Search

Objective: To understand the surgeon's perceived value of PROMs in 5 different surgical subspecialties. Summary of Background Data: PROMs are validated questionnaires that assess the symptoms, function, and quality of life from the patient's perspective. Despite the increasing support for use of PROMs in the literature, there is limited uptake amongst surgeons. Furthermore, there is insufficient understanding of the surgeons' perceived value of PROMs. The aim of this study is to understand how surgeons perceive value in PROMs. Methods: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to understand the perceived value of PROMs from the perspective of surgeons in various subspecialties. Per convenience sampling, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 surgeons from 5 subspecialties across 3 academic medical centers. The surgical subspecialties included bariatric surgery, breast oncologic surgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery, and rhinology. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and evaluated with thematic analysis. Results: Surgeons endorsed that PROMs can be used to enhance clinical management, counsel patients in the preoperative and postoperative settings, and elicit sensitive information from patients that otherwise may go undetected. Obstacles to PROMs use include failure to generate actionable data, implementation obstacles, and inappropriate use of PROMs as a performance metric, with concerns regarding inadequate risk adjustment. Conclusions: Establishing an effective PROMs program requires an understanding of the surgeon's perspective of PROMs. Despite obstacles, different subspecialty surgeons find PROMs to be valuable in different settings, depending on the specialty and clinical context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient engagement, shared-decision making and improve the overall experience of care. However, PRO integration in the primary care clinical setting is limited. Exploring the perspectives of primary care physicians (PCPs) on PROs is key to understanding how they are being used in the clinical setting. We sought to elucidate this clinical perspective at one of the largest US health systems that has integrated a wide range of PROs into routine primary care. Methods Mixed methods study with both anonymous online surveys and in-person qualitative semistructured interviews conducted with PCPs to understand their clinical perspectives on the applications of the existing PROs. PCPs from the 19 affiliated clinics were prompted to complete the survey. Interviewed PCPs were selected via a combination of random and purposive selection from the PCP directory. Results Of 172 PCPs, 117 (68%) completed the online survey and 28 completed semistructured interviews. Most PCPs (77%) reviewed PRO responses with their patients. PCPs endorsed that PROs improve clinic efficiency and clinical management. However, PCPs have heterogeneous perspectives on the relevance of PROs in clinical practice, likely due to variations in clinic practice. For specific PRO instruments, PCPs reported anxiety and depression screening PROs to be most helpful. PCPs felt that PROs assisted with completing screening questions that are required by regulatory bodies. Barriers to using PROs include poor user-interface for both clinicians and patients and inadequate training. Conclusions Most PCPs regularly use PRO data though there are mixed opinions about their clinical relevance. An adaptable, user-friendly PRO system has the potential to have meaningful clinical applications in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increased focus on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has led to a proliferation of these measures in orthopaedic surgery. Mandating a single PROM in clinical and research orthopaedics is not feasible given the breadth of data already collected with older measures and the emergence of psychometrically superior measures. Creating crosswalk tables for scores between measures allows providers to maintain control of measure choice. Furthermore, crosswalk tables permit providers to compare scores collected with older outcome measures with newly collected ones. Given the widespread use of the newer Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF) and the established Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), it would be clinically useful to link these two measures.Question/purpose: Can the KOOS Function in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale be robustly linked to the PROMIS PF to create a crosswalk table of equivalent scores that accurately reflects a patient's reported physical function level on both scales?Methods: We sought to establish a common standardized metric for collected responses to the PROMIS PF and the KOOS ADL to develop equations for converting a PROMIS PF score to a score for the KOOS-ADL subscale and vice versa. To do this, we performed a retrospective, observational study at two academic medical centers and two community hospitals in an urban and suburban healthcare system. Patients 18 years and older who underwent TKA were identified. Between January 2017 and July 2020, we treated 8165 patients with a TKA, 93% of whom had a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis. Of those, we considered patients who had completed a full KOOS and PROMIS PF 10a on the same date as potentially eligible. Twenty-one percent (1708 of 8165) of patients