Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing Outcomes Collection in Clinical Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Orthopedic Practice Management

  • 558 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Nwachukwu BU, Hamid KS, Bozic KJ. Measuring value in Orthopaedic surgery. JBJS Rev. 2013;1(1). p. ii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Services CfMaM. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model Baltimore, MD2016 [updated December 21, 2016. Available from: https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/cjr.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenberg CC. Measuring outcomes in surgeryJohn L. Cameron AMC. Current surgical therapy. 11th ed: Elsevier Saunders; Philadelphia, PA 19103. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hawkins RJ. Recommendations for evaluating and selecting appropriately valued outcome measures. Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:587–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. AAOS. Information statement: principles of patient reported outcome measures (PROM) reporting: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2015 [Available from: http://www.aaos.org/uploadedFiles/PreProduction/About/Opinion_Statements/advistmt/1044%20Principles%20of%20Patient%20Reported%20Outcome%20Measures%20(PROMs)%20Reporting.pdf.

  14. Mohtadi NG. Outcome measure development. Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:577–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T. The 36-item short form. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(2):126–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Health R. KDQOL Frequently Asked Questions [What is the difference between the SF-36â„¢ and the RAND-â„¢?]. Available from: http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/kdqol/faq.html.

  19. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. University N. PROMIS: list of adult measures 2017 [Available from: http://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis/intro-to-promis/list-of-adult-measures.

  22. Witter JP. Introduction: PROMIS a first look across diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:87–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Marks MR, Phillips D, Halsey DA, Wong A. Difficult conversations in Orthopaedics. Instr Course Lect. 2015;64:3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shirley ED, Sanders JO. Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(10):e69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gill L, White L. A critical review of patient satisfaction. Leadersh Health Serv. 2009;22(1):8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(4):609–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

    Fabien Meta & Vincent A. Lizzio

  2. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, West Bloomfield, MI, USA

    Eric C. Makhni

Authors
  1. Fabien Meta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent A. Lizzio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric C. Makhni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

    Eric C. Makhni

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Melvin C. Makhni

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, MA, USA

    Eric F. Swart

  4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Charles A. Bush-Joseph

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Meta, F., Lizzio, V.A., Makhni, E.C. (2019). Implementing Outcomes Collection in Clinical Practice. In: Makhni, E., Makhni, M., Swart, E., Bush-Joseph, C. (eds) Orthopedic Practice Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96938-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96938-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96937-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96938-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation