Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess treatment outcomes for hand and wrist conditions. To adequately interpret these outcomes, it is important to determine whether a statistically significant change is also clinically relevant. For this purpose, the minimally important change (MIC) was developed, representing the minimal within-person change in outcome that patients perceive as a beneficial treatment effect. Prior studies demonstrated substantial differences in MICs between condition-treatment combinations, suggesting that MICs are a Members of the Hand-Wrist Study Group are listed in an Appendix at the end of this article. Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. 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.

Background A patient’s satisfaction with a treatment result is an important outcome domain as clinicians increasingly focus on patient-centered, value-based healthcare. However, to our knowledge, there are no validated satisfaction metrics focusing on treatment results for hand and wrist conditions. Questions/purposes Among patients who were treated for hand and wrist conditions, we asked: (1) What is the test-retest reliability of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire? (2) What is the construct validity of that outcomes tool? Methods This was a prospective study using two samples: a test-retest reliability sample and a construct validity sample. For the test-retest sample, data collection took place between February 2020 and May 2020, and we included 174 patients at the end of their treatment with complete baseline data that included both the primary test and the retest. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with a mean time difference of 7.2 ± 1.6 days. For the construct validity sample, data collection took place between January 2012 and May 2020. We included 3742 patients who completed the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire, VAS, and the Net Promotor Score (NPS) at 3 months. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing in which we correlated the patients’ level of satisfaction to the willingness to undergo the treatment again, VAS scores, and the NPS. We performed additional hypothesis testing on 2306 patients who also completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Satisfaction with the treatment result was measured as the patients’ level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and their willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances. Results We found high reliability for level of satisfaction measured on Likert scale (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.86 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.89]) and almost-perfect agreement for both level of satisfaction measured on the Likert scale (weighted kappa 0.86 [95% CI 0.80 to 0.91]) and willingness to undergo the treatment again (kappa 0.81 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.92]) of the Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire. Construct validity was good to excellent as seven of the eight hypotheses were confirmed. In the confirmed hypotheses, there was a moderate-to-strong correlation with VAS pain, VAS function, NPS, MHQ pain, and MHQ general hand function (Spearman rho ranged from 0.43 to 0.67; all p < 0.001) and a strong to very strong correlation with VAS satisfaction and MHQ satisfaction (Spearman rho 0.73 and 0.71; both p < 0.001). The rejected hypothesis indicated only a moderate correlation between the level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale and the willingness to undergo the treatment again under similar circumstances (Spearman rho 0.44; p < 0.001). Conclusion The Satisfaction with Treatment Result Questionnaire has good-to-excellent construct validity and very high test-retest reliability in patients with hand and wrist conditions. Clinical Relevance This questionnaire can be used to reliably and validly measure satisfaction with treatment result in striving for patient-centered care and value-based healthcare. Future research should investigate predictors of variation in satisfaction with treatment results.

Background Ulna shortening osteotomy (USO) for ulnar impaction syndrome (UIS) aims to improve pain and function by unloading the ulnar carpus. Previous studies often lack validated patient-reported outcomes or have small sample sizes. The primary objective of this study was to investigate patient-reported pain and hand function at 12 months after USO for UIS. Secondary objectives were to investigate the active range of motion, grip strength, complications, and whether outcomes differed based on etiology. Materials and methods We report on 106 patients with UIS who received USO between 2012 and 2019. In 44 of these patients, USO was performed secondary to distal radius fracture. Pain and function were measured with the Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) before surgery and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. Active range of motion and grip strength were measured before surgery and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. Complications were scored using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Complications in Hand and Wrist conditions (ICHAW) tool. Results The PRWHE total score improved from a mean of 64 (SD = 18) before surgery to 40 (22) at 3 months and 32 (23) at 12 months after surgery (P  < 0.001; effect size Cohen’s d = −1.4). There was no difference in the improvement in PRWHE total score (P = 0.99) based on etiology. Also, no clinically relevant changes in the active range of motion were measured. Independent of etiology, mean grip strength improved from 24 (11) before surgery to 30 (12) at 12 months (P  = 0.001). Sixty-four percent of patients experienced at least one complication, ranging from minor to severe. Of the 80 complications in total, 50 patients (47%) had complaints of hardware irritation, of which 34 (32%) had their hardware removed. Six patients (6%) needed refixation because of nonunion. Conclusion We found beneficial outcomes in patients with UIS that underwent USO, although there was a large variance in the outcome and a relatively high number of complications (which includes plate removals). Results of this study may be used in preoperative counseling and shared decision-making when considering USO. Level of evidence Therapeutic III.

Routine outcome measurements as a critical prerequisite of value-based healthcare have received considerable attention recently. There has been less attention for the last step in value-based healthcare where measurement of outcomes also leads to improvement in the quality of care. This is probably not without reason, since the last part of the learning cycle: ‘Closing the loop’, seems the hardest to implement. The journey from measuring outcomes to changing daily care can be troublesome. As early adopters of value-based healthcare, we would like to share our 10 years of experience in this journey. Examples of feedback loops are shown based on outcome measurements implemented to improve our daily care process as a focused hand surgery and hand therapy clinic. Feedback loops can be used to improve shared decision making, to monitor or predict treatment progression over time, for extreme value detection, improve journal clubs, and surgeon evaluation. Our goal as surgeons to improve treatment should not stop at the act of implementing routine outcome measurements. We should implement routine analysis and routine feedback loops, because real-time performance feedback can accelerate our learning cycle. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:439-450. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210012