Objectives: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is growing in popularity as healthcare shifts towards a value-based system. However, it remains unclear if PROMIS use improves the patient experience. The aim of the present study was to determine if PROMIS use as part of routine orthopaedic clinical care is associated with improved patient experience, as measured by the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CGCAHPS) survey.Methods: All patient visits to an orthopaedic surgery clinic at a single academic medical centre between February 2015 and September 2016 were reviewed.Accounting for known patient factors that have an impact on clinic visit satisfaction, CGCAHPS scores were compared between patients who had PROMIS used as part of their routine care and those who had not had PROMIS used as part of their routine care. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.Results: A total of 8,607 patient visits fitted our inclusion criteria. Of these, surgeons elected not to use PROMIS in 8,422 patient encounters, leaving 185 patient visits in which PROMIS was actively used. When PROMIS was used, patients were significantly more likely to feel that the provider had spent enough time with them, to recommend this provider office to another patient and to rate the provider significantly higher on a scale from 0 to 10. Although not significant, a trend was found between use of PROMIS and whether a patient felt that a provider explained health information in way that the patient understood.Conclusions: PROMIS use in an orthopaedic clinic visit can have a positive impact on the patient experience, which is currently part of a number of alternative payment models.

Background Depression is common and can decrease the likelihood that a patient undergoing an orthopaedic procedure will improve after that intervention. Research at a single institution using the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) showed that the PROMIS Depression domain had a substantial floor effect (lowest depressive symptoms measurable) in patients with orthopaedic conditions, although the instrument is designed to follow a population-based normal distribution. Patients with the lowest scores (floor) completed the questionnaire more quickly than those who did not have the lowest scores, which suggests that patients may not want to report or discuss depressive symptoms with their orthopaedic surgeon. Questions/purposes (1) Do the scores of a large population of patients with orthopaedic conditions completing the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression questionnaires follow the normal population distribution used to calibrate the PROMIS instrument? (2) Do the scores of a large population of patients with foot and ankle, spine, upper extremity, multiple orthopaedic subspecialty, or other orthopaedic conditions completing the PROMIS Depression questionnaire follow the normal population distribution used to calibrate the PROMIS instrument? (3) Do all orthopaedic patients with the lowest possible score (floor effect) on the PROMIS Depression questionnaire answer questions more quickly than those who do not? Methods Between February 12, 2015 and July 19, 2018, a total of 513,042 patients with orthopaedic conditions at a single urban, tertiary academic medical center were asked to complete the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains. The PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression questionnaires were administered at 433,939 patient encounters (85%), and 325,251 of 433,939 (75%) completed all three questionnaires and were included in our final sample. The remaining encounters were excluded from all analyses because of incomplete PROMIS data. Using this large sample size, we determined the distributions of the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains for all patients with orthopaedic conditions by visual inspection. We calculated the percentage of patients with the lowest possible score on the PROMIS Depression domain (“floor group”) for all patients with orthopaedic conditions, as well for patients presenting to orthopaedic subspecialists (foot and ankle, spine, upper extremity, multiple subspecialties, or other specialists). We compared patient and PROMIS characteristics between patients in the floor group and all others (“standard group”) using a bivariate analysis, including the total time it took to complete the questionnaires and average time it took to answer each question. Results Of the three PROMIS domains analyzed, only the PROMIS PF demonstrated a normal distribution on visual inspection. PROMIS PI scores had a measurable ceiling effect (more pain symptoms) (15,520 of 325,251 patient encounters; 5%), while PROMIS Depression scores demonstrated a clear floor effect (65,226 of 325,251; 20%). When analyzed by subspecialty, there was a clear floor effect for the PROMIS Depression in the specialties of foot and ankle (6031 of 29,273 patient encounters; 21%), spine (7611 of 58,266; 13%), upper extremity (9851 of 42,864; 23%), multiple subspecialties (276 of 1662; 17%), and other (41, 454 of 193,185; 22%). Generally, those in the floor group spent less time per question on the PROMIS Depression questionnaire than did those in the standard group (5.3 seconds ± 2.6 seconds versus 8.1 seconds ± 4.6 seconds; mean difference, 2.8 seconds; p < 0.001). Conclusions The substantial floor effect of the PROMIS Depression in the setting of hasty completion raises the question of whether such results truly indicate that these patients have minimal depression or whether they simply do not report their true mental health status in an orthopaedic setting. When such patients are seen in clinic, surgeons may benefit from using the PROMIS Depression as an educational opportunity to explain the importance of mental health in orthopaedic care and ensure the questionnaire is completed accurately. This study builds on previous work by suggesting these findings apply to other general and subspecialty orthopaedic patient populations at academic medical centers. Future work may seek to determine the best way of ensuring that the PROMIS Depression questionnaire is completed accurately in orthopaedic clinics. Level of Evidence Level II, diagnostic study.

Background Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) allow surgeons to evaluate the most important outcomes to patients, including function, pain, and mental well-being. However, PROMIS does not provide surgeons with insight into whether patients are able to successfully cope with their level of physical and/or mental health limitations in day-today life; such understanding can be garnered using the Patient-acceptable Symptom State (PASS). It remains unclear whether or not the PASS status for a given patient and his or her health, as evaluated by PROMIS scores, differs based on sociodemographic One of the authors (DNB) certifies that he has received grants from Alpha Omega Alpha, outside the submitted work. One of the authors (JFB) certifies that she has received payments or benefits in an amount less than USD 10,000 from PROMIS Health Organization (Evanston, IL, USA), payments or benefits in an amount less than USD 10,000 from the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (Rosemont, IL, USA), grants and personal fees in amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Cartiva (Alpharetta, GA, USA), payments or benefits in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (Philadelphia, PA, USA), personal fees in an amount less than USD 10,000 from DJ Orthopaedics (Dallas, TX, USA), grants and personal fees in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Parsippany, NJ, USA), personal fees and benefits in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Nextremity Solutions Inc (Warsaw, IN, USA), personal fees in an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Stryker (Kalamazoo, MI, USA), payments and benefits in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Techniques in Foot and Ankle Surgery (Philadelphia, PA, USA), grants and personal fees in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Wright Medical Technology Inc (Memphis, TN, USA), personal fees in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Zimmer (Warsaw, IN, USA), outside the submitted work. Other authors (KM, CD, KF, and JRH) certify that they have no commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

We developed and empirically validated a survey instrument that may be useful for future research on DDI alerts and other types of computerized medication safety alerts more generally.

This study explores how researchers at a major Midwestern university are managing their data, as well as the factors that have shaped their practices and those that motivate or inhibit changes to that practice. A combination of survey (n=363) and interview data (n=15) yielded both qualitative and quantitative results bearing on my central research question: In what types of data management activities do researchers at this institution engage? Corollary to that, I also explored the following questions: What do researchers feel could be improved about their data management practices? Which services might be of interest to them? How do they feel those services could most effectively be implemented?In this paper, I situate researchers’ data management practices within a theory of personal information management. I present a view of data management and preservation needs from researchers’ perspectives across a range of domains. Additionally, I discuss the implications that understanding research data management as personal information management has for introducing services to support and improve data management practice.

Background: There is a paucity of research examining the impact of social deprivation on the level of symptom severity at presentation, including in common hand conditions like carpal tunnel syndrome. We aimed to determine whether patient deprivation is associated with worse Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression scores. Methods: Patients presenting to an academic hand clinic from December 2016 to December 2018 for a new patient visit for carpal tunnel syndrome completed PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests. Bivariate analyses were done to compare patient variables between the least and most deprived thirds, as measured by Area Deprivation Index (ADI), at the state (New York) and national levels. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine whether there was an association between social deprivation and PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression scores. Results: All PROMIS domain scores were significantly worse in the most deprived cohort at the national level ( P < .05) but not at the state level ( P > .05). In multivariable regression at the national level, ADI values were associated with PROMIS UE (β = −0.06, P < .01) and PROMIS PI (β = .05, P < .01) but not PROMIS PF or PROMIS Depression. In multivariable regression at the state level, ADI values were associated with PROMIS UE (β = −0.79, P = .03) and PROMIS PI (β = 0.58, P < .05) but not PROMIS PF or PROMIS Depression. Conclusions: Higher levels of social deprivation are associated with worse PROMIS UE and PROMIS PI scores on both the state and national levels when initially seeking care for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Study Design. Retrospective, observational study. Objective. To determine the association of patient socioeconomic disadvantage, insurance type, and other characteristics on presenting symptom severity in patients with isolated lumbar disc herniation. Summary of Background Data. Little is known of the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage and other patient characteristics on the level of self-reported symptom severity when patients first seek care for lumbar disc herniation. Methods. Between April 2015 and December 2018, 734 patients newly presenting for isolated lumbar disc herniation who completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs) were identified. Socioeconomic disadvantage was determined using the Area Deprivation Index, a validated measure of socioeconomic disadvantage at the census block group level (0-100, 100 ¼ highest socioeconomic disadvantage). Bivariate analyses were used. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine if there was an association between socioeconomic disadvantage, insurance type, and other patient factors and presenting patientreported health status.Results. Significant differences in age, insurance type, selfreported race, marital status, and county of residence were appreciated when comparing patient characteristics by socioeconomic disadvantage levels (all comparisons, P < 0.01). In addition, significant differences in age, insurance type, marital status, and county of residence were appreciated when comparing patient characteristics by self-reported race (all comparisons, P < 0.01). Being in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort was associated with worse presenting Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores (Physical Function: b ¼ -3.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.89 to -1.45), P < 0.001; Pain Interference: b ¼ 3.20 (95% CI: 1.58-4.83), P < 0.001; Depression: b ¼ 3.31 (95% CI: 1.08-5.55), P ¼ 0.004. Conclusion. The most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations present with worse functional limitations, pain levels, and depressive symptoms as compared to patients from the least socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort when accounting for other key patient factors.

No abstract