Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Patient-reported outcome measurements in clinical routine of trauma, spine and craniomaxillofacial surgeons: between expectations and reality: a survey among 1212 surgeons
  1. Alexander Joeris1,
  2. Christian Knoll1,
  3. Vasiliki Kalampoki1,
  4. Andrea Blumenthal1,
  5. George Gaskell2
  1. 1 AO Clinical Investigation and Documentation, AO Foundation, Dübendorf, Switzerland
  2. 2 Department of Methodology, London School of Economics, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alexander Joeris; alexander.joeris{at}aofoundation.org

Abstract

Objective To gain information about the advantages/disadvantages of an implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) into the clinical routine of trauma/orthopaedic surgeons, and to identify the technical constraints confronting a successful implementation of PROMs.

Design Online survey.

Participants Surgeons who are members of the AO Foundation.

Measures Participants answered questions regarding demographics, their familiarity with specific and generic PROMs and the use of PROMs in clinical routine. Furthermore, reasons for/against using PROMs, why not used more often, prerequisites to implement PROMs into clinical routine and whether PROMs would be implemented if adequate tools/technologies were available, were solicited. Χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to evaluate the effect of the AO Region, surgeon specialisation, current position, clinical experience, and workplace on the familiarity with disease-specific PROMs, the familiarity with generic PROMs and the current use of PROMs. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify issues underlying the extent of PROM usage.

Results 1212 surgeons completed the survey (response rate: 6.8%; margin of error: ±2.72%): 54.2% were trauma/orthopaedic surgeons, 16.6% were spine surgeons, 27.9% were craniomaxillofacial surgeons and 16 had no defined specialty. Working in a certain AO Region, surgical specialisation and current workplace were associated with a higher familiarity of disease-specific PROMs and the use of PROMs in daily clinical routine (p≤0.05). Exploratory factor analysis identified four categories important for the use of PROMs and two categories preventing the use of PROMs. In case of the availability of an adequate tool, 66.2% of surgeons would implement PROMs in clinical routine.

Conclusions Our survey results provide an understanding of the use of PROMs in clinical routine. There is consensus on the usefulness of PROMs. User-friendly and efficient tools/technologies would be a prerequisite for the daily use of PROMs. Additionally, educational efforts and/or policies might help.

  • public health
  • adult orthopaedics

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors AJ: conception and design of the study/survey, data collection and interpretation, manuscript drafting and revision, approval of final manuscript. CK and VK: data analysis and interpretation, revision and approval of final manuscript. AB: data interpretation, manuscript drafting and revision, approval of final manuscript. GG: data interpretation, manuscript revision and final approval.

  • Funding This work was financially supported by the AO Foundation via AOTrauma and AO Clinical Investigation and Documentation (AOCID).

  • Competing interests We received financial support from AOCID and AOTrauma for the submitted work; AJ, CK, AB and VK are employees of AOCID; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement If additional data are of interest for the reader, please contact the corresponding author.