Development of a value-based healthcare burns core set for adult burn care.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is increasingly implemented in healthcare worldwide. Transparent measurement of the outcomes most important and relevant to patients is essential in VBHC, which is supported by a core set of most important quality indicators and outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a VBHC-burns core set for adult burn patients. METHODS: A three-round modified national Delphi study, including 44 outcomes and 24 quality indicators, was conducted to reach consensus among Dutch patients, burn care professionals and researchers. Items were rated on a nine-point Likert scale and selected if ≥ 70% in each group considered an item 'important'. Subsequently, instruments quantifying selected outcomes were identified based on a literature review and were chosen in a consensus meeting using recommendations from the Dutch consensus-based standard set and the Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities. Time assessment points were chosen to reflect the burn care and patient recovery process. Finally, the initial core set was evaluated in practice, leading to the adapted VBHC-burns core set. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients, 63 burn care professionals and 23 researchers participated. Ten outcomes and four quality indicators were selected in the Delphi study, including the outcomes pain, wound healing, physical activity, self-care, independence, return to work, depression, itching, scar flexibility and return to school. Quality indicators included shared decision-making (SDM), the number of patients receiving aftercare, determination of burn depth, and assessment of active range of motion. After evaluation of its use in clinical practice, the core set included all items except SDM, which are assessed by 9 patient-reported outcome instruments or measured in clinical care. Assessment time points included are at discharge, 2 weeks, 3 months, 12 months after discharge and annually afterwards. CONCLUSION: A VBHC-burns core set was developed, consisting of outcomes and quality indicators that are important to burn patients and burn care professionals. The VBHC-burns core set is now systemically monitored and analysed in Dutch burn care to improve care and patient relevant outcomes. As improving burn care and patient relevant outcomes is important worldwide, the developed VBHC-burns core set could be inspiring for other countries.

Outcomes that matter most to burn patients: A national multicentre survey study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes to improve burn care increases. Little is known on burn patients' views on what outcomes are most important, and about preferences regarding online Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Therefore, this study assessed what outcomes matter most to patients, and gained insights into patient preferences towards the use of online PROMs. METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 years old), 3-36 months after injury completed a survey measuring importance of outcomes, separately for three time periods: during admission, short-term (<6 months) and long-term (6-24 months) after burn injury. Both open and closed-ended questions were used. Furthermore, preferences regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures in burn care were queried. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were included (response rate: 27%). 'Not having pain' and 'good wound healing' were identified as very important outcomes. Also, 'physical functioning at pre-injury level', 'being independent' and 'taking care of yourself' were considered very important outcomes. The top-ten of most important outcomes largely overlapped in all three time periods. Most patients (84%) had no problems with online questionnaires, and many (67%) indicated that it should take up to 15 minutes. Patients' opinions differed widely on the preferred frequency of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Not having pain and good wound healing were considered very important during the whole recovery of burns; in addition, physical functioning at pre-injury level, being independent, and taking care of yourself were deemed very important in the short and long-term. These outcomes are recommended to be used in burn care and research, although careful selection of outcomes remains crucial as patients prefer online questionnaires up to 15 minutes.

Pain expectations in neuropathic pain: Is it best to be optimistic?

BACKGROUND: Pain expectancy may be an important variable that has been found to influence the effectiveness of treatments for pain. Much of the literature supports a self-fulfilment perspective where expectations for pain relief predict the actual pain experienced. However, in conditions such as neuropathic pain (NeP) where pain relief is difficult to attain, expectations for pain relief could be unrealistic. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between realistic/unrealistic expectations and 6-month, post-treatment outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients with NeP (n = 789) attending tertiary care centres to determine the association between unrealistic (both positive and negative) and realistic expectations with outcomes after multidisciplinary treatment. An expectation variable with three categories was calculated: realistic expectations were those whose expected reduction in pain was similar to the observed mean group reduction in pain, while optimistic and pessimistic expectations were those who over- or under-estimated the expected response to treatment, respectively. The association between baseline realistic/unrealistic expectations and 6-month pain-related disability, catastrophizing and psychological distress was assessed. RESULTS: Univariable analyses suggested that realistic expectations were associated with lower levels of disability, catastrophizing and psychological distress, compared to unrealistic expectations. However, after adjustment for baseline symptom severity, multivariable analysis revealed that patients with optimistic expectations had lower levels of disability, than those with realistic expectations. Those with pessimistic expectations had higher levels of catastrophizing and psychological distress at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are largely congruent with the self-fulfilment perspective to expectations. SIGNIFICANCE: This study defined realistic pain expectations with patient data. Examining the relationship between expectations between pain and disability in a large cohort of patients with neuropathic pain.

How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how low back pain (LBP) patients conceptualize the construct of expectations regarding treatment. METHODS: This study was nested within a mixed-method randomized clinical trial comparing three primary care interventions for LBP. A total of 77 participants with LBP lasting longer than 6 weeks were included; semi-structured interviews were conducted querying patients about their expectations for treatment. Also factors influencing their expectations were explored. Interviews were administered following enrollment into the study, but prior to study treatment. Two researchers independently conducted a content analysis using NVIVO 9 software. RESULTS: LBP patients' expectations could be categorized in two main domains: outcome and process expectations, each with subdomains. Patients expressed expectations in all subdomains both as values (what they hoped) and probabilities (what they thought was likely). In multiple subdomains, there were differences in the nature (positive vs. negative) and frequency of value and probability expectations. Participants reported that multiple factors influenced their expectations of which past experience with treatment appeared to be of major influence on probability expectations. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This study showed that LBP patients' expectations for treatment are multifaceted. Current measurement instruments do not cover all domains and subdomains of expectations. Therefore, we recommend the development of new or improved measures that make a distinction between value and probability expectations and assess process and/or outcome expectations covering multiple subdomains. Some of the influencing factors found in this study may be useful targets for altering patients' treatment expectations and improving health outcomes.