Using PROMIS Scores to Provide Cost-Conscious Follow-up After Foot and Ankle Surgery.

BACKGROUND: National campaigns in the United States, such as Choosing Wisely, emphasize that decreasing low-value office visits maximizes health care value. Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used to quantify postoperative outcomes, they have not been assessed as a tool to help guide clinicians consider alternatives or discontinue in-person follow-up visits. The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency and cost of in-person follow-up visits after patients report substantial improvement defined as 2 consecutive improvements above preoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) scores. METHODS: Retrospective PROMIS PI data were obtained between 2015 and 2020 for common elective foot (n = 759) and ankle (n = 578) surgical procedures. Patients were divided into quartiles according to their preoperative PI score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate time to substantial improvement. Substantial improvement was defined as having 2 consecutive postoperative minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) above preoperative PROMIS PI scores. MCID was measured using the distribution-based method. Multivariable negative binomial models were used to determine the number of visits and direct associated costs after substantial improvement. The cost to payors was estimated using reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Within 3 months, 12% to 46% of foot and 16% to 61% of ankle patients achieved substantial improvement. Results vary by preoperative pain quartile, with patients who report higher preoperative pain scores achieving earlier improvement. After achieving substantial improvement, foot and ankle patients averaged 3.60 and 4.01 follow-up visits during the remaining 9 months of the year. Visit costs averaged $266 and $322 per foot and ankle patient respectively. CONCLUSION: Postoperative follow-up visits are time-consuming and costly. Physicians might consider objective measures, such as PROMIS PI, to determine the need, timing, and alternatives for in-person follow-up visits for elective foot and ankle surgeries after patients demonstrate reliable clinical improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study at a single institution.

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.

Evaluating medical students' knowledge of patient-reported outcomes and the impact of curriculum intervention in consecutive cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection and utilization improves patient-provider communication, symptom reporting, and patient satisfaction. Despite their significance, the science and utility of PROs are not part of required curriculum in medical education. The authors describe the results of a survey distributed to medical students evaluating their experience, knowledge, and perceptions of PROs, report on outcomes of the impact of formal PRO education on medical student knowledge, and describe strategies to foster the spread of PRO education into other programs. METHODS: The authors developed and distributed a 20-question web-based survey distributed to medical students at two U.S. medical schools to evaluate students' experience, knowledge, and perceptions of PROs. To compare medical students' knowledge in their pre-clinical years (M1-M2) to those in their clinical years (M3-M4), the authors calculated odds ratios and determined significance determined using chi-squared tests. To determine the utility of formal education on medical students' knowledge of PROs, the authors invited 4th year medical students at a single institution to participate in a survey before and two weeks after receiving formal PRO education as part of the medical school curriculum, spanning three years. RESULTS: 137 (15%) medical students responded to the initial survey. Respondents' knowledge of PROs was low and did not differ when comparing pre-clinical to clinical years in school. Less than 10% had received education on PROs and only 16% felt prepared to use PROs in patient care. Respondents demonstrated positive attitudes towards PROs, with 84% expressing interest in learning about PROs. In the second phase education cohort of 231 (77% response rate) 4th -year medical students over three years, formal education improved correct response rates to PRO questions. After education, 90% (121/134) agreed PROs are an important component of high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a gap in knowledge about PROs among medical students irrespective of year in training. It also shows that structured education may help fill the PRO knowledge gap, potentially providing future clinicians with the skills to implement PROs into clinical practice, aligning with the broader shift towards patient-centric evidence-based healthcare practices.

Utilization of PROMIS Neuropathic Pain Quality for Detection and Monitoring Neuropathic Pain in Heel Pain Patients.

