Dataset Information

Amputation Care Quality and Satisfaction With Prosthetic Limb Services: A Longitudinal Study of Veterans With Upper Limb Amputation.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study sought to measure and identify factors associated with satisfaction with care among veterans. The metrics were colelcted for those receiving prosthetic limb care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense (DoD) care settings and at community-based care providers.

Methods

A longitudinal cohort of veterans with major upper limb amputation receiving any VA care from 2010 to 2015 were interviewed by phone twice, 1 year apart. Care satisfaction was measured by the Orthotics and Prosthetics User's Survey (OPUS) client satisfaction survey (CSS), and prosthesis satisfaction was measured by the OPUS client satisfaction with device (CSD), and the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale satisfaction scales. The Quality of Care index, developed for this study, assessed care quality. Bivariate analyses and multivariable linear regressions identified factors associated with CSS. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests and Fisher exact tests compared CSS and Quality of Care items at follow-up for those with care within and outside of the VA and DoD.

Results

The study included 808 baseline participants and 585 follow-up participants. Device satisfaction and receipt of amputation care in the prior year were associated with greater satisfaction with care quality. Persons with bilateral amputation were significantly less satisfied with wait times. Veterans who received amputation care in the VA or DoD had better, but not statistically different, mean (SD) CSS scores: 31.6 (22.6) vs 39.4 (16.9), when compared with those who received care outside the VA or DoD. Those with care inside the VA or DoD were also more likely to have a functional assessment in the prior year (33.7% vs 7.1%, P = .06), be contacted by providers (42.7% vs 18.8%, P = .07), and receive amputation care information (41.6% vs 0%, P =.002). No statistically significant differences in CSS, Quality of Care scores, or pain measures were observed between baseline and follow-up. In regression models, those with higher CSD scores and with prior year amputation care had higher satisfaction when compared to those who had not received care.

Conclusions

Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care is associated with device satisfaction and receipt of care within the prior year. Veterans receiving amputation care within the VA or DoD received better care quality scores than those receiving prosthetic care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the 12 months of this study. Findings from this study can serve as benchmarks for future work on care satisfaction and quality of amputation rehabilitative care.

SUBMITTER: Resnik L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8040957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionA comprehensive study to assess quality and outcomes of care for Veterans with upper limb amputation is needed. This paper presents methods and summary findings from a national survey of Veterans with upper limb amputation.MethodsAfter completion of a pilot study to develop and refine methods, computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted with 808 Veterans with upper limb amputation (response rate = 47.7%; cooperation rate = 63.3%).ResultsRespondents were 776 unilateral and 32 bilateral amputees, 97.5% male, mean age 63.3 (sd 14.1). Prostheses were used by 60% unilateral and 91% bilateral, the majority used body powered devices. Prostheses were used ≥8 hours/day by 52% unilateral and 76% bilateral. Prosthetic training was received by 71% unilateral and 59% bilateral. Mean prosthetic satisfaction was 3.9 (sd 0.6) and 3.8 (sd 0.7) as measured by TAPES; and 25.0 (sd 5.1) and 25.7 (sd 4.5) as measured by OPUS CSD for unilateral and bilateral respectively. Mean perceived disability (measured by QuickDASH) scores were 49.5 (sd 20.7) for unilateral and 34.7 (sd 22.0) for bilateral. VR-12 PCS scores were below population norms. The majority reported contralateral limb pain, musculoskeletal conditions, back and neck pain. Phantom limb pain was reported in 83.4% of unilateral and 68.8% of bilateral, and residual limb pain in 65.1% of unilateral and 68.8% of bilateral. Most, (81.8% unilateral, 84.4% bilateral) had been to a Veterans Affairs medical center (VA) for amputation care, while 57% of unilateral and 81.3% of bilateral had been to a VA amputation clinic.Discussion/conclusionVeterans with upper limb amputation have moderately impaired physical functioning. Prosthesis use rates were lower than previously reported. Although satisfied with their prostheses, nearly half used them ≤8 hours/day. Rates of musculoskeletal problems, phantom and residual limb pain were higher than previously reported. A substantial proportion never received prosthetic training, or VA amputation care.

