Patients' evaluation of aftercare following hospitalization for COVID-19: satisfaction and unmet needs.

BACKGROUND: Patient experiences with COVID-19 aftercare remain largely unknown. We evaluated COVID-19 aftercare from a patient perspective one year after hospitalization, assessing satisfaction and its associated factors, and unmet needs. METHODS: The Satisfaction with COVID-19 Aftercare Questionnaire (SCAQ) was developed as part of a multicenter prospective cohort study and administered one year after hospital discharge. The SCAQ assesses (1) patient satisfaction, comprising information provision, rehabilitation, follow-up by hospitals and general practitioners (GPs), the most important aftercare topics, and overall satisfaction, and (2) unmet needs. RESULTS: 487/561 (87%) COVID-19 patients completed the SCAQ, all had been discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and May 2021. Among responders, the median age of patients was 60 (IQR 54-67) years, 338 (69%) were male, and the median length of stay in the hospital was 13 (6-27) days. Patients were least satisfied with information on who could be contacted with questions when health problems arise (59% satisfied or very satisfied). Many patients (75%) received rehabilitation, most frequently community-based (70%). Across the different community-based therapies, ≥ 60% of patients were satisfied with shared-decision making and ≥ 70% with the received therapy; a majority (≥ 79%) indicated a preference for receiving the same therapy again if needed. Regarding follow-up by hospitals, 86% of patients received this follow-up, most frequently visiting a pulmonologist (96%), being generally satisfied with the received aftercare. Aftercare from GPs was received by 39% of patients, with 88% being satisfied with the GP's availability and 79% with referral to appropriate aftercare providers. Patients (> 50%) considered information-related items most important in aftercare. Overall, patients rated their satisfaction with aftercare 8/10 (7-9) points. Those who received medical rehabilitation (versus no rehabilitation, adjusted beta 0.61 [95%CI 0.11 to 1.11], p = 0.02) or aftercare by a hospital medical specialist (1.1 [0.46 to 1.64], p < 0.001) or GP (0.39 [0.053 to 0.72], p = 0.023) reported significantly higher satisfaction than those without such aftercare. Unmet needs were reported by 35% of patients, with lack of information (20%) and lack of additional aftercare and/or involvement of their GP (19%) being the most frequently reported. CONCLUSION: Despite the forced quick development of COVID-19 aftercare, patients were generally satisfied. Follow-up by healthcare professionals and information provision is important to meet patients' aftercare needs.

Tailoring and evaluating treatment with the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation: A Patient-Centered Approach.

BACKGROUND: No patient-reported instrument assesses patient-specific information needs, treatment goals, and Personal Meaningful Gain (PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant improvement). This study reports the development of the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation (PSN) and examines its discriminative validity (i.e., its ability to distinguish satisfied from dissatisfied patients) and test-retest reliability in patients with hand or wrist conditions. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to develop and validate the PSN, following COSMIN guidelines, including pilot testing, a survey (pilot: n=223, final PSN: n=275), cognitive debriefing (n=16), expert input, and validation. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the satisfaction level of patients who did or did not achieve their PMG (n=1,985) and test-retest reliability using absolute agreement, Cohen's kappa, and ICCs (n=102). We used a sample of 2,860 patients to describe responses to the final PSN. RESULTS: The PSN has only five questions (completion time ±3 minutes) and is freely accessible online. The items and response options were considered understandable by 90-92% and complete by 84-89% of the end-users. The PSN had excellent discriminative validity (Cramer's V: 0.48, p<0.001) and moderate to high test-retest reliability (Kappa: 0.46-0.68, ICCs: 0.53-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The PSN is a freely available patient-centered decision-support tool that helps clinicians tailor their consultations to the patient's individual needs and goals. It contains the PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant treatment outcomes. The PSN may function as a conversation starter, facilitate expectation management, and aid shared decision-making. The PSN is implementation-ready and can be readily adapted to other patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Changes in illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and psychological distress following hand surgeon consultation: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Baseline mindset factors are important factors that influence treatment decisions and outcomes. Theoretically, improving the mindset prior to treatment may improve treatment decisions and outcomes. This prospective cohort study evaluated changes in patients' mindset following hand surgeon consultation. Additionally, we assessed if the change in illness perception differed between surgical and nonsurgical patients. METHODS: The primary outcome was illness perception, measured using the total score of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ, range 0-80). Secondary outcomes were the B-IPQ subscales, pain catastrophizing (measured using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)), and psychological distress (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4). RESULTS: A total of 276 patients with various hand and wrist conditions completed the mindset questionnaires before and after hand surgeon consultation (median time interval: 15 days). The B-IPQ total score improved from 39.7 (±10.6) before to 35.8 (±11.3) after consultation (p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.36); scores also improved for the B-IPQ subscales Coherence, Concern, Emotional Response, Timeline, Treatment Control, and Identity and the PCS. There were no changes in the other outcomes. Surgical patients improved on the B-IPQ subscales Treatment Control and Timeline, while nonsurgical patients did not. CONCLUSIONS: Illness perception and pain catastrophizing improved following hand surgeon consultation, suggesting that clinicians may actively influence the patients' mindset during consultations, and that they may try to enhance this effect to improve outcomes. Furthermore, surgical patients improved more in illness perceptions, indicating that nonsurgical patients may benefit from a more targeted strategy for changing mindset.

