Mark W Werneke1,2, Daniel Deutscher3, Julie Fritz4, Michael A Kallen5, Karon F Cook5, Deanna Hayes6, Jerome E Mioduski6, Linda J Woodhouse7,8. 1. Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc, Knoxville, TN, USA. mwerneke@fotoinc.com. 2. , Mililani, USA. mwerneke@fotoinc.com. 3. Department of Physical Therapy and the Maccabi Institute for Research & Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 4. Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc, Knoxville, TN, USA. 7. School of Physiotherapy & Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 8. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Identify impact of frequency and timing of interim Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) assessments during episodes of care for rehabilitation services in outpatient clinical settings on functional status (FS) outcomes at discharge for patients with low back pain. METHODS: FS outcomes of patients who had no interim PROMs were compared to outcomes of six patient groups defined by interim timing (early, mid, late) and frequency (1, 2 or more). For each comparison, patients were matched using propensity score matching for variables known to be associated with FS outcomes and for episode duration (days) and number of visits. FS was assessed using the lumbar computerized adaptive test (LCAT) where scores range from 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better physical function. RESULTS: A sample of 140,336 patients was considered for matching (mean age = 58 [SD = 17] range 18-89; 60% females) with 83,101 patients (59%) having no interim PROMs. Patients who had only one interim PROM, administered during early (first 2 weeks), mid (weeks 3-4), or late (week 5 or later) timing, had 4.6, 2.7, and 1.0 additional FS score points at discharge compared to those without an interim PROM, respectively (p < 0.001). Having two or more interim PROMs was associated with an additional 1.2 FS points compared to having only one interim assessment, but only if the first interim was administered early. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal utilization of interim PROM assessment during clinical practice to enhance treatment outcomes was related to administering the first interim PROM within the first 2 weeks after the initial evaluation.
PURPOSE: Identify impact of frequency and timing of interim Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) assessments during episodes of care for rehabilitation services in outpatient clinical settings on functional status (FS) outcomes at discharge for patients with low back pain. METHODS: FS outcomes of patients who had no interim PROMs were compared to outcomes of six patient groups defined by interim timing (early, mid, late) and frequency (1, 2 or more). For each comparison, patients were matched using propensity score matching for variables known to be associated with FS outcomes and for episode duration (days) and number of visits. FS was assessed using the lumbar computerized adaptive test (LCAT) where scores range from 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better physical function. RESULTS: A sample of 140,336 patients was considered for matching (mean age = 58 [SD = 17] range 18-89; 60% females) with 83,101 patients (59%) having no interim PROMs. Patients who had only one interim PROM, administered during early (first 2 weeks), mid (weeks 3-4), or late (week 5 or later) timing, had 4.6, 2.7, and 1.0 additional FS score points at discharge compared to those without an interim PROM, respectively (p < 0.001). Having two or more interim PROMs was associated with an additional 1.2 FS points compared to having only one interim assessment, but only if the first interim was administered early. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal utilization of interim PROM assessment during clinical practice to enhance treatment outcomes was related to administering the first interim PROM within the first 2 weeks after the initial evaluation.
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Daniel Deutscher; Mark W Werneke; Deanna Hayes; Jerome E Mioduski; Karon F Cook; Julie M Fritz; Linda J Woodhouse; Paul W Stratford Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Katherine C Smith; Elissa T Bantug; Elliott E Tolbert; Amanda L Blackford; Michael D Brundage Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 6.860