Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2013

01-11-2013 | Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Outcome Measures

Integrating Patient-reported Outcomes Into Orthopaedic Clinical Practice: Proof of Concept From FORCE-TJR

Authors: David C. Ayers, MD, Hua Zheng, PhD, Patricia D. Franklin, MD, MBA, MPH

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 11/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Good orthopaedic care requires a knowledge of the patient’s history of musculoskeletal pain and associated limitations in daily function. Standardized measures of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can provide this information. Integrating PROs into routine orthopaedic patient visits can provide key information to monitor changes in symptom severity over time, support shared clinical care decisions, and assess treatment effectiveness for quality initiatives and value-based reimbursement.

Where Are We Now?

Although standardized, validated PRO surveys are routinely used in clinical and comparative effectiveness research, they are not consistently or efficiently collected in clinical practice.

Where Do We Need to Go?

Ideally, PROs need to be collected directly from patients before their surgeon visit so the data are readily available to the surgeon and patient at the time of the office visit. In addition, PROs should be integrated in the electronic health record to monitor patient status over time.

How Do We Get There?

PRO integration in clinical practice requires minor modifications to the office flow, some additional staff to facilitate collection, and the technical infrastructure to score, process, and store the responses. We document successful office procedures for collecting PROs in one busy orthopaedic clinic and some suggested methods to extend this model to the Function and Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement (FORCE-TJR) consortium of 121 surgeons where the process is centralized and staff obtained consent to send the PRO directly to the patient’s home. Both methods are options for the broader adoption of office-based PROs.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ahmed S, Berzon RA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Moinpour CM, Basch E, Reeve BB, Wu AW; International Society for Quality of Life Research. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care. 2012;50:1060–1070.PubMedCrossRef Ahmed S, Berzon RA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Moinpour CM, Basch E, Reeve BB, Wu AW; International Society for Quality of Life Research. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care. 2012;50:1060–1070.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitation—United States, 2007–2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59:1261–1265. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitation—United States, 2007–2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59:1261–1265.
3.
go back to reference Collins NJ, Roos EM. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28:367–394.PubMedCrossRef Collins NJ, Roos EM. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28:367–394.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
5.
go back to reference Crowne DP, Marlowe D. The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964. Crowne DP, Marlowe D. The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964.
6.
go back to reference Franklin PD, Allison JJ, Ayers DC. Beyond joint implant registries: a patient-centered research consortium for comparative effectiveness in total joint replacement. JAMA. 2012;308:1217–1218.PubMedCrossRef Franklin PD, Allison JJ, Ayers DC. Beyond joint implant registries: a patient-centered research consortium for comparative effectiveness in total joint replacement. JAMA. 2012;308:1217–1218.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rolfson O, Rothwell A, Sedrakyan A, Chenok KE, Bohm E, Bozic KJ, Garellick G. Use of patient-reported outcomes in the context of different levels of data. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(suppl 3):66–71.PubMedCrossRef Rolfson O, Rothwell A, Sedrakyan A, Chenok KE, Bohm E, Bozic KJ, Garellick G. Use of patient-reported outcomes in the context of different levels of data. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(suppl 3):66–71.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sacks JJ, Luo YH, Helmick CG. Prevalence of specific types of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the ambulatory health care system in the United States, 2001–2005. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:460–464.PubMedCrossRef Sacks JJ, Luo YH, Helmick CG. Prevalence of specific types of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the ambulatory health care system in the United States, 2001–2005. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:460–464.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Wainer H. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000. Wainer H. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
Metadata
Title
Integrating Patient-reported Outcomes Into Orthopaedic Clinical Practice: Proof of Concept From FORCE-TJR
Authors
David C. Ayers, MD
Hua Zheng, PhD
Patricia D. Franklin, MD, MBA, MPH
Publication date
01-11-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 11/2013
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3143-z

Other articles of this Issue 11/2013

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2013 Go to the issue

Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Outcome Measures

Health Policy Implications of Outcomes Measurement in Orthopaedics

Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Outcome Measures

Statistical Considerations in the Psychometric Validation of Outcome Measures

Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Outcome Measures

Editorial Comment: Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Outcome Measures

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor