quality health care, is a survey tool for patients to provide feedback that is based on their recent experiences with staff and clinicians and soon will be tied to Medicare-based compensation of participating physicians. Prior research has indicated that patients and coworkers often agree in their assessment of physicians' behavioral patterns. The goal of the current study was to determine whether 360-degree, also called multisource, feedback provided by coworkers could predict patient satisfaction/experience ratings. A significant relationship between these two forms of feedback could enable physicians to take a more proactive approach to reinforce their strengths and identify any improvement opportunities in their patient interactions by reviewing feedback from team members. An automated 360-degree software process may be a faster, simpler, and less resource-intensive approach than telephoning and interviewing patients for survey responses, and it potentially could facilitate a more rapid credentialing or quality improvement process leading to greater fiscal and professional development gains for physicians. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our primary research question was to determine if PULSE 360 coworkers' ratings correlate with CG-CAHPS patients' ratings of overall satisfaction, recommendation of the physician, surgeon respect, and clarity of the surgeon's explanation. Our secondary research questions were to determine whether CG-CAHPS scores correlate with additional composite scores from the Quality PULSE 360 (eg, insight impact score, focus concerns score, leadership-teamwork index score, etc). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed existing quality improvement data from CG-CAHPS patient surveys as well as from a department quality improvement initiative using 360-degree survey feedback questionnaires (Quality PULSE 360 with coworkers). Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify significant relationships for inclusion of research variables in multivariate linear analyses (eg, stepwise regression to determine the best fitting predictive model for CG-CAHPS ratings). In all higher order analyses, CG-CAHPS ratings were treated as the dependent variables, whereas PULSE 360 scores served as independent variables. This approach led to the identification of the most predictive linear model for each CG-CAHPS' performance rating (eg, [1] overall satisfaction; [2] recommendation of the physician; [3] surgeon respect; and [4] clarity of the surgeon's explanation) regressed on all PULSE scores with which there was a significant bivariate relationship. Backward stepwise regression was then used to remove unnecessary predictors from the linear model based on changes in the variance explained by the model with or without inclusion of the predictor. RESULTS: The Quality PULSE 360 insight impact score correlated with patient satisfaction (0.50, p = 0.01), patient recommendation (0.58, p = 0.002), patient rating of surgeon respect (0.74, p < 0.001), and patient impression of clarity of the physician explanation (0.69, p < 0.001). Additionally, leadership-teamwork index also correlated with patient rating of surgeon respect (0.46, p = 0.019) and patient impression of clarity of the surgeon's explanation (0.39, p = 0.05). Multivariate analyses supported retention of insight impact as a predictor of patient overall satisfaction, patient recommendation of the surgeon, and patient rating of surgeon respect. Both insight impact and leadership-teamwork index were retained as predictors of patient impression of explanation. Several other PULSE 360 variables were correlated with CG-CAHPS ratings, but none were retained in the linear models post stepwise regression. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between Quality PULSE 360 feedback scores and measures of patient satisfaction reaffirm that feedback from work team members may provide helpful information into how patients may be perceiving their physicians' behavior and vice versa. Furthermore, the findings provide tentative support for the use of team-based feedback to improve the quality of relationships with both coworkers and patients. The 360-degree survey process may offer an effective tool for physicians to obtain feedback about behavior that could directly impact practice reimbursement and reputation or potentially be used for bonuses to incentivize better team professionalism and patient satisfaction, ie, "pay-for-professionalism." Further research is needed to expand on this line of inquiry, determine which interventions can improve 360-degree and patient satisfaction scores, and explain the shared variance in physician performance that is captured in the perceptions of patients and coworkers.

Patients with greater symptom intensity and more disability are more likely to be surprised by a hand surgeon's advice.

BACKGROUND: A clash between a patient's assumptions and a doctor's advice can feel adversarial which might influence satisfaction ratings and compliance with treatment recommendations. A better understanding of sources of patients' bewilderment might lead to improved strategies for conveying counterintuitive information that improve patient comfort and wellbeing. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study addressed the following questions: (1) Are magnitude of disability, pain intensity, symptoms of depression, or health anxiety associated with a higher level of surprise when a patient is presented with diagnostic information and/or therapeutic recommendations? (2) Does the surgeon accurately perceive the patient's bewilderment? (3) Does the surgeon's perception of patient bewilderment correlate with diagnosis or a patient's magnitude of disability, pain intensity, symptoms of depression, or health anxiety? PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we invited new patients who met prespecified criteria during a 3-month period in one hand-surgery practice to enroll; of 93 patients invited, 84 (90%) agreed to participate. Patients reported demographics and completed the short versions of the DASH questionnaire (QuickDASH), the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, and the Short Health Anxiety Inventory; rated their pain intensity; and rated the degree to which the information given by the surgeon was unexpected or surprising on an 11-point ordinal scale. The surgeon also rated his impression of the patient's surprise on an 11-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: Only greater symptom intensity and magnitude of disability (QuickDASH) correlated with greater unexpected information when rated by the patient (ß = 0.058; p < 0.001). There was a correlation between patient surprise and the surgeon's perception of the patient's surprise (r = 0.58; p < 0.001). Greater surgeon-perceived patient surprise correlated with nonspecific illness (p = 0.007; ß = 3.0). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with greater symptom intensity and magnitude of disability, and perhaps also patients with nonspecific diagnoses, are more likely to be surprised by a hand surgeon's advice. Future research might address the ability of previsit preparation (using decision aids or other alternative means of education) to ameliorate the discordance between patient assumptions and hand surgeon advice.

Do previsit expectations correlate with satisfaction of new patients presenting for evaluation with an orthopaedic surgical practice?

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is associated with increased compliance, improved treatment outcomes, and decreased risk of litigation. Factors such as patient understanding and psychological well-being are recognized influences on satisfaction. Less is known about the relationship between previsit expectations and satisfaction. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are there correlations among previsit expectations, met expectations, and patient satisfaction? (2) What are the categories of expectations, and which one(s) correlate with satisfaction? METHODS: Eighty-six new patients presenting to a hand surgery practice of a tertiary referral hospital with 70% direct primary care referrals, mostly with elective concerns, indicated their previsit expectations (Patient Intention Questionnaire [PIQ]). Immediately after the visit, the same patients rated the degree to which their previsit expectations were met (Expectation Met Questionnaire [EMQ]) and their satisfaction level (Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale). These tools have been used in primary care office settings and claim good psychometric properties, and although they have not been strictly validated for responsiveness and other test parameters, they have good face validity. We then conducted a multivariable backward linear regression to determine whether (1) scores on the PIQ; and (2) scores on the EMQ are associated with satisfaction. RESULTS: Satisfaction correlated with met expectations (r=0.36; p<0.001) but not with previsit expectations (r=-0.01, p=0.94). We identified five primary categories of previsit expectations that accounted for 50% of the variance in PIQ: (1) "Information and Explanation"; (2) "Emotional and Understanding"; (3) "Emotional Problems"; (4) "Diagnostics"; and (5) "Comforting". The only category of met expectations that correlated with satisfaction was Information and Explanation (r=0.43; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients seeing a hand surgeon, met expectations correlate with satisfaction. In particular, patients with met expectations regarding information and explanation were more satisfied with their visit. Efforts to determine the most effective methods for conveying unexpected information warrant investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Do Upper Extremity Trauma Patients Have Different Preferences for Shared Decision-making Than Patients With Nontraumatic Conditions?