Background: Diagnosis and management of neuropathic pain (NP) in foot and ankle patients remain challenging. We investigated the plausibility of using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Neuropathic Pain Quality (PQ-Neuro) as an initial screening tool to detect NP and track the treatment effects. Methods: Patients with heel pain were prospectively recruited and grouped to no-NP, mild-NP, and severe-NP based on the initial PROMIS PQ-Neuro t scores. Pain Interference (PI), Physical Function (PF), and Self-Efficacy (SE) scores were evaluated at baseline, 30-day, and 90-day follow-up. Other factors such as age, smoking, body mass index (BMI), low back/neck pain, anxiety/depression, and medications were analyzed. Linear mixed modeling was used to assess the main effects of time and NP on PROMIS t scores, comparing minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results: Forty-eight patients with mean age of 52.4 years were recruited. Using the PROMIS PQ-Neuro as the assessment tool, 33 patients (69%) were detected to have NP at baseline-23 (48%) mild and 10 (21%) severe. BMI was the only independent factor associated with NP (P = .011). Higher baseline PQ-Neuro t score was significantly associated with higher follow-up PQ-Neuro (P < .001), PI (P = .005), and lower SE (P = .04) across time points. Patients with NP showed lower PF at baseline with significantly less improvement in PF (3 vs 9.9, P = .035) and did not meet MCID. Conclusion: Baseline PROMIS PQ-Neuro ≥46 was significantly associated with worse PI and SE across all time points, with less clinically significant improvements in PF. Prevalence of NP in heel pain patients was high. The PROMIS PQ-Neuro may serve as a valuable tool for detection of NP and guiding clinical treatment decision pathways for heel pain patients. Level of Evidence: Level III, prospective cohort study.

Impact of Sports Participation on Achievement of Clinically Relevant Outcomes 2 Years After ACL Reconstruction.

Background: Clinically relevant threshold values associated with patient-reported outcome measures after orthopaedic procedures such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are important for relating these scores to meaningful postoperative improvement. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-CAT) after ACLR. It was hypothesized that preoperative sport participation would have an impact on PASS achievement. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Included were consecutive patients who underwent primary assisted ACLR between January 4 and August 1, 2016. Patients were administered the PROMIS-CAT Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference domains preoperatively and at a minimum 2 years postoperatively, with external anchor questions used to determine the PASS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for the entire study population as well as separately for athletes and nonathletes to determine PROMIS PASS thresholds for each population. A previously published PROMIS-PF minimal clinically important difference was used to evaluate postoperative improvement. A post hoc multivariate nominal logistic multivariate analysis was constructed to assess the effects of preoperative patient characteristics on the likelihood of attaining both the minimal clinically important difference and PASS. Results: In total, 112 patients were included in the study, with 79 (71%) having recreational or higher levels of athletic participation. The PASS for the study population was 56.0 (area under the ROC curve, 0.86) and was unaffected by baseline PROMIS-PF scores but was affected by preoperative athletic participation (56.0 for athletes, 49.0 for nonathletes). A post hoc analysis found 57 patients (51%) achieved the PASS for the PROMIS-PF (cutoff, 56.0), but when the athlete and nonathlete thresholds were applied to their respective patient groups, 66% of athletes and 64% of nonathletes achieved the PASS postoperatively. The multivariate analysis found that sport participation (odds ratio, 6.2; P = .001) but not age, sex, body mass index, or preoperative PROMIS affected the likelihood of achieving the PASS on the PROMIS-PF. Conclusion: Preoperative athletic participation significantly affected the ability to achieve PASS.

Republication of "Current Concepts Review: Hallux Rigidus".

Arthritis of the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, hallux rigid, is a common and disabling source of foot pain in the adult population. Hallux rigidus is characterized by diseased cartilage and large, periarticular osteophytes that result in a stiff, painful joint. Activity modification, sensible shoes, orthotics, anti-inflammatory medications and occasional intra-articular steroid injections can be attempted to alleviate the discomfort associated with hallux rigidus. A number of surgical options exist for the treatment of recalcitrant hallux rigidus. Cheilectomy is a useful treatment for dorsal impingement pain seen in mild hallux rigidus. A new polyvinyl alcohol hemi-arthroplasty implant has shown promising early and midterm results in the treatment of advanced hallux rigidus; however, arthrodesis of the first MTP joint remains the gold standard treatment for advanced hallux rigidus because of unpredictable outcomes after early-generation joint replacement implants.

Operationalizing PROMs at the Musculoskeletal Practice and Policy Levels.

There continues to be growing interest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), especially as value-based healthcare initiatives gain more traction. Although it is well-established that PROMs can be useful in clinical research, how to operationalize PROMs in clinical care and policy initiatives remains a "work in progress." Following the design of a comprehensive PROM administration and routine collection system, orthopaedic surgeons and their patients can reap the benefits of PROMs in practice through improved shared clinical decision-making discussions at the individual patient level and closer symptom monitoring on a large scale, with improved resource allocation at the population health level. Although certain government and payer incentives exist to collect PROMs at present, it is reasonable to assume that future policy initiatives will begin to use the actual PROM scores to assess clinical outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons with interest in this area should prioritize their involvement in policy discussion to ensure PROMs are being used appropriately in novel payment models and policy endeavors so that they are both evaluated and compensated fairly. Specifically, orthopaedic surgeons can help ensure appropriate risk adjustment of patients when this is being done. Undoubtedly, PROMs will only become a larger part of musculoskeletal care moving forward.

AOA Critical Issues: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Why Every Orthopaedic Practice Should Be Collecting Them.

ABSTRACT: Patient-centered care is essential to providing high-quality value-based care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are arguably the best tools available to orthopaedic providers for providing patient-centered care. Many clinical opportunities exist for the implementation of PROMs into routine practice, such as shared decision-making, mental health screening, and prediction of postoperative disposition. Routine use of PROMs is also an adjunct to the streamlining of documentation, patient intake, and telemedicine visits, and hospitals can aggregate PROMs for the purpose of risk stratification. Physicians can harness the power of PROMs for quality improvement initiatives and improvement of the patient experience. Despite these numerous applications, PROMs are frequently underutilized tools. Understanding the many benefits of PROMs may allow orthopaedic practices to justify investing in these valuable tools.

Does Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Use at New Foot and Ankle Patient Clinic Visits Improve Patient Activation, Experience, and Satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can help predict clinical outcomes and improve shared clinical decision-making discussions. There remains a paucity of research assessing how the use of PROMs may drive improved patient experience and patient activation. METHODS: New foot and ankle patients completed PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression assessments. Patients were then randomized to viewing and discussing their PROMIS scores with their surgeon or not. Following the clinic visit, patients completed a series of Clinician & Group Survey-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) questions and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Responses to the CG-CAHPS questions and PAM were compared between the 2 groups and after clustering on surgeon. Potential interaction effects by social deprivation were also explored. RESULTS: After enrolling patients but removing those lost to follow-up or with missing data, 97 and 116 patients remained in the intervention control cohorts, respectively. No difference was found in CG-CAHPS responses nor PAM scores between the 2 groups (P > .05). All surgeons were highly rated by all patients. When clustered by surgeon, intervention subjects were less likely to indicate "top box" scores for the understanding domain of the CG-CAHPS question (OR 0.51, P < .001) and had decreased odds of high patient activation compared to control subjects (OR 0.67; P = .005). Among the most socially disadvantaged patients, there was no difference in control and intervention subjects in their likelihood of having high patient activation (P = .09). CONCLUSION: Highly rated foot and ankle surgeons who show and discuss PROM results may not improve patient experience or activation and may, in fact, decrease understanding or patient activation in select populations. Future work is needed to determine when PROM discussions are most beneficial and how best to present PROMs data, as we suspect that how the information was presented-and not the use of PROMs-resulted in our findings. Health literacy tools and/or communication training may better engage different patient groups regarding PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Clinical Improvement Following Operative Management of Ankle Fractures Among Patients With and Without Moderate to High Depressive Symptoms: An Analysis Using PROMIS.

