Search

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been touted as the ultimate assessment of quality medical care and have been proposed as performance measures after appropriate risk adjustment. Although spine conditions represent the most common orthopedic disorders, the most used PROs for disabilities related to the back and neck—the Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI)—have not been evaluated as performance measures. Objective The objective of this study was to benchmark physical therapists' performance in the management of spine conditions not involving surgery through the use of risk-adjusted MDQ and NDI outcomes. Design This was a retrospective observational study. Methods Data were accessed for patients seeking physical therapy with no history of related surgery for back or neck pain (315,274 treatment episodes) between January 2015 and June 2018. Patients with complete data, including initial and matched final MDQ or NDI, were considered for analysis (182,276 patients; 2799 physical therapists). Linear models controlling for baseline PRO and patient characteristics predicted PRO change for each patient. An aggregated performance ratio of actual PRO change to predicted PRO change was calculated for each physical therapist, and then empirical bootstrapping was used to develop the median performance ratio and its confidence intervals. Physical therapists who met a 40-patient threshold for either cohort (MDQ or NDI) were classified as "outperforming," "meeting expectations," or "underperforming" relative to predicted values using these 95% confidence intervals. Results Performance ratios indicated that 10% and 11% of physical therapists outperformed, 79% and 78% met expectations, and 11% and 11% underperformed relative to the risk-adjusted predicted change in the MDQ (1240 therapists; 97,908 patients) and NDI (461 therapists; 26,123 patients), respectively. To demonstrate the clinical importance of risk adjustment, clinical performance was evaluated in the seemingly homogeneous subset of 208 physical therapists within 0.5 SD of the median baseline MDQ and the median actual change in the MDQ. Following risk adjustment, 2 physical therapists were classified in each of the outperforming and underperforming cohorts. Limitations The secondarily obtained observational data used were not collected for research purposes. Additionally, the analyses were limited by missing baseline information and follow-up PROs. Conclusions The risk-adjusted performance ratios for the MDQ and NDI resulted in disparate conclusions regarding the quality of care compared with the raw, unadjusted change scores. According to the baseline and unadjusted change in the MDQ, even physical therapists in the most homogeneous sample were differentiated following appropriate risk adjustment. Clinically important improvements in actual PROs were observed in the outperforming but not in the underperforming physical therapists. Clinically meaningful differences in the performance ratio are unknown and are a limitation to clinical application and an opportunity for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. BACKGROUND: Alternative models of care that allow patients to choose direct access to physical therapy have shown promise in terms of cost reduction for neck and back pain. However, realworld exploration within the US health care system is notably limited. OBJECTIVES: To compare total claims paid and patient outcomes for patients with neck and back pain who received physical therapy intervention via direct access versus medical referral. METHODS: Data were accessed for patients seeking care for neck or back pain (n = 603) between 2012 and 2014, who chose to begin care either through traditional medical referral or direct access to a physical therapy-led spine management program. All patients received a standardized, pragmatic physical therapy approach, with patient-reported measures of pain and disability assessed before and after treatment. Patient demographics and outcomes data were obtained from the medical center patient registry and combined with total claims paid calculated for the year after the index claim. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to analyze group differences in pain and disability, visits/time, and annualized costs. RESULTS: Patients who chose to enter care via the direct-access physical therapy-led spine management program displayed significantly lower total costs (mean difference, $1543; 95% confidence interval: $51, $3028; P = .04) than those who chose traditional medical referral. Patients in both groups showed clinically important improvements in pain and disability, which were similar between groups (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The initial patient choice to begin care with a physical therapist for back or neck pain resulted in lower cost of care over the next year, while resulting in similar improvements in patient outcomes at discharge from physical therapy. These findings add to the emerging literature suggesting that patients' choice to access physical therapy through direct access may be associated with lower health care expenditures for patients with neck and back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Using a larger, more comprehensive sample, and inclusion of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a primary surgical approach for proximal humerus fracture, we report on geographic variation in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture in 2011 and comment on whether treatment consensus is being reached. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare patients with an x-ray-confirmed diagnosis of proximal humerus fracture in 2011. Patients receiving reverse shoulder arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or open reduction internal fixation within 60 days of their diagnosis were classified as surgical management patients. Unadjusted observed surgery rates and area treatment ratios adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics were calculated at the hospital referral region level. Results: Among patients with proximal humerus fracture (N = 77,053), 15.4% received surgery and 84.6% received conservative management. Unadjusted surgery rates varied from 1.7 to 33.3% across hospital referral regions. Among patients receiving surgery, 22.3% received hemiarthroplasty, 65.8% received open reduction internal fixation, and 11.8% received reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Patients that were female, were younger, had fewer medical comorbidities, had a lower frailty index, were white, or were not dual-eligible for Medicaid during the month of their index fracture were more likely to receive surgery (p <.0001). Geographic variation in the treatment of proximal humerus fracture persisted after adjustment for patient demographic and clinical differences across local areas. Average surgery rates ranged from 9.9 to 21.2% across area treatment ratio quintiles. Conclusions: Persistent geographic variation in surgery rates for proximal humerus fracture across the USA suggests no treatment consensus has been reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]