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is a combination of expertise, available scientific evidence, and the preferences of the patient and surgeon. Some surgeons contend that patients are less capable of participating in decisions about traumatic conditions than nontraumatic conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patients with nontraumatic conditions have different preferences for shared decision-making when compared with those who sustained acute trauma? (2) Do disability, symptoms of depression, and self-efficacy correlate with preference for shared decision-making? METHODS: In this prospective, comparative trial, we evaluated a total of 133 patients presenting to the outpatient practices of two university-based hand surgeons with traumatic or nontraumatic hand and upper extremity illnesses or conditions. Each patient completed questionnaires measuring their preferred role in healthcare decision-making (Control Preferences Scale [CPS]), symptoms of depression (Patients' Health Questionnaire), and pain self-efficacy (confidence that one can achieve one's goals despite pain; measured using the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire). Patients also completed a short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire and an ordinal rating of pain intensity. RESULTS: There was no difference in decision-making preferences between patients with traumatic (CPS: 3 ± 2) and nontraumatic conditions (CPS: 3 ± 1 mean difference = 0.2 [95% confidence interval, -0.4 to 0.7], p = 0.78) with most patients (95 versus 38) preferring shared decision-making. More educated patients preferred a more active role in decision-making (beta = -0.1, r = 0.08, p = 0.001); however, differences in levels of disability, pain and function, depression, and pain-related self-efficacy were not associated with differences in patients' preferences in terms of shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who sustained trauma have on average the same preference for shared decision-making compared with patients who sustained no trauma. Now that we know the findings of this study, clinicians might be motivated to share their expertise about the treatment options, potential outcomes, benefits, and harms with the patient and to discuss their preference as well in a semiacute setting, resulting in a shared decision.

The factors influencing the decision making of operative treatment for proximal humeral fractures.

BACKGROUND: The factors influencing the decision making of operative treatment for fractures of the proximal humerus are debated. We hypothesized that there is no difference in treatment recommendations between surgeons shown radiographs alone and those shown radiographs and patient information. Secondarily, we addressed (1) factors associated with a recommendation for operative treatment, (2) factors associated with recommendation for arthroplasty, (3) concordance with the recommendations of the treating surgeons, and (4) factors affecting the inter-rater reliability of treatment recommendations. METHODS: A total of 238 surgeons of the Science of Variation Group rated 40 radiographs of patients with proximal humerus fractures. Participants were randomized to receive information about the patient and mechanism of injury. The response variables included the choice of treatment (operative vs nonoperative) and the percentage of matches with the actual treatment. RESULTS: Participants who received patient information recommended operative treatment less than those who received no information. The patient information that had the greatest influence on treatment recommendations included age (55%) and fracture mechanism (32%). The only other factor associated with a recommendation for operative treatment was region of practice. There was no significant difference between participants who were and were not provided with information regarding agreement with the actual treatment (operative vs nonoperative) provided by the treating surgeon. CONCLUSION: Patient information-older age in particular-is associated with a higher likelihood of recommending nonoperative treatment than radiographs alone. Clinical information did not improve agreement of the Science of Variation Group with the actual treatment or the generally poor interobserver agreement on treatment recommendations.

Shared Decision-Making in Surgery.

Medical treatment of patients always entails the risk of undesired complications or side effects. This is particularly poignant in surgery as both the disease to be treated and the surgical intervention to be performed can be life threatening. Hence, it is essential to inform a surgical patient in detail about the expectations desired, but also the possible undesired outcomes and complications, especially when new surgical techniques are introduced. Apart from communication about available evidence regarding treatment options, the patient's preference needs to be invoked to make sure the surgeon's advice matches the patient's preference. Shared decision-making (SDM) invokes the bidirectional communication between physicians and patients required to involve the patient's preference in the eventual treatment choice. SDM is considered as an essential part of evidence-based medicine as it helps determine whether the available evidence on the possible benefits and harms of treatment options match the patient's characteristics and preferences. This paper will exemplify what SDM is, why it is important, and how it can be performed in surgical practice. Several tools to facilitate SDM are presented.

The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: validation of an abbreviated two-item questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a validated tool to assess pain self-efficacy and is strongly correlated with disability. Reducing the number of questions of the original PSEQ to screen for self-efficacy will result in more efficient screening and less burden for the patient. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to prospectively validate the shortened version of the PSEQ. METHOD: Overall, 249 new and follow-up patients visiting our outpatient orthopedic hand surgery clinic were prospectively enrolled and asked to complete the PSEQ, short version of the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand, and 2-question version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) depression questionnaires. The patients completed the questionnaires in the office and online 2 weeks after their visit. At the follow-up visit, the PSEQ was substituted with the 2-question version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2). The factors associated with higher short forms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were investigated in a bivariate and multivariable analysis. Paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of the short and long questionnaires at enrollment. RESULTS: There was a large correlation (r = 0.90; p < 0.001) between the original PSEQ and the PSEQ-2 at enrollment. The Cronbach α were comparable for the PSEQ and the PSEQ-2 (α = 0.95 compared with α = 0.91). There was a small but statistically significant difference between the average scores of the PSEQ and PSEQ-2 (4.4 vs 4.8; p < 0.001). For the shortened PSEQ, a smaller-but still large-correlation was found with the short forms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (r = 0.71 vs r = 0.61). Both the PSEQ-2 and the PSEQ were the most important predictors of the short forms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores. A substantial test-retest reliability was found for the PSEQ-2 (0.66). CONCLUSION: The PSEQ-2 can be used to quickly assess patients׳ pain self-efficacy.

Carpal tunnel syndrome: assessment of surgeon and patient preferences and priorities for decision-making.

PURPOSE: This study tested the null hypothesis that there are no differences between the preferences of hand surgeons and those patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) facing decisions about management of CTS (ie, the preferred content of a decision aid). METHODS: One hundred three hand surgeons of the Science of Variation Group and 79 patients with CTS completed a survey about their priorities and preferences in decision making regarding the management of CTS. The questionnaire was structured according the Ottawa Decision Support Framework for the development of a decision aid. RESULTS: Important areas on which patient and hand surgeon interests differed included a preference for nonpainful, nonoperative treatment and confirmation of the diagnosis with electrodiagnostic testing. For patients, the main disadvantage of nonoperative treatment was that it was likely to be only palliative and temporary. Patients preferred, on average, to take the lead in decision making, whereas physicians preferred shared decision making. Patients and physicians agreed on the value of support from family and other physicians in the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: There were some differences between patient and surgeon priorities and preferences regarding decision making for CTS, particularly the risks and benefits of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Information that helps inform patients of their options based on current best evidence might help patients understand their own preferences and values, reduce decisional conflict, limit surgeon-to-surgeon variations, and improve health.

Estimation of base of middle phalanx size using anatomical landmarks.

PURPOSE: To determine whether there is a measurable and reproducible relationship between the articular surface size of the middle phalanx base and the size of the middle phalanx head and proximal phalanx length of the same finger. METHODS: Size of the articular surface of the middle phalanx base, size of the middle phalanx head, and proximal phalanx length were measured in 84 lateral radiographs by 3 observers. RESULTS: The ratio of articular surface size of the middle phalanx base to the proximal phalanx length of the same finger was 0.17. The ratio of articular surface size of the middle phalanx base to the size of the middle phalanx head of the same finger was 1.34. The intraclass correlation (ICC) among 3 raters was 0.99 for proximal phalanx length and 0.88 for size of the middle phalanx head. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of this relationship and ratios allow for accurate estimation of the percentage of articular surface involvement in a fracture of the middle phalanx base. The ICC was highest for measuring proximal phalanx length, making it the most reliable measurement for estimation of the articular surface size. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This quantitative estimate may be useful for clinical research and is applicable to patient care.

Trigger finger: assessment of surgeon and patient preferences and priorities for decision making.

