The Ability of Upper Extremity Surgeons to Assess Patient's Functional Status

Purpose To compare surgeon and patient assessment of upper extremity functional status at the time of initial consultation. We hypothesized that surgeons and patients demonstrate low levels of agreement with respect to assessing pain scores, functional status, and self-efficacy. Methods One hundred forty-three consecutive new patients were evaluated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained upper extremity surgeons. Patients completed a Numeric Pain Rating Scale as well as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), Pain Interference (PI), and Self-Efficacy (SE) instruments. Surgeons provided their own estimates of patient function on each questionnaire at the conclusion of the visit and were blinded to the results of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the duration of the study. Estimation errors, which represent the absolute value of the difference between the patient’s actual score and the surgeon’s estimated score on each questionnaire, were calculated for each questionnaire. Results As a group, surgeons assumed that the PROMIS UE and SE scores were higher than the patients’ actual scores and assumed that patients had lower PROMIS PI scores than were actually reported. Mean estimation errors for all PROMIS instruments were greater than 10 points and larger than the SD for these instruments in the general population. Conclusions Upper extremity surgeons demonstrate difficulty assessing their patient’s self-reported functional status, pain interference, and level of self-efficacy during initial consultations. Clinical relevance Although formalized PROMs are infrequently administered in orthopedic clinics, increased utilization of these questionnaires would allow for a more accurate baseline functional assessment. When evaluating new patients in the outpatient clinic, surgeons should recognize the potential limitations of their assessments of patient-reported function.