Correlation between health outcome and length of hospital stay in lumbar microdiscectomy.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational trial in a community hospital setting. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect on patient-reported outcome of a clinical practice, namely, decrease in hospital length of stay for single-level lumbar microdiscectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Health care reform and the economic demands of managed care have created increasing pressure to manage health care resources more effectively. Spine surgery is one of the most common surgeries. METHODS: Starting in October 1993, length of stay for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy was decreased at the study institution. Patients completed questionnaires (SF-36) before surgery and 3 months after surgery that assessed health status, back-related functional status, and treatment satisfaction. Comparisons were made between the intervention group and a historical control group and between 1-day and 2-day patients. RESULTS: SF-36 scores 3 months after surgery approximated age and sex norms of five of the eight SF-36 scales and improved significantly on the remaining three scales. The physical functioning and general health scores were significantly better for the 1-day than the 2-day patients. Patient satisfaction was similar in all groups. Hospital charges for the 1-day patients were $781 less per patient than for the 2-day patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital length of stay for lumbar microdiscectomy can be decreased without adverse effect on short-term patient self-reported health status or satisfaction and with lower hospital charges. This model assesses the effect of efficient management of health care resources on patient-perceived quality and satisfaction.

Clinical practice evaluation at Providence Health System.

Over the past seven years, Providence Health System (PHS) in Portland, Oregon, has used an outcomes research paradigm to study treatment of back pain, coronary artery disease, total joint replacement, and cancer. In presenting case studies of each of these areas, the authors chronicle the evolution of clinical practice evaluation at PHS, beginning with early studies in the 1960s, to the establishment of the Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CORE), to the formation of a new systemwide strategy that is responsive to the evolving health care marketplace.

Measuring the success of treatment in patient terms.

Measuring the success of major surgeries such as total hip and total knee replacement is important for both case selection and public policy. Patients, purchasers, and practitioners must choose among clinical scoring systems, health status measures, and patient satisfaction ratings to monitor performance and ensure appropriate use of costly procedures. The present study compares results from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Status Survey and clinical scoring systems to direct patient ratings of success. Data come from a study of 128 total knee-replacement procedure and 211 total hip replacements. Analyses indicate that for both hip and knee patients, success is related closely to posttreatment physical function and bodily pain. Patient ratings of success also are related to the clinical scores used by physicians. Success is related less to change from pretreatment function for knee patients than for hip patients. Although patient ratings of success are generally consistent with other outcome measures, their relationship to patient expectations, satisfaction, and attributions need to be understood before they can become a useful tool for performance monitoring and case selection.

Outcomes management in heart valve replacement surgery: early experience.

Recent efforts at reducing health care expenditures and practice variations have focused attention on treatment appropriateness, patient preference, and quality of life as important elements of treatment evaluation. These characteristics of medical treatment can be assessed by administration of a structured, valid health status assessment questionnaire before and at fixed intervals following treatment, and standardized scores may be compared to normal scores derived from healthy, untreated populations. One hundred valve replacement patients completed a standardized questionnaire, the 'SF-36', preoperatively and at 1- and 6-months postoperatively. Preoperatively, valve replacement patients are substantially impaired in their physical capacity, their ability to function in important roles, and their vitality. At one month, they report significant decrements in social and role functioning and in pain which we attribute to the trauma of surgery and recovery. At six months, mean scores approximate those for sex- and age-matched normals except for persistent moderate impairment in role functioning. Post-operative functional impairment is greatest for those undergoing mitral valve replacement, particularly when coronary artery grafts are performed concurrently, and for patients receiving bioprosthetic valves. Structured health status assessment provides a useful adjunct to other methods of assessing clinical status and evaluating treatment outcomes.