We have located links that may give you full text access.
Is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Feasible in Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients?
Journal of Arthroplasty 2020 July 26
BACKGROUND: Several bundled payment plans, like the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for total joint arthroplasty, have been introduced to decrease costs and improve clinical care. Measuring clinical outcomes with efficient, standardized methodologies is essential to determine the relative value of total joint arthroplasty care. We investigated feasibility and responsiveness of the recently developed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients.
METHODS: We included patients with preoperative and 1-year PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (DEP) scores who received unilateral primary TKA. Burden was assessed using the number of questions and time required for PROMIS completion. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as 5. Floor/ceiling effects were noted if more than 15% of patients responded with the lowest/highest possible score, respectively. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare categorical data. Analysis of variance was used for PROMIS comparisons.
RESULTS: In total, 172 knees (54 BPCI) were included. Floor effects were identified for DEP at baseline (non-BPCI) and follow-up (both groups), and for PI at follow-up only (BPCI). Patients required 140 seconds and 16 questions to answer all 3 PROMIS domains. Sixty-seven percent, 60%, and 44% of knees achieved minimum clinically important difference in PI, PF, and DEP scores respectively, with no significant difference between groups. The BPCI cohort was older (P < .001) with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = .028). There were no significant differences in scores between BPCI and non-BPCI patients.
CONCLUSION: PROMIS is feasible and time-efficient in BPCI patients undergoing primary TKA. There were no significant differences in outcomes between BPCI and non-BPCI knees.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
METHODS: We included patients with preoperative and 1-year PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (DEP) scores who received unilateral primary TKA. Burden was assessed using the number of questions and time required for PROMIS completion. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as 5. Floor/ceiling effects were noted if more than 15% of patients responded with the lowest/highest possible score, respectively. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare categorical data. Analysis of variance was used for PROMIS comparisons.
RESULTS: In total, 172 knees (54 BPCI) were included. Floor effects were identified for DEP at baseline (non-BPCI) and follow-up (both groups), and for PI at follow-up only (BPCI). Patients required 140 seconds and 16 questions to answer all 3 PROMIS domains. Sixty-seven percent, 60%, and 44% of knees achieved minimum clinically important difference in PI, PF, and DEP scores respectively, with no significant difference between groups. The BPCI cohort was older (P < .001) with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = .028). There were no significant differences in scores between BPCI and non-BPCI patients.
CONCLUSION: PROMIS is feasible and time-efficient in BPCI patients undergoing primary TKA. There were no significant differences in outcomes between BPCI and non-BPCI knees.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app