The Ultrashort Mental Health Screening Tool Is a Valid and Reliable Measure With Added Value to Support Decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Mental health influences symptoms, outcomes, and decision-making in musculoskeletal healthcare. Implementing measures of mental health in clinical practice can be challenging. An ultrashort screening tool for mental health with a low burden is currently unavailable but could be used as a conversation starter, expectation management tool, or decision support tool. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Which items of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) are the most discriminative and yield a high correlation with the total scores of these questionnaires? (2) What is the construct validity and added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function) of an ultrashort four-item mental health screening tool? (3) What is the test-retest reliability of the screening tool? (4) What is the response time for the ultrashort screening tool? METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Data collection was part of usual care at Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands, but prospective measurements were added to this study. Between September 2017 and January 2022, we included 19,156 patients with hand and wrist conditions. We subdivided these into four samples: a test set to select the screener items (n = 18,034), a validation set to determine whether the selected items were solid (n = 1017), a sample to determine the added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function, n = 13,061), and a sample to assess the test-retest reliability (n = 105). Patients were eligible for either sample if they completed all relevant measurements of interest for that particular sample. To create an ultrashort screening tool that is valid, reliable, and has added value, we began by picking the most discriminatory items (that is, the items that were most influential for determining the total score) from the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ using chi-square automated interaction detection (a machine-learning algorithm). To assess construct validity (how well our screening tool assesses the constructs of interest), we correlated these items with the associated sum score of the full questionnaire in the test and validation sets. We compared the explained variance of linear models for pain and function using the screening tool items or the original sum scores of the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ to further assess the screening tool's construct validity and added value. We evaluated test-retest reliability by calculating weighted kappas, ICCs, and the standard error of measurement. RESULTS: We identified four items and used these in the screening tool. The screening tool items were highly correlated with the PCS (Pearson coefficient = 0.82; p < 0.001), PHQ-4 (0.87; p < 0.001), and B-IPQ (0.85; p < 0.001) sum scores, indicating high construct validity. The full questionnaires explained only slightly more variance in pain and function (10% to 22%) than the screening tool did (9% to 17%), again indicating high construct validity and much added clinical value of the screening tool. Test-retest reliability was high for the PCS (ICC 0.75, weighted kappa 0.75) and B-IPQ (ICC 0.70 to 0.75, standard error of measurement 1.3 to 1.4) items and moderate for the PHQ-4 item (ICC 0.54, weighted kappa 0.54). The median response time was 43 seconds, against more than 4 minutes for the full questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Our ultrashort, valid, and reliable screening tool for pain catastrophizing, psychologic distress, and illness perception can be used before clinician consultation and may serve as a conversation starter, an expectation management tool, or a decision support tool. The clinical utility of the screening tool is that it can indicate that further testing is warranted, guide a clinician when considering a consultation with a mental health specialist, or support a clinician in choosing between more invasive and less invasive treatments. Future studies could investigate how the tool can be used optimally and whether using the screening tool affects daily clinic decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

