A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. (3rd September 2015)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. (3rd September 2015)
- Main Title:
- A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain
- Authors:
- Clement, R Carter
Welander, Adina
Stowell, Caleb
Cha, Thomas D
Chen, John L
Davies, Michelle
Fairbank, Jeremy C
Foley, Kevin T
Gehrchen, Martin
Hagg, Olle
Jacobs, Wilco C
Kahler, Richard
Khan, Safdar N
Lieberman, Isador H
Morisson, Beth
Ohnmeiss, Donna D
Peul, Wilco C
Shonnard, Neal H
Smuck, Matthew W
Solberg, Tore K
Stromqvist, Bjorn H
Hooff, Miranda L Van
Wasan, Ajay D
Willems, Paul C
Yeo, William
FRitzell, Peter - Abstract:
- Abstract : Background and purpose — Outcome 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 methods — An 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. Results — Patient-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. Interpretation — The 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 meaningfulAbstract : Background and purpose — Outcome 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 methods — An 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. Results — Patient-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. Interpretation — The 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. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Acta orthopaedica. Volume 86:Number 5(2015)
- Journal:
- Acta orthopaedica
- Issue:
- Volume 86:Number 5(2015)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 86, Issue 5 (2015)
- Year:
- 2015
- Volume:
- 86
- Issue:
- 5
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2015-0086-0005-0000
- Page Start:
- 523
- Page End:
- 533
- Publication Date:
- 2015-09-03
- Subjects:
- Orthopedics -- Periodicals
616.7005 - Journal URLs:
- http://informahealthcare.com/loi/ort ↗
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/iort20/current ↗
https://actaorthop.org/actao/index ↗
http://www.tandfonline.com/ ↗
http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=65168817ff044fea9c5b577f1cfe2186&referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults, 1:113260, 1 ↗ - DOI:
- 10.3109/17453674.2015.1036696 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1745-3674
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 0642.055000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 11412.xml