73
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose

          Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set.

          Patients and methods

          An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions.

          Results

          Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on pre-existing tools.

          Interpretation

          The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient’s entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EuroQol: the current state of play.

          R. Brooks (1996)
          The EuroQol Group first met in 1987 to test the feasibility of jointly developing a standardised non-disease-specific instrument for describing and valuing health-related quality of life. From the outset the Group has been multi-country, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary. The EuroQol instrument is intended to complement other forms of quality of life measures, and it has been purposefully developed to generate a cardinal index of health, thus giving it considerable potential for use in economic evaluation. Considerable effort has been invested by the Group in the development and valuation aspects of health status measurement. Earlier work was reported upon in 1990; this paper is a second 'corporate' effort detailing subsequent developments. The concepts underlying the EuroQol framework are explored with particular reference to the generic nature of the instrument. The valuation task is reviewed and some evidence on the methodological requirements for measurement is presented. A number of special issues of considerable interest and concern to the Group are discussed: the modelling of data, the duration of health states and the problems surrounding the state 'dead'. An outline of some of the applications of the EuroQol instrument is presented and a brief commentary on the Group's ongoing programme of work concludes the paper.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use.

            An international group of back pain researchers considered recommendations for standardized measures in clinical outcomes research in patients with back pain. To promote more standardization of outcome measurement in clinical trials and other types of outcomes research, including meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and multicenter studies. Better standardization of outcome measurement would facilitate comparison of results among studies, and more complete reporting of relevant outcomes. Because back pain is rarely fatal or completely cured, outcome assessment is complex and involves multiple dimensions. These include symptoms, function, general well-being, work disability, and satisfaction with care. The panel considered several factors in recommending a standard battery of outcome measures. These included reliability, validity, responsiveness, and practicality of the measures. In addition, compatibility with widely used and promoted batteries such, as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lumbar Cluster were considered to minimize the need for changes when these instruments are used. First, a six-item set was proposed, which is sufficiently brief that it could be used in routine care settings for quality improvement and for research purposes. An expanded outcome set, which would provide more precise measurement for research purposes, includes measures of severity and frequency of symptoms, either the Roland or the Oswestry Disability Scale, either the SF-12 or the EuroQol measure of general health status, a question about satisfaction with symptoms, three types of "disability days," and an optional single item on overall satisfaction with medical care. Standardized measurement of outcomes would facilitate scientific advances in clinical care. A short, 6-item questionnaire and a somewhat expanded, more precise battery of questionnaires can be recommended. Although many considerations support such recommendations, more data on responsiveness and the minimally important change in scores are needed for most of the instruments.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Subjective assessments of comorbidity correlate with quality of life health outcomes: Initial validation of a comorbidity assessment instrument

              Background Interventions to improve care for persons with chronic medical conditions often use quality of life (QOL) outcomes. These outcomes may be affected by coexisting (comorbid) chronic conditions as well as the index condition of interest. A subjective measure of comorbidity that incorporates an assessment of disease severity may be particularly useful for assessing comorbidity for these investigations. Methods A survey including a list of 25 common chronic conditions was administered to a population of HMO members age 65 or older. Disease burden (comorbidity) was defined as the number of self-identified comorbid conditions weighted by the degree (from 1 to 5) to which each interfered with their daily activities. We calculated sensitivities and specificities relative to chart review for each condition. We correlated self-reported disease burden, relative to two other well-known comorbidity measures (the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the RxRisk score) and chart review, with our primary and secondary QOL outcomes of interest: general health status, physical functioning, depression screen and self-efficacy. Results 156 respondents reported an average of 5.9 chronic conditions. Median sensitivity and specificity relative to chart review were 75% and 92% respectively. QOL outcomes correlated most strongly with disease burden, followed by number of conditions by chart review, the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the RxRisk score. Conclusion Self-report appears to provide a reasonable estimate of comorbidity. For certain QOL assessments, self-reported disease burden may provide a more accurate estimate of comorbidity than existing measures that use different methodologies, and that were originally validated against other outcomes. Investigators adjusting for comorbidity in studies using QOL outcomes may wish to consider using subjective comorbidity measures that incorporate disease severity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acta Orthop
                Acta Orthop
                ORT
                Acta Orthopaedica
                Informa Healthcare
                1745-3674
                1745-3682
                October 2015
                04 September 2015
                : 86
                : 5
                : 523-533
                Affiliations
                1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of North Carolina Hospitals , Chapel Hill, NC, USA
                2Boston Consulting Group , Stockholm, Sweden
                3International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement , Boston, MA, USA
                4Department of Orthopaedics, Massachusetts General Hospital , Boston, MA, USA
                5Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
                6Patient representative , Brisbane, Australia
                7Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                8Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center , Memphis, TN, USA
                9Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Section, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen , Copenhagen, Denmark
                10Spine Center Göteborg , Gothenburg, Sweden
                11Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center , Leiden, the Netherlands
                12BrizBrain and Spine , Brisbane, Australia
                13Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Spine, Ohio State University , Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
                14Texas Back Institute , Plano, TX, USA
                15Newro Foundation , Brisbane, Australia
                16Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center and Medical Center Haaglanden , Leiden and The Hague, the Netherlands
                17Director, Spine SCOAP Collaborative, Rainier Orthopedic Institute , Puyallup, WA, US
                18Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, PM&R Section, Stanford University , Palo Alto, CA, USA
                19Department of Ophthalmology and Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Northern Norway , Tromsø, Norway
                20The Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine), Northern Norway Regional Health Authority , Tromsø, Norway
                21Department of Orthopedics, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University Hospital , Lund, Sweden
                22Sint Maartenskliniek, Research , Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                23Department of Anesthesiology , University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                24Maastricht University Medical Center , Maastricht, the Netherlands
                25Orthopaedic Diagnostic Centre , Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
                26Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ryhov Hospital , Jönköping, Sweden
                27Registry Manager , Swespine
                Author notes
                Article
                ORT_A_1036696_O
                10.3109/17453674.2015.1036696
                4564773
                25828191
                af298af3-2d5e-462a-8a02-7ded02a9917b
                Copyright: © Nordic Orthopaedic Federation

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 License which permits users to download and share the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproduced in the whole without changes, and provided the original source is credited.

                History
                : 13 October 2014
                : 17 February 2015
                Categories
                Spine

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article