PURPOSE: To test the null hypothesis that there are no differences in the priorities and preferences of patients with idiopathic trigger finger (TF) and hand surgeons. METHODS: One hundred five hand surgeons of the Science of Variation Group and 84 patients with TF completed a survey about their priorities and preferences in decision making regarding the management of TF. The questionnaire was structured according the Ottawa Decision Support Framework for the development of a decision aid. RESULTS: Patients desired orthotics more and surgery less than physicians. Patients and physicians disagreed on the main advantage of several treatment options for TFs and on disadvantages of the treatment options. Patients preferred to decide for themselves after receiving advice, whereas physicians preferred a shared decision. Patients preferred booklets, and physicians opted for Internet and video decision aids. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing patients and hand surgeons, there were some differences in treatment preferences and perceived advantages and disadvantages regarding idiopathic TF-differences that might be addressed by a decision aid. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Information that helps inform patients of their options based on current best evidence might help them understand their own preferences and values, reduce decisional conflict, limit surgeon-to-surgeon variations, and improve health.

Measurement of upper extremity disability using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.

PURPOSE: Current questionnaires used to measure upper extremity-specific disability can be time-consuming and subject to ceiling effects. The National Institutes of Health developed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures based on computer adaptive testing (CAT), a technique that is more efficient and less subject to floor and ceiling effects than traditional questionnaires with a fixed number of questions. This study tested the correlation of the Physical Function-Upper Extremity CAT with the Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. METHODS: Patients presenting to our orthopedic outpatient clinic were invited to participate in this observational cross-sectional study between August and October 2013. A study sample of 84 patients completed the QuickDASH and PROMIS Physical Function-Upper Extremity CAT, and 3 other PROMIS measures, as well as the 2-question Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire and the 2-question Patient Health Questionnaire. RESULTS: A strong correlation was found between QuickDASH and PROMIS Physical Function-Upper Extremity CAT, with a significantly shorter completion time for the latter. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the PROMIS Upper Extremity CAT because it is valid, reliable, and easy to use, and it provides easy reference to population norms (a score of 50 represents the norm in the United States population, and every 10 points represents a standard deviation from the norm). TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic I.

The influence of patients' participation in research on their satisfaction.

PURPOSE: To determine if there was a difference between patients participating in research and those who did not regarding their satisfaction with the medical encounter and their physician. METHODS: We prospectively randomized 128 patients to either complete 20 minutes of questionnaires (participate in research) or not. After the visit, all patients rated their satisfaction with their visit and satisfaction with the doctor on an 11-point ordinal satisfaction scales, with 0 being not at all satisfied and 10 being completely satisfied. Average satisfaction scores were analyzed in relation to demographics, questionnaires, and involvement in research. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients that did and did not participate in research for satisfaction with the medical encounter or satisfaction with the treating physician. Satisfaction was not associated with marital status, work status, or diagnosis. There was a significant correlation between greater satisfaction and both less education and lower self-efficacy. There was no significant correlation between patient satisfaction and magnitude of disability, pain intensity, or health anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that patients' participation in research can coexist with patient satisfaction. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic I.

Does rewording MRI reports improve patient understanding and emotional response to a clinical report?

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic MRI reports can be distressing for patients with limited health literacy. Humans tend to prepare for the worst particularly when we are in pain, and words like "tear" can make us feel damaged and in need of repair. Research on words used in provider-patient interactions have shown an affect on response to treatment and coping strategies, but the literature on this remains relatively sparse. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of this observational cross-sectional study is to determine whether rewording of MRI reports in understandable, more dispassionate language will result in better patient ratings of emotional response, satisfaction, usefulness, and understanding. Furthermore, we wanted to find out which type of report patients would choose to receive. METHODS: One hundred patients visiting an orthopaedic hand and upper extremity outpatient office for reasons unrelated to the presented MRI report were enrolled. Four MRI reports, concerning upper extremity conditions, were reworded to an eighth-grade reading level and with the use of neutral descriptive words and the most optimistic interpretations based on current best evidence. After reading each report, emotional response was measured using the Self Assessment Manikin (SAM). Subjects also completed questions about satisfaction, usefulness, and understanding of the report. RESULTS: According to the results of the SAM questionnaire, the reworded MRI reports resulted in significantly higher pleasure and dominance scores and lower arousal scores. The mean satisfaction, usefulness, and understanding scores of the reworded report were significantly higher compared with the original reports. Seventy percent of the patients preferred the reworded reports over the original reports. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional response, satisfaction, usefulness, and understanding were all superior in MRI reports reworded for lower reading level and optimal emotional content and optimism. Given that patients increasingly have access to their medical records and diagnostic reports, attention to health literacy and psychologic aspects of the report may help optimize health and patient satisfaction.

