• Acta orthopaedica · Jan 2015

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

    • R Carter Clement, Adina Welander, Caleb Stowell, Thomas D Cha, John L Chen, Michelle Davies, Jeremy C Fairbank, Kevin T Foley, Martin Gehrchen, Olle Hagg, Wilco C Jacobs, Richard Kahler, Safdar N Khan, Isador H Lieberman, Beth Morisson, Donna D Ohnmeiss, Wilco C Peul, Neal H Shonnard, Matthew W Smuck, Tore K Solberg, Bjorn H Stromqvist, Miranda L Van Hooff, Ajay D Wasan, Paul C Willems, William Yeo, and Peter Fritzell.
    • a 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of North Carolina Hospitals , Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
    • Acta Orthop. 2015 Jan 1;86(5):523-33.

    Background And PurposeOutcome 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 MethodsAn 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.ResultsPatient-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.InterpretationThe 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.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…