Dataset Information

Use of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction for quality assessments.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Recent focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has created a new challenge as we learn how to integrate these outcomes into practice along with other quality metrics. We investigated the relationship between PROs and satisfaction among spine surgery patients. We hypothesized that there would be significant disparities between patient satisfaction and PROs at the 1-year postoperative time point. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery at 12 hospitals participating in the Spine Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. METHODS:Satisfaction, pain, and function scores were collected at 1 year post operation, along with clinical information, to determine the relationship between PROs and satisfaction at the patient level. RESULTS:Among 520 patients (mean age = 63 ± 13 years; 47% male), the majority of patients (82%) reported being satisfied with surgery. Satisfaction was associated with both improvement in pain (odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) and function (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08). However, even among patients who did not improve in pain or function, more than half (59%) reported being satisfied. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery reported being satisfied with outcomes, but the reported responses in PROs were much more variable. As the expectations increase to include PRO measures as valid quality indicators, it is necessary to dedicate time and consideration to understanding the relationships among these measures to support meaningful translations into healthcare policy.

SUBMITTER: Ehlers AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5846490 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction for quality assessments.

Ehlers Anne P AP Khor Sara S Cizik Amy M AM Leveque Jean-Christophe A JA Shonnard Neal S NS Oskouian Rod J RJ Flum David R DR Lavallee Danielle C DC

The American journal of managed care 20171001 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>Recent focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has created a new challenge as we learn how to integrate these outcomes into practice along with other quality metrics. We investigated the relationship between PROs and satisfaction among spine surgery patients. We hypothesized that there would be significant disparities between patient satisfaction and PROs at the 1-year postoperative time point.<h4>Study design</h4>Retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing elective lumb ...[more]

PMID: 29087633

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh-frequency patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments are used to measure patients' symptoms after surgery for surgical research; however, the quality of those longitudinal PRO data has seldom been discussed.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine data quality-influencing factors and to profile error trajectories of data longitudinally collected via paper-and-pencil (P&P) or web-based assessment (electronic PRO [ePRO]) after thoracic surgery.MethodsWe extracted longitudinal PRO data with 678 patients scheduled for lung surgery from an observational study (n=512) and a randomized clinical trial (n=166) on the evaluation of different perioperative care strategies. PROs were assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Lung Cancer Module and single-item Quality of Life Scale before surgery and then daily after surgery until discharge or up to 14 days of hospitalization. Patient compliance and data error were identified and compared between P&P and ePRO. Generalized estimating equations model and 2-piecewise model were used to describe trajectories of error incidence over time and to identify the risk factors.ResultsAmong 678 patients, 629 with at least 2 PRO assessments, 440 completed 3347 P&P assessments and 189 completed 1291 ePRO assessments. In total, 49.4% of patients had at least one error, including (1) missing items (64.69%, 1070/1654), (2) modifications without signatures (27.99%, 463/1654), (3) selection of multiple options (3.02%, 50/1654), (4) missing patient signatures (2.54%, 42/1654), (5) missing researcher signatures (1.45%, 24/1654), and (6) missing completion dates (0.30%, 5/1654). Patients who completed ePRO had fewer errors than those who completed P&P assessments (ePRO: 30.2% [57/189] vs. P&P: 57.7% [254/440]; P<.001). Compared with ePRO patients, those using P&P were older, less educated, and sicker. Common risk factors of having errors were a lower education level (P&P: odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.20-1.62; P<.001; ePRO: OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.72; P=.003), treated in a provincial hospital (P&P: OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.10-5.33; P<.001; ePRO: OR 4.73, 95% CI 2.18-10.25; P<.001), and with severe disease (P&P: OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-1.99; P<.001; ePRO: OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.53-4.75; P<.001). Errors peaked on postoperative day (POD) 1 for P&P, and on POD 2 for ePRO.ConclusionsIt is possible to improve data quality of longitudinally collected PRO through ePRO, compared with P&P. However, ePRO-related sampling bias needs to be considered when designing clinical research using longitudinal PROs as major outcomes.

Project description:Hospital-level measures of patient satisfaction and quality are now reported publically by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. There are limited metrics specific to cancer patients. We examined whether publically reported hospital satisfaction and quality data were associated with surgical oncologic outcomes. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was utilized to identify patients with solid tumors who underwent surgical resection in 2009 and 2010. The hospitals were linked to Hospital Compare, which collects data on patient satisfaction, perioperative quality, and 30-day mortality for medical conditions (pneumonia, myocardial infarction [MI], and congestive heart failure [CHF]). The risk-adjusted hospital-level rates of morbidity and mortality were calculated for each hospital and the means compared between the highest and lowest performing hospital quartiles and reported as absolute reduction in risk (ARR), the difference in risk of the outcome between the two groups. All statistical tests were two-sided. A total of 63197 patients treated at 448 hospitals were identified. For patients at high vs low performing hospitals based on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores, the ARR in perioperative morbidity was 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 5.7%, P = .02). Similarly, the ARR for mortality based on the same measure was -0.4% (95% CI = -1.5% to 0.6%, P = .40). High performance on perioperative quality measures resulted in an ARR of 0% to 2.2% for perioperative morbidity (P > .05 for all). Similarly, there was no statistically significant association between hospital-level mortality rates for MI (ARR = 0.7%, 95% CI = -1.0% to 2.5%), heart failure (ARR = 1.0%, 95% CI = -0.6% to 2.7%), or pneumonia (ARR = 1.6%, 95% CI = -0.3% to 3.5%) and complications for oncologic surgery patients. Currently available measures of patient satisfaction and quality are poor predictors of outcomes for cancer patients undergoing surgery. Specific metrics for long-term oncologic outcomes and quality are needed.

Dataset Information

Use of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction for quality assessments.

Publications

Use of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction for quality assessments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets