Implementing Outcomes Collection in Clinical Practice

  • Fabien Meta
  • Vincent A. Lizzio
  • Eric C. Makhni


As we transition to value-based medicine, the incorporation of patient outcomes and satisfaction into compensation formulas has illustrated the urgency and importance of collecting outcomes in an orthopedic surgery practice. Needless to say, research using outcomes data is critical to improving the quality of musculoskeletal care and provides a medium to establish evidence-based practice. The variety of outcomes extends into subjective and objective realms, with the former relying heavily on patient-reported outcomes to highlight the patient perspective, and the latter relying on observation and documentation from care providers. In this chapter, we explore the importance and breadth of orthopedic outcomes supplemented with the insight, tools, and methodology required to implement a successful outcomes collection system for the orthopedic practice looking to stay ahead of the curve.


Outcomes Patient-reported outcomes Electronic collection Workflow PROMIS Computer-adaptive testing Patient registry 


  1. 1.
    Nwachukwu BU, Hamid KS, Bozic KJ. Measuring value in Orthopaedic surgery. JBJS Rev. 2013;1(1). p. ii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001. xx. p. 337.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human : building a safer health system. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000. xxi. p. 287.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Services CfMaM. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model Baltimore, MD2016 [updated December 21, 2016. Available from:
  5. 5.
    Stark T, Walker B, Phillips JK, Fejer R, Beck R. Hand-held dynamometry correlation with the gold standard isokinetic dynamometry: a systematic review. PM R. 2011;3(5):472–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall JM, Azar FM, Miller RH, Smith R, Throckmorton TW. Accuracy and reliability testing of two methods to measure internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(9):1296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunn WR, Kuhn JE, Sanders R, An Q, Baumgarten KM, Bishop JY, et al. Symptoms of pain do not correlate with rotator cuff tear severity: a cross-sectional study of 393 patients with a symptomatic atraumatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(10):793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Group MS, Unruh KP, Kuhn JE, Sanders R, An Q, Baumgarten KM, et al. The duration of symptoms does not correlate with rotator cuff tear severity or other patient-related features: a cross-sectional study of patients with atraumatic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):1052–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ryan M, Bisset L, Newsham-West R. Should we care about tendon structure? the disconnect between structure and symptoms in tendinopathy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(11):823–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenberg CC. Measuring outcomes in surgeryJohn L. Cameron AMC. Current surgical therapy. 11th ed: Elsevier Saunders; Philadelphia, PA 19103. 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):137–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hawkins RJ. Recommendations for evaluating and selecting appropriately valued outcome measures. Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:587–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    AAOS. Information statement: principles of patient reported outcome measures (PROM) reporting: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2015 [Available from:
  14. 14.
    Mohtadi NG. Outcome measure development. Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:577–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T. The 36-item short form. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(2):126–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware JE. User's manual for the SF-36v2 health survey. Quality Metric Inc.; Lincoln, RI 02865. 2nd ed; 2009. p. 309.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Webster KE, Feller JA. Use of the short form health surveys as an outcome measure for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(5):1142–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Health R. KDQOL Frequently Asked Questions [What is the difference between the SF-36™ and the RAND-™?]. Available from:
  19. 19.
    Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, Hanmer J, Buechner J, Cherepanov D, et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Med Care. 2007;45(12):1162–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Witter JP. Introduction: PROMIS a first look across diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:87–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Flaugher R, Green BF, Mislevy RJ. Computerized adaptive testing: a primer: Routledge; New York, NY 10017. 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ardern CL, Osterberg A, Tagesson S, Gauffin H, Webster KE, Kvist J. The impact of psychological readiness to return to sport and recreational activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(22):1613–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Whitehead TS, Webster KE. Psychological responses matter in returning to preinjury level of sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1549–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Christino MA, Fleming BC, Machan JT, Shalvoy RM. Psychological factors associated with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction recovery. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(3):2325967116638341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. Pain and depression influence outcome 5 years after knee replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:21–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marks MR, Phillips D, Halsey DA, Wong A. Difficult conversations in Orthopaedics. Instr Course Lect. 2015;64:3–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matava MJ, Howard DR, Polakof L, Brophy RH. Public perception regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(10):e85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Makhni EC, Padaki AS, Petridis PD, Steinhaus ME, Ahmad CS, Cole BJ, et al. High variability in outcome reporting patterns in high-impact ACL literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(18):1529–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marshall DA, Wasylak T, Khong H, Parker RD, Faris PD, Frank C. Measuring the value of total hip and knee arthroplasty: considering costs over the continuum of care. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(4):1065–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shirley ED, Sanders JO. Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(10):e69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Graham B, Green A, James M, Katz J, Swiontkowski M. Measuring patient satisfaction in Orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(1):80–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gill L, White L. A critical review of patient satisfaction. Leadersh Health Serv. 2009;22(1):8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ, National Joint Registry for E, Wales. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(7):893–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kwon SK, Kang YG, Kim SJ, Chang CB, Seong SC, Kim TK. Correlations between commonly used clinical outcome scales and patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(7):1125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lim JB, Chou AC, Yeo W, Lo NN, Chia SL, Chin PL, et al. Comparison of patient quality of life scores and satisfaction after common Orthopaedic surgical interventions. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(6):1007–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Henn RF, Ghomrawi H, Rutledge JR, Mazumdar M, Mancuso CA, Marx RG. Preoperative patient expectations of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(22):2110–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mancuso CA, Jout J, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Fulfillment of patients’ expectations for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(9):2073–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(4):609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roberts N, Bradley B, Williams D. Use of SMS and tablet computer improves the electronic collection of elective Orthopaedic patient reported outcome measures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96(5):348–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ayers DC, Zheng H, Franklin PD. Integrating patient-reported outcomes into Orthopaedic clinical practice: proof of concept from FORCE-TJR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3419–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;324(7347):1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jepson C, Asch DA, Hershey JC, Ubel PA. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(1):103–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McFarlane E, Olmsted MG, Murphy J, Hill CA. Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30(2):170–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beebe TJ, Jenkins SM, Anderson KJ, Davern ME. Survey-related experiential and attitudinal correlates of future health survey participation: results of a statewide survey. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(12):1358–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabien Meta
    • 1
  • Vincent A. Lizzio
    • 1
  • Eric C. Makhni
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryWayne State University School of Medicine, Henry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHenry Ford Health SystemWest BloomfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations