ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is no evidence of effectiveness for interdisciplinary second opinion procedures (ISOP) for recommended back surgery (BS). Since 2015, AOK Nordost has been offering the care program RückenSPEZIAL comprising a preliminary examination, ISOP, and optional interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT). The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of RückenSPEZIAL to reduce BS and back pain-related costs (BPRC) compared to patients who likewise received a recommendation for back surgery but not RückenSPEZIAL. METHODS: Insured persons in the AOK Nordost consulted the AOK service center, presented a BS hospital admission slip and received advice to participate in RückenSPEZIAL. Following a 1:1 "matched pairs" selection, patients who participated in RückenSPEZIAL (intervention group [IG]) after this consultation (reference date) where compared with patients who did not participate after this consultation (comparison group [CG]). Patient characteristics, BS and BPRC were operationalised from AOK Nordost claims data. RESULTS: Of 108 IG patients and 108 CG patients, 34 (42%) fewer IG patients had one or more BS in 365 following days (relative risk [RR] 0.58; pâ¯< 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed for 21 IG patients with ISOP and IMPT an RR of 0.13 (pâ¯< 0.001), and for 67 IG patients with solely ISOP without IMPT an RR of 0.59 (pâ¯< 0.001). The increase in RBC from the previous year to the following year was 50.2 percentage points lower for IG patients compared to CG patients (pâ¯= 0.088). DISCUSSION: The differences in BS were significant (pâ¯< 0.05) and in favor of RückenSPEZIAL. For the specific population it can be expected that mainly savings on BS can cover the intervention costs of RückenSPEZIAL (approximately significant, small case number). Bias due to self-selection needs to be assumed.
Subject(s)
Back Pain , Hospitalization , Humans , Back Pain/therapy , Referral and ConsultationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Second opinion (SO) on spine surgery was recently implemented as a statutory right in Germany. Prior to this, one health insurer did offer SO to its policy holders including advice on additional conservative treatment options. OBJECTIVES: Which treatment recommendations did 522 patients receive in an interdisciplinary multimodal assessment (IMA) as part of a SO by 4 teams comprising physician, physio- and psychotherapist and what were the long-term consequences? METHODS: Second opinions under a selective contract between insurer and back pain centers were evaluated based on patient-related anamnesis and interdisciplinary multimodal clinical findings including treatment recommendations and patient reports after about 2 years. RESULTS: Initially, spine surgery recommendation was confirmed in 15/522 (2.9%) patients (C-SS) versus 507 recommendations against. CSS patients were older, male, and had current high pain intensity more frequently, their well-being and quality of life were more often considerably impaired and from the perspective of the team morphological findings were stronger. Younger and female patients with higher pain grade and less previous surgery, but more visits to medical specialties received more often a recommendation of an interdisciplinary treatment option (ITO) versus standard care (SC). After 2 years, all 15â¯C-SS patients and 146 randomly selected patients were contacted. Of these 161 patients, 29 (18%) had undergone spine surgery. The long-term outcome was best in ITO patients without surgery, followed by the CSS after surgery and SC patients without surgery. DISCUSSION: Most patients undergoing spine surgery make their decision based on the information that they are provided without requesting a SO. As in comparative studies, most patients with a confirmed surgical indication underwent surgery, while some did not. Some patients underwent surgery inspite of recommendations against-after considering conservative therapy recommendations by the IMA. In retrospect, sound advice and an intensive conservative therapy offer seem necessary and reasonable.
Subject(s)
Conservative Treatment , Quality of Life , Humans , Male , Female , Pain , Referral and Consultation , Pain MeasurementABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous stroke performance measures consider aspects of postacute treatment, but there are only few specific quality indicators or standards for poststroke rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to develop a set of indicators for measuring the quality of postacute stroke rehabilitation in inpatient and outpatient facilities using a standardized evidence-based approach. METHODS: Quality indicators were developed between January 2009 and February 2010 by an interdisciplinary board of healthcare professionals from rehabilitation centers cooperating in the Berlin Stroke Alliance. The Berlin Stroke Alliance is a regional network of >40 providers of acute treatment, rehabilitation, and aftercare aiming to improve stroke services within Berlin and Brandenburg. The indicators were developed according to published international recommendations and predefined methodological requirements. The applied standards included a systematic literature review, a rating of published evidence, an external peer review, and the evaluation in a pilot study before implementation. RESULTS: Of an initial list of 33 indicators, 20 indicators were rated as being appropriate. After completion of the pilot phase, we agreed on a set of 18 indicators. The indicators measure processes (9 indicators), outcomes (5 indicators), and structures (4 indicators) in the following domains of stroke rehabilitation: completion of diagnostics; secondary prevention; cognition and affect; speech and swallowing; management of complications; sensorimotor functions and mobility; discharge status; and aftercare. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of evidence-based quality indicators for stroke rehabilitation in clinical routine is feasible and can serve as a first step toward implementing standardized cross-institutional quality assurance programs for stroke rehabilitation.
