Does Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Use at New Foot and Ankle Patient Clinic Visits Improve Patient Activation,Experience,and Satisfaction?

Abstract

Background:

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can help predict clinical outcomes and improve shared clinical decision-making discussions. There remains a paucity of research assessing how the use of PROMs may drive improved patient experience and patient activation.

Methods:

New foot and ankle patients completed PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression assessments. Patients were then randomized to viewing and discussing their PROMIS scores with their surgeon or not. Following the clinic visit, patients completed a series of Clinician & Group Survey–Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) questions and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Responses to the CG-CAHPS questions and PAM were compared between the 2 groups and after clustering on surgeon. Potential interaction effects by social deprivation were also explored.

Results:

After enrolling patients but removing those lost to follow-up or with missing data, 97 and 116 patients remained in the intervention control cohorts, respectively. No difference was found in CG-CAHPS responses nor PAM scores between the 2 groups (P > .05). All surgeons were highly rated by all patients. When clustered by surgeon, intervention subjects were less likely to indicate “top box” scores for the understanding domain of the CG-CAHPS question (OR 0.51, P < .001) and had decreased odds of high patient activation compared to control subjects (OR 0.67; P = .005). Among the most socially disadvantaged patients, there was no difference in control and intervention subjects in their likelihood of having high patient activation (P = .09).

Conclusion:

Highly rated foot and ankle surgeons who show and discuss PROM results may not improve patient experience or activation and may, in fact, decrease understanding or patient activation in select populations. Future work is needed to determine when PROM discussions are most beneficial and how best to present PROMs data, as we suspect that how the information was presented—and not the use of PROMs—resulted in our findings. Health literacy tools and/or communication training may better engage different patient groups regarding PROMs.

Level of Evidence:

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Keywords

patient experience satisfaction activation Patient Activation Measure PROMIS PROMs patient-reported outcome measures value-based health care

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CAHPS: surveys and tools to advance patient-centered care. 2022. Accessed July 2, 2022. https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/index.html

Anderson

Houck

Saltzman

, et al. Validation and generalizability of preoperative PROMIS scores to predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39(7):763-770.

Baumhauer

. Patient-reported outcomes—are they living up to their potential? N Engl J Med. 2017;377(1):6-9.

Bernstein

Atkinson

Fear

, et al. Determining the generalizability of the PROMIS depression domain’s floor effect and completion time in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477(10):2215-2225.

Bernstein

Fear

Mesfin

, et al. Patient-reported outcomes use during orthopaedic surgery clinic visits improves the patient experience. Musculoskeletal Care. 2019;17(1):120-125.

Bernstein

Kelly

Houck

, et al. PROMIS pain interference is superior vs numeric pain rating scale for pain assessment in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2019;40(2):139-144.

Cella

Riley

Stone

, et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179-1194.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patient engagement. 2021.Accessed July 2, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/researchevaluate/patient-engage.html#:~:text=A%20growing%20body%20of%20evidence,care)%20have%20better%20health%20outcomes

Greene

Hibbard

. Why does patient activation matter? An examination of the relationships between patient activation and health-related outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(5):520-526.

10.

Hibbard

Greene

. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):207-214.

11.

Hibbard

Greene

Becker

, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities and consumer activation in health. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(5):1442-1453.

12.

Hibbard

Mahoney

Stockard

Tusler

. Development and testing of a short form of the Patient Activation Measure. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1918-1930.

13.

Hibbard

Stockard

Mahoney

Tusler

. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005-1026.

14.

Houck

Flemister

, et al. Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(9):911-918.

15.

Hunt

Alexander

Baumhauer

, et al; OFAR (Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research Network). The Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research (OFAR) network: feasibility of a multicenter network for patient outcomes assessment in foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(9):847-854.

16.

Insignia Health - a Phreesia company. Patient activation measure® (PAM®). 2022. Accessed July 2, 2022. https://www.insigniahealth.com/products/pam

17.

Kind

AJH

Buckingham

. Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible—the neighborhood atlas. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(26):2456-2458.

18.

Molloy

Yong

Keswani

, et al. Do medicare’s patient-reported outcome measures collection windows accurately reflect academic clinical practice? J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(4):911-917.

19.

Papuga

Dasilva

McIntyre

Mitten

Kates

Baumhauer

. Large-scale clinical implementation of PROMIS computer adaptive testing with direct incorporation into the electronic medical record. Health Syst. 2017;7(1):1-12.

20.

Porter

. A strategy for health care reform—toward a value-based system. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):109-112.

21.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. How to report results of the CAHPS clinician & group survey. Aligning Forces for Quality: Improving Health & Health Care in Communities Across America. 2010. Accessed July 2, 2022. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/cahps/surveys-guidance/cg/cgkit/HowtoReportResultsofCGCAHPS080610FINAL.pdf

22.

Salas

Hofman

Stricker

. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(11):981-983.

23.

Schwartz

. More isn’t always better. 2006. Accessed December 18, 2022. https://hbr.org/2006/06/more-isnt-always-better

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.58 MB

0.04 MB

0.09 MB