Background: Understanding the recovery trajectory following operative management of ankle fractures can help surgeons guide patient expectations. Further, it is beneficial to consider the impact of mental health on the recovery trajectory. Our study aimed to address the paucity of literature focused on understanding the recovery trajectory following surgery for ankle fractures, including in patients with depressive symptoms. Methods: From February 2015 to March 2020, patients with isolated ankle fractures were asked to complete Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression questionnaires as part of routine care at presentation and follow-up time points. Linear mixed effects regression models were used to evaluate the patient recovery pattern, comparing the preoperative time point to <3 months, 3-6 months, and >6 months across all patients. Additional models that included the presence of depression symptoms as a covariate were then used. Results: A total of 153 patients met inclusion criteria. By 3-6 months, PROMIS PF (ß: 9.95, 95% CI: 7.97-11.94, P < .001), PI (ß: -10.30, 95% CI: -11.87 to -8.72, P < .001), and Depression (ß: -5.60, 95% CI: -7.01 to -4.20, P < .001) improved relative to the preoperative time point. This level of recovery was sustained thereafter. When incorporating depressive symptoms into our model as a covariate, the moderate to high depressive symptoms were associated with significantly and clinically important worse PROMIS PF (ß: -4.00, 95% CI: -7.00 to -1.00, P = .01) and PI (ß: 3.16, 95% CI: -0.55 to 5.76, P = .02) scores. Conclusion: Following ankle fracture surgery, all patients tend to clinically improve by 3-6 months postoperatively and then continue to appreciate this clinical improvement. Although patients with moderate to high depressive symptoms also clinically improve following the same trajectory, they tend to do so to a lesser level than those who have low depressive symptoms. Level of Evidence: Level III, case-control study.

Are Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System scales responsive in patients attending physical therapy with foot and ankle diagnoses?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to provide insight into the patient experience while uncovering an opportunity to improve patient care. Current studies document responsiveness of outcomes using the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) for a variety of orthopedic problems but are not specific to a physical therapy interval of care. PURPOSE: The main purpose of this study was to examine responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI) scales across an interval of care for physical therapy in patients with foot and ankle conditions. METHODS: Adult records (299 records, averaged 45.1 ± 15.4 years; 61% female) were assessed. Comparisons between pre- and post-physical therapy intervals of care were evaluated using a repeated-measures ANOVA, and the effect size was reported using Cohen's d. RESULTS: PROMIS PF scores significantly improved from 38.5 ± 8.8 to 45.2 ± 9.1 (6.6; p < .001; Cohen's d = 1.0). PROMIS PI scores significantly improved from 56.8 ± 8.8 to 53.0 ± 9.8 (-3.8; p < .001; Cohen's d = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The person-centered PROMIS PF and PI outcome measures were responsive to change following an interval of care in physical therapy for a large sample of orthopedic patients with foot and ankle diagnoses. The magnitude of change was dependent on starting score and diagnosis.

A 10-Year Review of Designated Leadership Positions of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS).

Background: In 2019 the majority of US medical students were women (50.5%). However, despite this representation, female representation within orthopaedic surgery remains low when compared to male counterparts. Previously, the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) and Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) published their gender diversity data. No such study has been conducted in the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS), which is the largest membership organization for foot and ankle-trained orthopaedic surgeons. This study sought to investigate whether increased female representation in the AOFAS membership roster is reflected in different levels within the organization. Methods: The 2012-2022 membership rosters were obtained from the AOFAS and compared by gender. Volunteer, elected, and appointed leadership positions as well as rates of engagement were compared for each of the activities. Leadership positions were defined as committee chair, vice chair, or board of directors (BOD). When available, time for advancement through leadership positions to the presidential role was analyzed by gender. Comparative data were available for 2 other respective subspecialty groups, ASSH and POSNA, from previously published studies. Results: Between 2012 and 2022, the percentage of female membership in the AOFAS has continued to increase from 7.5% (n=76) to 13% (n=163). Engagement in committee membership positions during this time has more than doubled from 11 of 26 (14.4%) to 57 of 163 (34.9%). When participation trends were evaluated by gender, women showed higher rates of committee involvement than their male counterparts. In 2021 compared to 2012, the percentage of female committee members more than doubled compared with their male counterparts (female 34.9% to male 23.2% vs female 14.4% to male 16.8%). This increase in female gender committee composition trend has been seen in the ASSH and POSNA, but it is more pronounced in the AOFAS. Representation of women in committee chair positions and elected positions has not seen this same parallel increase. Conclusion: The female membership of the AOFAS has a similar gender composition to other orthopaedic subspecialities. Female membership within the society has increased over the past 10 years. The rates of female involvement within committee membership positions have seen a parallel increase. It will take time to mature into leadership roles as we continue to increase diversity within our respective subspecialty organizations. Inception of the AOFAS Diversity Equity and Inclusion and Women's Subcommittee demonstrate a continued emphasis on this core value within the society. Level of Evidence: Level IV, cohort study.