were excluded because no PROMs were collected at any point, and another 67% (5454 of 8165) were excluded because they completed only one of the required PROMs, leaving 12% (1003 of 8165) for analysis here. PROMs were collected each time they visited the health system before and after their TKAs. Physical function was measured by the PROMIS PF version 1.0 SF 10a and KOOS ADL scale. Analyses to accurately create a crosswalk of equivalent scores between the measures were performed using the equipercentile linking method with both unsmoothed and log linear smoothed score distributions.Results: Crosswalks were created, and adequate validation results supported their validity; we also created tables to allow clinicians and clinician scientists to convert individual patients' scores easily. The mean difference between the observed PROMIS PF scores and the scores converted by the crosswalk from the KOOS-ADL scores was -0.08 ± 4.82. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, confirming the effectiveness of these crosswalks to link the scores of two measures from patients both before and after surgery.Conclusion: The PROMIS PF 10a can be robustly linked to the KOOS ADL measure. The developed crosswalk table can be used to convert PROMIS PF scores from KOOS ADL and vice versa.Clinical Relevance: The creation of a crosswalk table between the KOOS Function in ADL subscale and PROMIS PF allows clinicians and researchers to easily convert scores between the measures, thus permitting greater choice in PROM selection while preserving comparability between patient cohorts and PROM data collected from older outcome measures. Creating a crosswalk, or concordance table, between the two scales will facilitate this comparison, especially when pooling data for meta-analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The collection of patient reported outcomes (PROs) allows us to incorporate the patient's voice within their care in a quantifiable, validated manner. Large scale collection of PROs is facilitated by the electronic health record (EHR) and its portal, though historically patients have eschewed the portal and completed patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) in clinic via tablet. Furthermore, access to and use of the portal is associated with known racial inequities. Our institution oversees the largest clinical PRO program in the world, and has a long history of racially equitable PRO completion rates via tablet. However, when the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to remove tablets from clinics and rely exclusively on portal use for PRO completion, profound racial disparities resulted immediately. Our experience quantifiably demonstrates the magnitude of inequity that the portal, in its current configuration, generates and serves as a cautionary tale to other health care systems and EHRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on multiple classification schemas for adnexa lesions assessing the likelihood.

BACKGROUND. Radiology informatics systems and clinical decision support tools in the electronic health record (EHR) can be leveraged to help impact ordering patterns in response to the ongoing global iodinated contrast media shortage. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the impact of EHR order entry-based interventions, implemented as part of a health system's response to the global contrast media shortage, on contrast-enhanced CT utilization. METHODS. This retrospective study included 79,259 patients who underwent CT at a large multisite health system between April 1, 2022, and July 3, 2022. Two EHR-based interventions were implemented as part of the health system's response to the global contrast media shortage. A first EHR-based intervention on May 10, 2022, entailed creating an alert that appeared in a sidebar after any contrast-enhanced body CT orders, indicating the present shortage and recommending alternate imaging modalities. A second EHR-based intervention on May 16, 2022, required referrers to enter detailed clinical information for all contrast-enhanced body CT orders, which radiologists used when protocoling examinations. Data regarding CT orders and examinations performed were extracted from the electronic data warehouse. RESULTS. During the preintervention, first postintervention, and second postintervention periods, the mean number of patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT per weekday was 726, 689, and 639, respectively ( p for preintervention vs second postintervention periods, < .001). During the three periods, the mean number of patients who underwent CT per weekday was 1350, 1323, and 1314 ( p < .001). During the three periods, the mean number of patients who underwent contrast-enhanced body CT per weekday was 561, 532, and 492 ( p < .001). During the three periods, the mean number of orders for CT with IV contrast media per weekday was 154, 143, and 131 ( p < .001). During the three periods, the mean number of orders for CT without IV contrast media per weekday was 196, 202, and 221 ( p < .001). CONCLUSION. EHR order entry-based interventions implemented in response to the global contrast media shortage significantly reduced contrast-enhanced CT utilization in a large health system. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings indicate the ability to rapidly achieve changes in ordering clinician behavior and subsequent clinical practice using systemwide EHR changes.