Death, taxes, and trapeziometacarpal arthrosis.

BACKGROUND: Hand surgeons treat trapeziometacarpal arthrosis as if everyone with the disease presents for treatment despite evidence that suggests that trapeziometacarpal arthrosis is a normal part of human aging for which--it seems safe to assume--most people never seek medical attention. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aims of our study were (1) to confirm the prevalence of radiographic trapeziometacarpal arthrosis in a very large sample and to determine if age and sex are associated with (2) any radiographic evidence of trapeziometacarpal arthrosis; and (3) radiographic evidence of severe trapeziometacarpal arthrosis. METHODS: A total of 2321 patients 31 years or older with radiographs obtained during treatment of a distal radius fracture at a tertiary care medical center emergency department between 2002 and 2012 were analyzed. Trapeziometacarpal arthrosis was graded using the 3-point scale of Sodha et al. (none, definite, destroyed trapeziometacarpal joint); we used regression analyses to determine the association of age (in 10-year age groups) and sex with the presence of trapeziometacarpal arthrosis. RESULTS: The prevalence of trapeziometacarpal arthrosis steadily increased to 85% between the ages of 71 and 80 years and reached 100% in women (with 50% of them being classified as severe) aged 91 years or older and 93% in men of 81 years or older. Severe arthrosis was more prevalent at earlier ages among women and reached 35% in women and 34% in men who were 81 years or older. Logistic regression identified higher age as the strongest factor associated with trapeziometacarpal arthrosis, but sex was also a factor. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic trapeziometacarpal arthrosis is an expected part of human aging. Given that only three patients in this large cohort had evidence of prior surgery, it seems that most people adapt to trapeziometacarpal arthrosis. Treatments that optimize adaptation in patients who present with trapeziometacarpal arthrosis-related symptoms and disability merit additional study.

How surgeons make decisions when the evidence is inconclusive.

PURPOSE: To address the factors that surgeons use to decide between 2 options for treatment when the evidence is inconclusive. METHODS: We tested the null hypothesis that the factors surgeons use do not vary by training, demographics, and practice. A total of 337 surgeons rated the importance of 7 factors when deciding between treatment and following the natural history of the disease and 12 factors when deciding between 2 operative treatments using a 5-point Likert scale between "very important" and "very unimportant." RESULTS: According to the percentages of statements rated very important or somewhat important, the most popular factors influencing recommendations when evidence is inconclusive between treatment and following the natural course of the illness were "works in my hands," "familiarity with the treatment," and "what my mentor taught me." The most important factors when evidence shows no difference between 2 surgeries were "fewer complications," "quicker recovery," "burns fewer bridges," "works in my hands" and "familiarity with the procedure." Europeans rated "works in my hands" and "cheapest/most resourceful" of significantly greater importance and "what others are doing," "highest reimbursement," and "shorter procedure" of significantly lower importance than surgeons in the United States. Observers with fewer than 10 years in independent practice rated "what my mentor taught me," "what others are doing" and "highest reimbursement" of significantly lower importance compared to observers with 10 or more years in independent practice. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons deciding between 2 treatment options, when the evidence is inconclusive, fall back to factors that relate to their perspective and reflect their culture and circumstances, more so than factors related to the patient's perspective, although this may be different for younger surgeons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hand surgeons might benefit from consensus fallback preferences when evidence is inconclusive. It is possible that falling back to personal comfort makes us vulnerable to unhelpful commercial and societal influences.