The provision of patient-centered care requires a health care environment that fosters engagement between patients and their health care team. One way to encourage patient-centered care is to incorporate patient-reported outcomes into clinical settings. Collecting these outcomes in routine care ensures that important information only the patient can provide is captured. This provides insights into patients' experiences of symptoms, quality of life, and functioning; values and preferences; and goals for health care. Previously embraced in the research realm, patient-reported outcomes have started to play a role in successful shared decision making, which can enhance the safe and effective delivery of health care. We examine the opportunities for using patient-reported outcomes to enhance care delivery and outcomes as health care information needs and technology platforms change. We highlight emerging practices in which patient-reported outcomes provide value to patients and clinicians and improve care delivery. Finally, we examine present and future challenges to maximizing the use of patient-reported outcomes in the clinic.

Decision and communication aids used in orthopaedic practice had benefits for both patients and surgeons. These findings could be important in facilitating adoption of shared decision-making tools into routine orthopaedic practice.

The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Steering Committee established the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group to convene, evaluate, and advise on best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs and to support the adoption and use of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty in registries worldwide. The 2 main types of PROMs include generic (general health) PROMs, which provide a measure of general health for any health state, and specific PROMs, which focus on specific symptoms, diseases, organs, body regions, or body functions. The establishment of a PROM instrument requires the fulfillment of methodological standards and rigorous testing to ensure that it is valid, reliable, responsive, and acceptable to the intended population.A survey of the 41 ISAR member registries showed that 8 registries administered a PROMs program that covered all elective hip or knee arthroplasty patients and 6 registries collected PROMs for sample populations; 1 other registry had planned but had not started collection of PROMs. The most common generic instruments used were the EuroQol 5 dimension health outcome survey (EQ-5D) and the Short Form 12 health survey (SF-12) or the similar Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12). The most common specific PROMs were the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and the University of California at Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA).

— The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group have evaluated and recommended best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty registries. The 2 generic PROMs in common use are the Short Form health surveys (SF-36 or SF-12) and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D). The Working Group recommends that registries should choose specific PROMs that have been appropriately developed with good measurement properties for arthroplasty patients. The Working Group recommend the use of a 1-item pain question (“During the past 4 weeks, how would you describe the pain you usually have in your [right/left] [hip/knee]?”; response: none, very mild, mild, moderate, or severe) and a single-item satisfaction outcome (“How satisfied are you with your [right/left] [hip/knee] replacement?”; response: very unsatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied). Survey logistics include patient instructions, paper- and electronic-based data collection, reminders for follow-up, centralized as opposed to hospital-based follow-up, sample size, patient- or joint-specific evaluation, collection intervals, frequency of response, missing values, and factors in establishing a PROMs registry program. The Working Group recommends including age, sex, diagnosis at joint, general health status preoperatively, and joint pain and function score in case-mix adjustment models. Interpretation and statistical analysis should consider the absolute level of pain, function, and general health status as well as improvement, missing data, approaches to analysis and case-mix adjustment, minimal clinically important difference, and minimal detectable change. The Working Group recommends data collection immediately before and 1 year after surgery, a threshold of 60% for acceptable frequency of response, documentation of non-responders, and documentation of incomplete or missing data.

No abstract