| Abstract: | Background and purpose Outcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set.Patients and methods An international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions.Results Patient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on pre-existing tools.Interpretation The outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient’s entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver.Measurement of outcomes in healthcare has well documented benefits as well as challenges (Porter 2005, Institute of Medicine 2006). Simply asking providers to report their outcomes has been shown to improve performance (Porter et al. 2010). Additionally, understanding one’s results empowers a provider to continuously learn from and refine the care he or she delivers (Porter and Teisberg 2004). On a broad scale, outcome reporting also facilitates dissemination of best practices between physicians and makes it possible to compare the quality delivered by different providers, allowing patients to make intelligent choices about where to seek care (Porter and Teisberg 2004). This type of continuous improvement and informed decision making could be an important driving force in improving healthcare delivery by refocusing the system on value (defined as the outcomes of care divided by the cost). The concept of “value-based healthcare” has been gaining attention both throughout the medical field (Porter and Teisberg 2005, Porter 2009) and specifically within the realm of spine care (McGirt et al. 2014a, 2014b). With evolving reimbursement systems in many countries, it is also conceivable that there will be growing interest in “value-based reimbursement” in the future, with payment levels adjusted based on outcomes. This type of scheme will only be fair with a broadly-accepted and risk-adjusted set of outcome metrics.Low back pain (LBP) is a growing problem and constitutes a major component of the global burden of disease (Murray et al. 2012). Measuring outcomes in the field of low back pain is challenging. Numerous disease states affect the lower back, resulting in low back pain, leg pain, or both; to compare outcomes, patients must be accurately stratified by both diagnosis and severity. Moreover, existing treatment algorithms are complex and often controversial, including both operative and nonoperative options and frequently requiring multidisciplinary provider teams. Additionally, low back pain rarely causes death or other objective endpoints, so outcomes are best measured with patient-reported metrics, which are inherently subjective and require thorough psychometric testing.A substantial amount of work on the design of outcome metrics has already been done in the field of low back pain, and there are several well-validated tools for measuring disease-specific outcomes (Longo et al. 2010). Similarly, several large registries are already in existence, collecting outcomes along with many other data points (Röder et al. 2005, McGirt et al. 2013, Strömqvist et al. 2013, add later spine registry study, will be published in the same issue). Previous consensus-based efforts have been made to define sets of outcome measures or domains for research purposes (Deyo et al. 1998, Pincus et al. 2008, Chiarotto et al. 2014, Deyo et al. 2014). Still, the field of low back pain care has not yet developed a universal international set of outcomes to be measured and compared as a part of standard clinical practice. This type of outcome set requires availability and validity in many languages, requires capacity for case-mix adjustment to ensure that comparisons are made fairly, and should focus on the outcomes that matter most to patients. The purpose of this study was to define such a set based on international and interdisciplinary expert and patient opinion. |