Project description:BackgroundAchieving mobility with a prosthesis is a common post-amputation rehabilitation goal and primary outcome in prosthetic research studies. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure prosthetic mobility have practical and psychometric limitations that inhibit their use in clinical care and research.ObjectiveTo develop a brief, clinically meaningful, and psychometrically robust PROM to measure prosthetic mobility.DesignA cross-sectional study was conducted to administer previously developed candidate items to a national sample of lower limb prosthesis users. Items were calibrated to an item response theory model and two fixed-length short forms were created. Instruments were assessed for readability, effective range of measurement, agreement with the full item bank, ceiling and floor effects, convergent validity, and known groups validity.SettingParticipants were recruited using flyers posted in hospitals and prosthetics clinics across the United States, magazine advertisements, notices posted to consumer websites, and direct mailings.ParticipantsAdult prosthesis users (N = 1091) with unilateral lower limb amputation due to traumatic or dysvascular causes.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresCandidate items (N = 105) were administered along with the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Brief Profile, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire - Mobility Subscale, and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, and questions created to characterize respondents.ResultsA bank of 44 calibrated self-report items, termed the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), was produced. Clinical and statistical criteria were used to select items for 7- and 12-item short forms. PLUS-M instruments had an 8th grade reading level, measured with precision across a wide range of respondents, exhibited little-to-no ceiling or floor effects, correlated expectedly with scores from existing PROMs, and differentiated between groups of respondents expected to have different levels of mobility.ConclusionThe PLUS-M appears to be well suited to measuring prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation. PLUS-M instruments are recommended for use in clinical and research settings.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), a self-report mobility measure for people with lower limb amputation (LLA).DesignCross-sectional study.SettingPrivate prosthetic clinics (n=37).ParticipantsCurrent lower limb prosthesis users (N=199; mean age ± SD, 55.4±14.3y; 71.4% men) were assessed before receiving a replacement prosthesis, prosthetic socket, and/or prosthetic knee.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresConvergent construct validity was examined using correlations between participants' PLUS-M T-scores and measures of physical function, mobility, and balance, including the Amputee Mobility Predictor (AMP), timed Up and Go (TUG), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale (PEQ-MS), and Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Known-groups construct validity was evaluated by comparing differences in PLUS-M T-scores among participants grouped by Medicare Functional Classification Level (MFCL).ResultsPLUS-M T-scores demonstrated a moderate positive relationship with AMP scores (ρ=.54, P<.001) and a moderate negative relationship with TUG times (ρ=-.56, P<.001). The PLUS-M also showed a strong positive relationship with PEQ-MS scores (ρ=.78, P<.001), ABC Scale scores (ρ=.81, P<.001), and PROMIS-PF T-scores (ρ=.81, P<.001). Significant differences (P<.05) in PLUS-M T-scores were found among groups of people classified by different MFCLs.ConclusionsStudy results support the validity of the PLUS-M as a self-report measure of prosthetic mobility. Correlations between PLUS-M and measures of physical function, mobility, and balance indicate convergent construct validity. Similarly, significant differences in PLUS-M T-scores across MFCL groups provide evidence of known-groups construct validity. In summary, evidence indicates that PLUS-M has good construct validity among people with LLA.

Project description:Perceptual integration of a prosthesis into an amputee's body representation, that is, prosthesis embodiment, has been proposed to be a major goal of prosthetic treatment, potentially contributing to the user's satisfaction with the device. However, insufficient knowledge about individual or prosthetic factors associated with prosthesis embodiment challenges basic as well as rehabilitation research. In the present study, hierarchical multiple regression analyses on prosthesis embodiment-as assessed with the recently introduced Prosthesis Embodiment Scale-were applied to the survey data of a large sample of prosthesis-using lower limb amputees, entering relevant objective-descriptive (i.e., unbiased characteristics of the amputation or the prosthesis) and subjective-evaluative variables (i.e., the amputee's perceptions related to the amputation or the prosthesis) as first- or second-level regressors, respectively. Significant regressors identified in these analyses together explained R 2 = 36.3% of prosthesis embodiment variance in the present sample, with a lower level of amputation, less intense residual limb pain, more realistic visual appearance of the device, higher prosthetic mobility, and more positive valence of prosthesis-induced residual limb stimulations representing significantly associated factors. Using the identical set of regressors hierarchically complemented by prosthesis embodiment on measures of prosthetic satisfaction-as assessed with the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales-revealed that prosthesis embodiment was significantly and positively associated with aesthetic as well as functional prosthesis satisfaction. These findings emphasize the importance of psychological factors for the integration of a prosthesis into the amputee's body representation, which itself represents a crucial factor associated with prosthesis satisfaction. The results might have important implications for future prosthetic treatment; however, replication of the findings in an independent sample is required, as well as sophisticated experimental designs in order to elucidate the causality of effects.