From outcome measurement to improving health outcomes after lower limb amputation-A narrative review exploring outcome measurement from a clinical practice perspective.
Journal
Prosthetics and orthotics international
ISSN: 1746-1553
Titre abrégé: Prosthet Orthot Int
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7707720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2022
01 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
06
02
2021
accepted:
04
01
2022
pubmed:
1
4
2022
medline:
12
8
2022
entrez:
31
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Outcome measurement is essential to understand the impact of clinical interventions and the performance of services. Despite national and professional body encouragement, and successful examples of system level outcome measurement within some health care settings, many barriers still exist preventing outcome measurement from becoming embedded in clinical practice. This paper presents a narrative review which aims to describe the state of the outcome measurement evidence base in prosthetic rehabilitation, as applied in clinical practice, with a view to identifying areas for future work aimed at making outcome measurement in prosthetic rehabilitation a meaningful reality. A literature search of four databases was undertaken, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis principals appropriate to narrative reviews, and using the search terms outcome, measur*, tool, scale, instrument, prosthe*, amput* and limb loss. A total of 1116 papers were identified. Following screening 35 papers, focusing on four main themes, were included in the review. Themes were: 1) What outcome domains should be measured? 2) How can these outcome domains be measured? 3) What are the barriers to outcome measurement? and 4) What can be learnt from examples of ROM in prosthetic rehabilitation? Findings suggest that successful outcome measurement is multifaceted. Understanding and embedding value at every step appears to be key to success. Addressing the questions of 'what' outcome domains to measure and 'how' to measure them, may help establish consensus. Routine outcome measurement practice at the clinical level should ensure data collection is valuable to clinical practice, makes use of information technology solutions and has organisational engagement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35357360
doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000100
pii: 00006479-202208000-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e341-e350Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer incorporated on behalf of The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Références
Devlin NJ, Appleby J, Buxton M. Getting the Most Out of PROMs : Putting Health Outcomes at the Heart of NHS Decision-Making. www.Kingsfund.org.uk . 2010. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/Getting-the-most-out-of-PROMs-Nancy-Devlin-John-Appleby-Kings-Fund-March-2010.pdf .
Clarke S, Taal E, Hewlett S, et al. The OMERACT Glossery. 2020. www.omeract.org .
Robinson C, Fatone S. You’ve heard about outcome measures, so how do you use them? Integrating clinically relevant outcome measures in orthotic management of stroke. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013; 37: 30–42.
Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. Health Serv Res 2012; 12. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/12/96 .
NHS England. Clinical Commissioning Policy: Microprocessor Controlled Prosthetic Knees. www.england.nhs.uk . 2016. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/clin-comm-pol-16061P.pdf .
Colquhoun H, Letts L, Law M, et al. Feasibility of the Canadian occupational performance measure for routine use. Br J Occup Ther 2010; 73: 48–54.
Kucukdeveci A, Tennant A, Grimby G, et al. Stategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43: 661–672.
Stokes E. Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. 1st ed. London: Churchill Livingston Elsevier; 2011.
Mcgrail K, Bryan S, Davis J. Let’s all go to the PROM: the case for routine patient-reported outcome measurement in Canadian healthcare INVIteD essAY. Healthc Pap 2010; 11: 8–18; discussion 55–8.
NHS Digital. NHS PROMS Programme. www.digital.nhs.uk . https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/patient-reported-outcome-measures-proms .
Naitonal Joint Registry. National Joint Registry. www.njrcentre.org.uk .
Porter M, Armstrong R, Howard P, et al. Orthopaedic registries—the UK view (National Joint Registry): impact on practice. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4: 377–390.
UKROC. UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative. www.ukroc.org .
Turner-Stokes L, Poppleton R, Williams H, et al. Using the UKROC dataset to make the case for resources to improve cost-efficiency in neurological rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2012; 34: 1900–1906.
Turner-Stokes L, Williams H, Sephton K, et al. Engaging the hearts and minds of clinicians in outcome measurement the UK rehabilitation outcomes collaborative approach. Disabil Rehabil 2012; 34: 1871–1879.
NHS England. How to… Understand and Measure Impact: The Better Care Fund. www.england.nhs.uk . 2015. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bcf-user-guide-04.pdf.pdf .
British Association of Prosthetists and Orthotists. Measuring Change: An Introduction to Clinical Outcome Measures in Prosthetics and Orthotics. www.bapo.com . 2015. https://www.bapo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Measuring-Change-BAPO-website.pdf .
Scopes J, Tisdale L, Cole M-J, et al. The BACPAR outcome measures toolbox: a step towards standardising outcome measures for physiotherapists working with lower limb amputees. Physiotherapy 2015; 101: 1357–1358.
Meehan T, McCombes S, Hatzipetrou L, et al. Introduction of routine outcome measures: staff reactions and issues for consideration. J Psychiatr Ment Heal Nurs 2006; 13: 581–587.
Trauer T, Gill L, Pedwell G, et al. Routine outcome measurement in public mental health—what do clinicians think? Austrailian Heal Rev 2006; 30: 144–147.
Noble H, Smith J. Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design. Evid Based Nurs 2018; 21: 39–41.
Malterud K, Bjelland AK, Elvbakken KT. Evidence-based medicine—an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway. Heal Res Policy Syst 2016; 14: 1–9.
Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest 2018; 48: 1–6
Dijkers MPJM. The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88: 423–430.
Furley P, Goldschmied N. Systematic vs. narrative reviews in sport and exercise psychology: is either approach superior to the other? Front Psychol 2021; 12: 10–13.
Ferrari R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Med Writ 2015; 24: 230–235.
Heinemann AW, Connelly L, Ehrlich-Jones L, et al. Outcome instruments for prosthetics: clinical applications. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2014; 25: 179–198.
Rommers GM, Vos LD, Groothoff JW, et al. Mobility of people with lower limb amputations: scales and questionnaires: a review. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 92–102.
Condie E, Scott H, Treweek S. Lower limb prosthetic outcome measures: a review of the literature 1995 to 2005. J Prosthetics Orthot 2006; 18: 13–45.
NHS England. Complex Disability Equipment—Prosthetic Specialised Services for People of All Ages With Limb Loss. www.england.nhs.uk . 2015. https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/01/d01-serv-spec-dis-equ-prosth.pdf .
Xu J, Kohler F, Dickson H. Systematic review of concepts measured in individuals with lower limb amputation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference. Prosthet Orthot Int 2011; 35: 262–268.
Gallagher P, Desmond D. Measuring quality of life in prosthetic practice: benefits and challenges. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31: 167–176.
McDonald CL, Cheever SM, Morgan SJ, et al. Prosthetic limb user experiences with crossover feet: a pilot focus group study to explore outcomes that matter. J Prosthetics Orthot 2019; 31: 133–139.
Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, MacLachlan M, et al. Understanding the benefits of prosthetic prescription: exploring the experiences of practitioners and lower limb prosthetic users. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33: 1314–1323.
Schaffalitzky E, Gallagher P, MacLachlan M, et al. Developing consensus on important factors associated with lower limb prosthetic prescription and use. Disabil Rehabil 2012; 34: 2085–2094.
Roach KE. Measurement of health outcomes: reliability, validity and responsiveness. J Prosthetics Orthot 2006; 18: 8–12.
Balk EM, Gazula A, Markozannes G, et al. Psychometric properties of functional, ambulatory, and quality of life instruments in lower limb amputees: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019; 100: 2354–2370.
Hawkins AT, Henry AJ, Crandell DM, et al. A systematic review of functional and quality of life assessment after major lower extremity amputation. Ann Vasc Surg 2014; 28: 763–780.
Hawkins EJ, Riddick W. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of clinical performance–based outcome measures of walking for individuals with lower limb amputations: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2018; 98: 1037–1045.
Hebert JS, Wolfe DL, Miller WC, et al. Outcome measures in amputation rehabilitation: ICF body functions. Disabil Rehabil 2009; 31: 1541–1554.
Resnik L, Borgia M, Silver B. Measuring community integration in persons with limb trauma and amputation: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98: 561–580.e8.
Scopes J. Outcome Measures of Physical Function in Adult Unilateral Lower Limb Amputees during Prosthetic Rehabilitation: Use in Clinical Practice and Psychometric Properties. 2016. https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/7422 .
Deathe AB, Wolfe DL, Devlin M, et al. Selection of outcome measures in lower extremity amputation rehabilitation: ICF activities. Disabil Rehabil 2009; 31: 1455–1473.
Hafner BJ, Gaunaurd IA, Morgan SJ, et al. Construct validity of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M) in adults with lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98: 277–285.
Reise SP, Waller NG. Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2009; 5: 27–48.
Amtmann D, Bamer AM, Kim J, et al. A comparison of computerized adaptive testing and fixed-length short forms for the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-MTM). Prosthet Orthot Int 2018; 42: 476–482.
Cella D, Gershon R, Lai J-S, et al. The future of outcome measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms and computerised adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 133–141.
Amtmann D, Morgan SJ, Jiseon K, et al. Health-related profiles of people with lower limb loss. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96: 1474–1483.
Beaton D, Bombardier C, Katz J. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1204–1217.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB. The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 804–805.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
Hafner BJ, Spaulding SE, Salem R, et al. Prosthetists’ perceptions and use of outcome measures in clinical practice: Long-term effects of focused continuing education. Prosthet Orthot Int 2017; 41: 266–273.
Gaunaurd I, Spaulding SE, Amtmann D, et al. Use of and confidence in administering outcome measures among clinical prosthetists: results from a national survey and mixed-methods training program. Prosthet Orthot Int 2015; 39: 314–321.
Heinemann AW, Ehrlich-Jones L, Connelly L, et al. Enhancing quality of prosthetic services with process and outcome information. Prosthet Orthot Int 2017; 41: 164–170.
Young J, Rowley L, Lalor S. Use of outcome measures among prosthetists and orthotists in the United Kingdom. J Prosthetics Orthot 2015; 3: 152–157.
Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, et al. The Amputee Mobility Predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee’s ability to ambulate. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 613–627.
Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142–148.
Borrenpohl D, Kaluf B, Major MJ. Survey of U.S. practitioners on the validity of the medicare functional classification level system and utility of clinical outcome measures for aiding K-level assignment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016; 97: 1053–1063.
Davie-Smith F, Hebenton J, Scott H. A Survey of the Lower Limb Amputee Population in Scotland 2017. www.knowledge.scot.nhs.uk. 2020. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/clin-comm-pol-16061P.pdf .
Kamrad I, Söderberg B, Örneholm H, et al. SwedeAmp—the Swedish Amputation and Prosthetics Registry: 8-year data on 5762 patients with lower limb amputation show sex differences in amputation level and in patient-reported outcome. Acta Orthop 2020; 91: 464–470.
Hebenton J, Scott H, Seenan C, et al. Relationship between models of care and key rehabilitation milestones following unilateral transtibial amputation: a national cross-sectional study. Physiotherapy 2019; 105: 476–482.
Huijbregts M, Myers A, Kay T, et al. Systematic outcome measurement in clinical practice: challenges experienced by physiotherapists. Physiother Canada 2002; 54: 25–31.
Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23: 508–518.
Jette D, Halbert J, Iverson C, et al. Use of standardised outcome measures in physiotherapy practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther 2009; 89: 125–135.
NHS England. National Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Programme Consultation Report. www.england.nhs.uk . 2017. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/proms-consultation-report.pdf .
Ride J, Jacobs R. Clinical Engagement With HoNOS. www.healthylondon.org . 2018. https://www.healthylondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Clinical-engagement-with-HoNOS-REPORT-JUL-2018-FINAL.pdf .
Van Peppen R, Maissan F, Van Genderen F, et al. Outcome measures in physiotherapy management of patients with stroke: a survey into self reported use, and barriers to and facilitators for use. Physiother Res Int 2008; 13: 255–270.
Skeat J, Perry A. Exploring the implementation and use of outcome measurement in practice: a qualitative study. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008; 43: 110–125.
Copeland J, Taylor W, Dean S. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures for patients with low back pain: a survery of New Zealand physical therapists. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 1492–1505.
Russek L, Wooden M, Ekedahl S, et al. Attitude towards standardized data collection. Phys Ther 1997; 77: 714–729.
Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, et al. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials 2007; 8: 1–6.
Khan K. The CROWN initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women’s health. J Ovarian Res 2015; 8: 10–12.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017; 18(suppl 3): 1–50.
COMET Intitative. Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials. www.comet-initiative.org .
Hall N, Parker D, Williams A. An exploratory qualitative study of health professional perspectives on clinical outcomes in UK orthotic practice. J Foot Ankle Res 2020; 13: 1–11.
Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis—progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 2250–2256.
Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”—a practical guideline. Trials 2016; 17: 449.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 737–745.
O’Connell S, Palmer R, Withers K, et al. Requirements for the collection of electronic PROMS either “in clinic” or “at home” as part of the PROMs, PREMs and Effectiveness Programme (PPEP) in Wales: a feasibility study using a generic PROM tool. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2018; 4: 1–13.
Boyce M, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experience of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 53: 1689–1699.
Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gibbons E, et al. How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis. J Heal Serv Res Policy 2018; 23: 57–65.
Bennett J, Lubben F, Hogarth S, et al. Systematic reviews of research in science education: rigour or rigidity? Int J Sci Educ 2005; 27: 387–406.