Dataset Information

Setting the equation: establishing value in spine care.

ABSTRACT: STUDY DESIGN:Topic review. OBJECTIVE:Describe value measurement in spine care and discuss the motivation for, methods for, and limitations of such measurement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Spinal disorders are common and are an important cause of pain and disability. Numerous complementary and competing treatment strategies are used to treat spinal disorders, and the costs of these treatments is substantial and continue to rise despite clear evidence of improved health status as a result of these expenditures. METHODS:The authors present the economic and legislative imperatives forcing the assessment of value in spine care. The definition of value in health care and methods to measure value specifically in spine care are presented. Limitations to the utility of value judgments and caveats to their use are presented. RESULTS:Examples of value calculations in spine care are presented and critiqued. Methods to improve and broaden the measurement of value across spine care are suggested, and the role of prospective registries in measuring value is discussed. CONCLUSION:Value can be measured in spine care through the use of appropriate economic measures and patient-reported outcomes measures. Value must be interpreted in light of the perspective of the assessor, the duration of the assessment period, the degree of appropriate risk stratification, and the relative value of treatment alternatives.

SUBMITTER: Resnick DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4487880 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Setting the equation: establishing value in spine care.

Resnick Daniel K DK Tosteson Anna N A AN Groman Rachel F RF Ghogawala Zoher Z

Spine 20141001 22 Suppl 1

<h4>Study design</h4>Topic review.<h4>Objective</h4>Describe value measurement in spine care and discuss the motivation for, methods for, and limitations of such measurement.<h4>Summary of background data</h4>Spinal disorders are common and are an important cause of pain and disability. Numerous complementary and competing treatment strategies are used to treat spinal disorders, and the costs of these treatments is substantial and continue to rise despite clear evidence of improved health status ...[more]

PMID: 25299258

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of care setting on value of colon cancer care is unknown.MethodsA Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare cohort study of 6544 patients aged ≥ 66 years with stage IV colon cancer (based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system) who were diagnosed between 1996 and 2005 was performed. All patients were followed through December 31, 2007. Using outpatient and carrier claims, patients were assigned to a treating hospital based on the hospital affiliation of the primary oncologist. Hospitals were classified academic or nonacademic using the SEER-Medicare National Cancer Institute Hospital File.ResultsOf the 6544 patients, 1605 (25%) received care from providers affiliated with academic medical centers. The unadjusted median cancer-specific survival was 16.0 months at academic medical centers versus 13.9 months at nonacademic medical centers (P < .001). After adjustment, treatment at academic hospitals remained significantly associated with a reduced risk of death from cancer (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.82-0.93 [P < .001]). Adjusted mean 12-month Medicare spending was $8571 higher at academic medical centers (95% CI, $2340-$14,802; P = .007). The adjusted median cost was $1559 higher at academic medical centers; this difference was not found to be statistically significant (95% CI, -$5239 to $2122; P = .41). A small percentage of patients who received very expensive care skewed the difference in mean cost; the only statistically significant difference in adjusted costs in quantile regressions was at the 99.9th percentile of costs (P < .001).ConclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries with stage IV colon cancer, treatment by a provider affiliated with an academic medical center was associated with a 2 month improvement in overall survival. Except for patients in the 99.9th percentile of the cost distribution, costs at academic medical centers were not found to be significantly different from those at nonacademic medical centers.

Project description:Study designGlobal cross-sectional survey.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience.Summary of background dataPrevious subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers.MethodsA survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience.ResultsA total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score.ConclusionThe AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic value of symptoms used by daycares and schools to screen children and adolescents for SARS-CoV-2 infection, we analyzed data from a primary care setting.MethodsThis cohort study included all patients ≤17 years old who were evaluated at Providence Community Health Centers (PCHC; Providence, U.S.), for COVID-19 symptoms and/or exposure, and received SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing between March-June 2020. Participants were identified from PCHC electronic medical records. For three age groups- 0-4, 5-11, and 12-17 years-we estimated the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of individual symptoms and three symptom combinations: a case definition published by the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH), and two novel combinations generated by different statistical approaches to maximize sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. We evaluated symptom combinations both with and without consideration of COVID-19 exposure. Myalgia, headache, sore throat, abdominal pain, nausea, anosmia, and ageusia were not assessed in 0-4 year-olds due to the lower reliability of these symptoms in this group.ResultsOf 555 participants, 217 (39.1%) were SARS-CoV-2-infected. Fever was more common among 0-4 years-olds (p = 0.002); older children more frequently reported fatigue (p = 0.02). In children ≥5 years old, anosmia or ageusia had 94-98% specificity. In all ages, exposure history most accurately predicted infection. With respect to individual symptoms, cough most accurately predicted infection in <5 year-olds (AUC 0.69) and 12-17 year-olds (AUC 0.62), while headache was most accurate in 5-11 year-olds (AUC 0.62). In combination with exposure history, the novel symptom combinations generated statistically to maximize test characteristics had sensitivity >95% but specificity <30%. No symptom or symptom combination had AUC ≥0.70.ConclusionsAnosmia or ageusia in children ≥5 years old should raise providers' index of suspicion for COVID-19. However, our overall findings underscore the limited diagnostic value of symptoms.

Project description:Length-of-hospital stay (LOS) after lumbar spine surgery (LSS) can be affected by many factors. However, few studies have evaluated predictors of LOS, and all have used limited number of variables as predictors.The purpose of the study was to identify presurgical, surgical, and postsurgical predictors of LOS after LSS.Retrospective review of consecutive patients who had LSS at the University of Kansas Hospital from October 2008 to April, 2012.Five hundred ninety-three patients underwent LSS consisting of laminotomy, laminectomy, or arthrodesis.LOS. Multiple presurgical, surgical, and postsurgical variables were extracted from the patients' medical records and considered as possible predictors (independent variables) of LOS.Potential predictors that were significantly correlated with LOS were used as indicators to construct three latent factors presurgical, surgical, and postsurgical, which were in turn used to predict LOS in a structural equation model.The average LOS was 4.01±2.73 days. The presurgical factor was indicated by age (61.97±14.49 years), previous level of function (60.5% were totally independent), previous hemoglobin level (13.70±1.36 mg/dL), and use of assistive devices (60% were assistive device users). The surgical factor was indicated by severity of illness (50.2% had minor disease severity), presence of complications (1.9%), and stay in an intensive care unit (4.0%). The postsurgical factor was indicated by postsurgical walking distance (166.43±175.75 ft), level of assistance during walking (5.18±0.81 out of 7 points), balance scores (6.18±1.82 out of 10 points), and bed mobility and transfer dependency scores (9.81±1.99 out of 14 points). These three latent factors explained 47% of variation in LOS.Postsurgical factors predicted the highest variation in LOS in comparison with presurgical and surgical factors and should be taken into consideration for discharge planning. Postsurgical factors are related to the patient's function, modifiable with rehabilitation, and can be improved to shorten LOS. Inclusion of more reliable and standardized presurgical variables could improve the predictability of the model.

Dataset Information

Setting the equation: establishing value in spine care.

Publications

Setting the equation: establishing value in spine care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets