Michiel G.J.S. Hageman

Measurement of Upper Extremity Disability Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

PURPOSE Current questionnaires used to measure upper extremity-specific disability can be time-consuming and subject to ceiling effects. The National Institutes of Health developed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures based on computer adaptive testing (CAT), a technique that is more efficient and less subject to floor and ceiling effects than traditional questionnaires with a fixed number of questions. This study tested the correlation of the Physical Function-Upper Extremity CAT with the Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. METHODS Patients presenting to our orthopedic outpatient clinic were invited to participate in this observational cross-sectional study between August and October 2013. A study sample of 84 patients completed the QuickDASH and PROMIS Physical Function-Upper Extremity CAT, and 3 other PROMIS measures, as well as the 2-question Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire and the 2-question Patient Health Questionnaire. RESULTS A strong correlation was found between QuickDASH and PROMIS Physical Function-Upper Extremity CAT, with a significantly shorter completion time for the latter. CONCLUSIONS We recommend the PROMIS Upper Extremity CAT because it is valid, reliable, and easy to use, and it provides easy reference to population norms (a score of 50 represents the norm in the United States population, and every 10 points represents a standard deviation from the norm). TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic I.

Computerized adaptive testing of psychological factors: relation to upper-extremity disability.

BACKGROUND Psychological factors are important mediators of the differences between impairment and disability. The most commonly used measures of disability and psychological factors are lengthy and are usually administered as paper questionnaires. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between perceived disability and psychological factors with use of the user-friendly, web-based Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System initiative, and to compare its correlation with a frequently used, paper-based, pain self-efficacy questionnaire. METHODS A cohort of 213 patients completed a web-based version of the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), the pain self-efficacy questionnaire, the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-based computerized adaptive testing Pain Interference questionnaire, and the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-based computerized adaptive testing Depression questionnaire. Bivariate and multivariable analyses measured the correlation of these psychological measures with QuickDASH. RESULTS There was large correlation between QuickDASH and the Pain Interference computerized adaptive testing (r = 0.74; p < 0.001), between the Pain Interference computerized adaptive testing and the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (r = -0.72; p < 0.001), and between QuickDASH and the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (r = -0.76; p < 0.001). The Depression computerized adaptive testing showed a medium correlation both with QuickDASH (r = 0.37; p < 0.001) and with the Pain Interference computerized adaptive testing (r = 0.40; p < 0.001). The best multivariable model for QuickDASH included the Pain Interference computerized adaptive testing, prior treatment received, and smoking, and accounted for 57% of the variability. Fifty-one percent of the variability in the QuickDASH was explained by pain interference alone. CONCLUSIONS Maladaptive responses to upper-extremity pain are accurately measured by the relatively user-friendly Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-based computerized adaptive testing questionnaire.

Opioid Use, Satisfaction, and Pain Intensity After Orthopedic Surgery

BACKGROUND Patients in other countries use fewer opioids than patients in the United States with satisfactory pain relief. OBJECTIVE This study tested the null hypothesis that opioid intake after orthopedic surgery does not influence satisfaction with pain management. METHODS A total of 232 orthopedic surgical inpatients completed measures of pain self-efficacy and symptoms of depression at enrollment and commonly used measures of pain intensity, satisfaction with pain relief, and satisfaction with hospital staff attention to pain approximately 14 days after surgery. Inpatient opioid intake per 24-hour period was quantified. RESULTS At a phone evaluation approximately 2 weeks after discharge from the hospital, patients who were always satisfied with their pain relief in hospital and always satisfied with staff attention to pain used significantly less opioids on day 1 compared with patients who were not always satisfied. There were no differences in satisfaction by type of surgery. The final multivariable model for not always satisfied with pain relief included greater opioid use on day 1 (odds ratio = 1.2), and preadmission diagnosis of depression (odds ratio = 2.6). Greater opioid use on day 1 was the only factor associated with less than always satisfied with the staff attention to pain relief (odds ratio = 1.3). CONCLUSIONS Patients who take more opioids report less satisfaction with pain relief and greater pain intensity. Evidence-based interventions to increase self-efficacy merit additional study for the management of postoperative pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, Level 1.

Do Previsit Expectations Correlate With Satisfaction of New Patients Presenting for Evaluation With an Orthopaedic Surgical Practice

BackgroundPatient satisfaction is associated with increased compliance, improved treatment outcomes, and decreased risk of litigation. Factors such as patient understanding and psychological well-being are recognized influences on satisfaction. Less is known about the relationship between previsit expectations and satisfaction.Questions/purposes(1) Are there correlations among previsit expectations, met expectations, and patient satisfaction? (2) What are the categories of expectations, and which one(s) correlate with satisfaction?MethodsEighty-six new patients presenting to a hand surgery practice of a tertiary referral hospital with 70% direct primary care referrals, mostly with elective concerns, indicated their previsit expectations (Patient Intention Questionnaire [PIQ]). Immediately after the visit, the same patients rated the degree to which their previsit expectations were met (Expectation Met Questionnaire [EMQ]) and their satisfaction level (Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale). These tools have been used in primary care office settings and claim good psychometric properties, and although they have not been strictly validated for responsiveness and other test parameters, they have good face validity. We then conducted a multivariable backward linear regression to determine whether (1) scores on the PIQ; and (2) scores on the EMQ are associated with satisfaction.ResultsSatisfaction correlated with met expectations (r = 0.36; p < 0.001) but not with previsit expectations (r = −0.01, p = 0.94). We identified five primary categories of previsit expectations that accounted for 50% of the variance in PIQ: (1) “Information and Explanation”; (2) “Emotional and Understanding”; (3) “Emotional Problems”; (4) “Diagnostics”; and (5) “Comforting”. The only category of met expectations that correlated with satisfaction was Information and Explanation (r = 0.43; p < 0.001).ConclusionsAmong patients seeing a hand surgeon, met expectations correlate with satisfaction. In particular, patients with met expectations regarding information and explanation were more satisfied with their visit. Efforts to determine the most effective methods for conveying unexpected information warrant investigation.Level of EvidenceLevel II, prognostic study.

The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: Validation of an Abbreviated Two-Item Questionnaire

BACKGROUND The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a validated tool to assess pain self-efficacy and is strongly correlated with disability. Reducing the number of questions of the original PSEQ to screen for self-efficacy will result in more efficient screening and less burden for the patient. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to prospectively validate the shortened version of the PSEQ. METHOD Overall, 249 new and follow-up patients visiting our outpatient orthopedic hand surgery clinic were prospectively enrolled and asked to complete the PSEQ, short version of the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand, and 2-question version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) depression questionnaires. The patients completed the questionnaires in the office and online 2 weeks after their visit. At the follow-up visit, the PSEQ was substituted with the 2-question version of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2). The factors associated with higher short forms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were investigated in a bivariate and multivariable analysis. Paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of the short and long questionnaires at enrollment. RESULTS There was a large correlation (r = 0.90; p < 0.001) between the original PSEQ and the PSEQ-2 at enrollment. The Cronbach α were comparable for the PSEQ and the PSEQ-2 (α = 0.95 compared with α = 0.91). There was a small but statistically significant difference between the average scores of the PSEQ and PSEQ-2 (4.4 vs 4.8; p < 0.001). For the shortened PSEQ, a smaller-but still large-correlation was found with the short forms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (r = 0.71 vs r = 0.61). Both the PSEQ-2 and the PSEQ were the most important predictors of the short forms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores. A substantial test-retest reliability was found for the PSEQ-2 (0.66). CONCLUSION The PSEQ-2 can be used to quickly assess patients׳ pain self-efficacy.

The factors influencing the decision making of operative treatment for proximal humeral fractures

BACKGROUND The factors influencing the decision making of operative treatment for fractures of the proximal humerus are debated. We hypothesized that there is no difference in treatment recommendations between surgeons shown radiographs alone and those shown radiographs and patient information. Secondarily, we addressed (1) factors associated with a recommendation for operative treatment, (2) factors associated with recommendation for arthroplasty, (3) concordance with the recommendations of the treating surgeons, and (4) factors affecting the inter-rater reliability of treatment recommendations. METHODS A total of 238 surgeons of the Science of Variation Group rated 40 radiographs of patients with proximal humerus fractures. Participants were randomized to receive information about the patient and mechanism of injury. The response variables included the choice of treatment (operative vs nonoperative) and the percentage of matches with the actual treatment. RESULTS Participants who received patient information recommended operative treatment less than those who received no information. The patient information that had the greatest influence on treatment recommendations included age (55%) and fracture mechanism (32%). The only other factor associated with a recommendation for operative treatment was region of practice. There was no significant difference between participants who were and were not provided with information regarding agreement with the actual treatment (operative vs nonoperative) provided by the treating surgeon. CONCLUSION Patient information-older age in particular-is associated with a higher likelihood of recommending nonoperative treatment than radiographs alone. Clinical information did not improve agreement of the Science of Variation Group with the actual treatment or the generally poor interobserver agreement on treatment recommendations.

Predictors of readmission in orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Objectives: This study of patients who had operative treatment of skeletal trauma addresses (1) the association between readmission within 30 days of discharge and comorbidities and (2) differences in factors associated with all-cause readmissions and those because of a surgical adverse event. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Tertiary care referral center. Patients: Three thousand four hundred fifty-two operations for skeletal trauma between 2008 and 2012 with comorbidities quantified using the updated Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Outcome Measurement: Readmission to the hospital within 30 days of surgery and the subset of readmissions because of adverse events related directly to surgery. Results: There was a significant association between readmission within 30 days of surgery and higher CCI (P < 0.001), older age (P < 0.001), and marital status (widowed) (P < 0.001). The factors associated with readmission related to an adverse event were identical. The best multivariable logistic regression models for all-cause 30-day readmission and 30-day readmission related to a surgical adverse event included CCI and older age in both models (odds ratio 1.1, P < 0.01, pseudo R2 = 0.03). Conclusions: Older patients and patients with greater comorbidity are more likely to be readmitted within 30 days of surgery for musculoskeletal trauma, whether for a surgical adverse event or another reason. The best multivariable models predicted very little of the variability in readmission, which reflects the complexity of readmission and the difficulty reducing the risk to a few specific factors. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Do Upper Extremity Trauma Patients Have Different Preferences for Shared Decision-making Than Patients With Nontraumatic Conditions?

BackgroundShared decision-making is a combination of expertise, available scientific evidence, and the preferences of the patient and surgeon. Some surgeons contend that patients are less capable of participating in decisions about traumatic conditions than nontraumatic conditions.Questions/purposes(1) Do patients with nontraumatic conditions have different preferences for shared decision-making when compared with those who sustained acute trauma? (2) Do disability, symptoms of depression, and self-efficacy correlate with preference for shared decision-making?MethodsIn this prospective, comparative trial, we evaluated a total of 133 patients presenting to the outpatient practices of two university-based hand surgeons with traumatic or nontraumatic hand and upper extremity illnesses or conditions. Each patient completed questionnaires measuring their preferred role in healthcare decision-making (Control Preferences Scale [CPS]), symptoms of depression (Patients’ Health Questionnaire), and pain self-efficacy (confidence that one can achieve one’s goals despite pain; measured using the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire). Patients also completed a short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire and an ordinal rating of pain intensity.ResultsThere was no difference in decision-making preferences between patients with traumatic (CPS: 3 ± 2) and nontraumatic conditions (CPS: 3 ± 1 mean difference = 0.2 [95% confidence interval, −0.4 to 0.7], p = 0.78) with most patients (95 versus 38) preferring shared decision-making. More educated patients preferred a more active role in decision-making (beta = −0.1, r = 0.08, p = 0.001); however, differences in levels of disability, pain and function, depression, and pain-related self-efficacy were not associated with differences in patients’ preferences in terms of shared decision-making.ConclusionsPatients who sustained trauma have on average the same preference for shared decision-making compared with patients who sustained no trauma. Now that we know the findings of this study, clinicians might be motivated to share their expertise about the treatment options, potential outcomes, benefits, and harms with the patient and to discuss their preference as well in a semiacute setting, resulting in a shared decision.

Quantitative three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of glenoid fracture patterns according to the AO/OTA classification

HYPOTHESIS/BACKGROUND This study measures the characteristics of glenoid fractures to determine if the AO Foundation and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification captures the most common fracture patterns. The primary null hypothesis was that surface area and degree of fragmentation do not differ among the different fracture types. Secondarily, we tested if there was a relationship between high- vs. low-energy trauma and fracture classification. METHODS Three-dimensional models were created for a consecutive series of 53 fractures. The fracture classifications, the number of fragments, and the fragmented articular surface area were related to the type of injury. The difference of articular surface size and number of fragments among classification groups was analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS There is a significant difference in fractured articular surface area among classification groups. Compared with transverse and multifragmented fractures, both anterior and posterior fractures involved significantly less of the articular surface area. High-energy trauma is associated with transverse and multifragmented fractures in 93% of the cases. It is associated with a greater number of fracture fragments and fracture of a larger percentage of the glenoid surface area, with a mean fractured surface of 60% for high-energy fractures and 25% for low-energy injuries. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION Quantitative 3-dimensional CT analysis confirms that the current AO/OTA classification adequately characterizes and discriminates glenoid fracture patterns. The classification groups are related to the fragmented articular surface area and the number of fragments. Also, the mechanism of injury is related to the classification group, which supports the clinical relevance of the classification.

Does Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Pain Correlate With Disability

BACKGROUND Illness (symptoms and disability) consistently correlates more with coping strategies and symptoms of depression than with pathophysiology or impairment. OBJECTIVE This study tested the primary null hypothesis that there is no correlation between verbal and nonverbal communication of pain (pain behavior) and upper extremity-specific disability in patients with hand and upper extremity illness. METHODS A total of 139 new and followed up adult patients completed the QuickDASH, an ordinal rating of pain, and 4 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Computer Adaptive Testing instruments: (1) PROMIS pain behavior, (2) PROMIS pain interference (measuring the degree to which pain interferes with achieving ones physical goals), (3) PROMIS physical function, and (4) PROMIS depression. RESULTS Factors associated with a higher QuickDASH score in bivariate analysis included a higher PROMIS pain behavior score, not working, being separated/divorced or widowed, having sought treatment before, having other pain conditions, a higher PROMIS pain interference score, a higher PROMIS depression score, and lower education level. The final multivariable model of factors associated with QuickDASH included PROMIS pain interference, having other pain conditions, and being separated/divorced or widowed, and it explained 64% of the variability. CONCLUSION PROMIS pain behavior (verbal and nonverbal communication of pain) correlates with upper extremity disability, but PROMIS pain interference (the degree to which pain interferes with activity) is a more important factor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, cross-sectional study.