Summary Report of the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society's Symposium on Targets for Osteoarthritis Research: Part 1: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Current Imaging Approaches.

This first of a 2-part series of articles recounts the key points presented in a collaborative symposium sponsored jointly by the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society with the intent to survey the state of scientific knowledge related to incidence, diagnosis, pathologic mechanisms, and injection treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the foot and ankle. A meeting was held virtually on December 3, 2021. A group of experts were invited to present brief synopses of the current state of knowledge and research in this area. Part 1 overviews areas of epidemiology and pathophysiology, current approaches in imaging, diagnostic and therapeutic injections, and genetics. Opportunities for future research are discussed. The OA scientific community, including funding agencies, academia, industry, and regulatory agencies, must recognize the needs of patients that suffer from arthritis of foot and ankle. The foot and ankle contain a myriad of interrelated joints and tissues that together provide a critical functionality. When this functionality is compromised by OA, significant disability results, yet the foot and ankle are generally understudied by the research community. Level of Evidence: Level V - Review Article/Expert Opinion.

Summary Report of the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society's Symposium on Targets for Osteoarthritis Research: Part 2: Treatment Options.

This second of a 2-part series of articles recounts the key points presented in a collaborative symposium sponsored jointly by the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society with the intent to survey current treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the foot and ankle. A meeting was held virtually on December 10, 2021. A group of experts were invited to present brief synopses of the current state of knowledge and research in this area. Topics were chosen by meeting organizers, who then identified and invited the expert speakers. Part 2 overviews the current treatment options, including orthotics, non-joint destructive procedures, as well as arthroscopies and arthroplasties in ankles and feet. Opportunities for future research are also discussed, such as developments in surgical options for ankle and the first metatarsophalangeal joint. The OA scientific community, including funding agencies, academia, industry, and regulatory agencies, must recognize the importance to patients of addressing the foot and ankle with improved basic, translational, and clinical research. Level of Evidence: Level V, review article/expert opinion.

Clinically Depressed Patients Having Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Show Improved but Inferior Rate of Achieving Minimum Clinically Important Difference for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Compared With Situationally Depressed or Nondepressed Patients.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the preoperative diagnosis of depression predicted worse postoperative outcomes, including physical therapy (PT) compliance, return-to-sport, and patient-reported outcomes using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: A multisurgeon series of consecutive patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Chart review was conducted to determine depression diagnosis status, demographic data, rehabilitation PT compliance, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome data using PROMIS. Patients who met the PROMIS threshold for mild depression but did not carry a clinical diagnosis of depression were classified as "situationally depressed." RESULTS: Ninety-five of 115 consecutive patients (81%) met inclusion criteria with an average follow-up of 34 ± 1.9 months. Fourteen patients (15%) had a preoperative diagnosis of depression, whereas 21 (22%) were considered situationally depressed. Clinically depressed patients had a greater rate of PT noncompliance (33.2% ± 17.6% vs 21.9% ± 12.6%; P = .02) and a lower postoperative PROMIS Physical Function (50.8 ± 7.7 vs 57.8 ± 11.0; P = .03 compared with patients without depression. Situationally depressed patients had lower preoperative physical function (35.4 vs 42.5; P = .04) with no differences in postoperative outcomes scores compared to the non-depressed cohort.19/21 (90.5%) of situationally depressed patients had postoperative resolution of their depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Situationally depressed patients without a clinical diagnosis of depression can expect significant improvements in both pain and function, as well as a resolution of their depressed mood based on PROMIS scores as they progress through recovery after ACL reconstruction. Clinically depressed patients also experience significant improvements; however, their rate of achieving the minimum clinically important difference for PROMIS outcomes may be less than their nondepressed or situationally depressed counterparts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prognostic comparative trial.