Test-retest Reliability and Construct Validity of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire in Patients with Hand and Wrist Conditions: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A patient's satisfaction with a treatment result is an important outcome domain as clinicians increasingly focus on patient-centered, value-based healthcare. However, to our knowledge, there are no validated satisfaction metrics focusing on treatment results for hand and wrist conditions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients who were treated for hand and wrist conditions, we asked: (1) What is the test-retest reliability of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire? (2) What is the construct validity of that outcomes tool? METHODS: This was a prospective study using two samples: a test-retest reliability sample and a construct validity sample. For the test-retest sample, data collection took place between February 2020 and May 2020, and we included 174 patients at the end of their treatment with complete baseline data that included both the primary test and the retest. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with a mean time difference of 7.2 ± 1.6 days. For the construct validity sample, data collection took place between January 2012 and May 2020. We included 3742 patients who completed the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, VAS, and the Net Promotor Score (NPS) at 3 months. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing in which we correlated the patients' level of satisfaction to the willingness to undergo the treatment again, VAS scores, and the NPS. We performed additional hypothesis testing on 2306 patients who also completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Satisfaction with the treatment result was measured as the patients' level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and their willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances. RESULTS: We found high reliability for level of satisfaction measured on Likert scale (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.89]) and almost-perfect agreement for both level of satisfaction measured on the Likert scale (weighted kappa 0.86 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.91]) and willingness to undergo the treatment again (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]) of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire. Construct validity was good to excellent as seven of the eight hypotheses were confirmed. In the confirmed hypotheses, there was a moderate-to-strong correlation with VAS pain, VAS function, NPS, MHQ pain, and MHQ general hand function (Spearman rho ranged from 0.43 to 0.67; all p < 0.001) and a strong to very strong correlation with VAS satisfaction and MHQ satisfaction (Spearman rho 0.73 and 0.71; both p < 0.001). The rejected hypothesis indicated only a moderate correlation between the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and the willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (Spearman rho 0.44; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire has good-to-excellent construct validity and very high test-retest reliability in patients with hand and wrist conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This questionnaire can be used to reliably and validly measure satisfaction with treatment result in striving for patient-centered care and value-based healthcare. Future research should investigate predictors of variation in satisfaction with treatment results.

What Is the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Quality of Life and Other Patient-reported Outcomes? An Analysis of the Hand-Wrist Study Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and its associated lockdowns in many parts of the world, have changed our daily lives and may have a psychological impact on around the globe. However, it is unknown how this influences the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of patients involved in ongoing clinical research and medical care. For both the current and potential future lockdowns, it is important to determine if PROMs collected during such a period can be interpreted with confidence. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a difference in quality of life between patients in the COVID-19 period group (March 23, 2020 to May 4, 2020) and patients in a reference period group (from the same period in 2018 or 2019)? (2) Is there a difference in pain, hand function, anxiety, depression, and illness perception between patients in the COVID-19 period group and patients in the reference period group? METHODS: This study was part of a large cohort study with routine outcome measures of patients with hand and wrist conditions. To answer our research questions, we analyzed two samples because not all PROMs were sent to participants at the same time points after treatment. The first sample consisted of all participants who completed PROMs on quality of life (QoL), pain, and hand function at their final follow-up time point, which was either 3, 6, or 12 months post-treatment. The second sample consisted of participants who completed PROMs 3 months post-treatment on anxiety, depression, and illness perception. Each sample consisted of two groups: a COVID-19 period group and a reference period group. We included 1613 participants in the first sample (COVID-19 period group: n = 616; reference period group: n = 997) and 535 participants in the second sample (COVID-19 period group: n = 313; reference period group: n = 222). The primary outcome was QoL, expressed in the EuroQol 5-Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) index score. Secondary outcomes were the other domains on the EQ-5D, as well as pain, hand function, anxiety, depression, and illness perception. RESULTS: We found no between-group differences in the EQ-5D index score (standardized mean difference 0.035; p = 0.98). Furthermore, there were no between-group differences in PROM scores for hand function, anxiety, or depression. There were, however, a few small differences in subdomain items regarding pain and illness perception, but we believe in aggregate that these are unlikely to make a clinically important difference in our main finding. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdown had no influence on QoL and had little influence on secondary outcomes in participants who were part of the Hand-Wrist Study Cohort. This finding implies that PROMs data collected during this period can be used with confidence in clinical research. Our findings indicate that when a pandemic like this occurs again, we can continue to use PROMs for analysis in clinical research or routine outcome measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.