Mc clean outcome assessment_1

1,476 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,476
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mc clean outcome assessment_1

  1. 1. Restorative Services Authorization/Denial and Outcomes Assessment <ul><li>9 th Annual Labor Commission/Workers Compensation Educational Conference </li></ul><ul><li>September 29, 2011 </li></ul>
  2. 2. RSA “Spine”
  3. 3. OUTCOMES <ul><li>Outcomes Assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collection and recording of information relative to health processes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Outcomes Management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using information in a way that enhances patient care </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Hansen DT, Mior S, Mootz RD in Yeomans SG: The Clinical Application of Outcomes Assessment, Stamford Connecticut, Appleton & Lange, 2000) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. “Medical Necessity” <ul><li>The fully developed clinical record defines the “medical necessity” of the case in the eyes of the insurer. </li></ul>
  5. 5. 4 Steps to Become Outcomes Based <ul><li>Utilize subjective/objective tools </li></ul><ul><li>Score the tools at the initial visit to establish baseline measures </li></ul><ul><li>Repeat the instrument after 2-4 week intervals to track the effects of treatment changes </li></ul><ul><li>Base clinical decisions on the outcome results </li></ul>
  6. 6. “ Medical Necessity” Documentation <ul><li>Provider must document </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Etiology of complaint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(onset, severity, frequency , duration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patient’s health history </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current subjective complaints </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current objective clinical findings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diagnosis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Treatment plan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measurements of patient improvement (outcome assessment) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. The Era of Outcomes Assessment <ul><li>Outcomes in clinical practice provide the mechanism by which the health care provider, the patient, the public, and the payer are able to assess the end results of care and its effect upon the health of the patient and society. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Anderson & Weinstein, 1994). </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Provider Accountability <ul><li>Health care providers must be accountable and be prepared to maintain and provide appropriate documentation and patient records in a clinically efficient and economical manner. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Hansen, 1994). </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Health Policy <ul><li>With the dawning, of the “ new era of accountability,” there are new social mandates directed toward health care providers and health-related facilities. Measurements of quality, satisfaction, efficacy, and effectiveness now serve as essential elements for health care decisions and matters of health policy. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Hansen DT, Mior S, Mootz RD in Yeomans SG: The Clinical Application of Outcomes Assessment, Stamford Connecticut, Appleton & Lange, 2000) </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Outcome Meanings <ul><li>Health Care Customer - Meaning of Outcomes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Payers-purchasers Cost containment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regulators HCP compliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrators Efficiency-low utilization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clinical Researchers Proof of a premise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outcomes Experts Patient’s benefit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health Care Providers Clinical-Health Status </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Hansen DT, Mior S, Mootz RD in Yeomans SG: The Clinical Application of Outcomes Assessment, Stamford Connecticut, Appleton & Lange, 2000) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Outcomes Criteria <ul><li>Utility Is it useful? </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability Is it dependable? </li></ul><ul><li>Validity Does it do what it is supposed to? </li></ul><ul><li>Sensitivity Can it identify patients with a condition? </li></ul><ul><li>Specificity Can it identify those that do not have the condition? </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness Can it measure differences over time? </li></ul>
  12. 12. Outcome Measures Appropriate for Clinical Use <ul><li>Questionnaires </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General health status </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Functional status </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patient satisfaction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Physiological outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Utilization measures </li></ul><ul><li>Cost measures </li></ul>
  13. 13. Outcomes Measures Appropriately Used <ul><li>When outcome measures are appropriately used and integrated into an evidence-based, patient-centered model of practice, there is accountability and quality assurance. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Hansen DT, Mior S, Mootz RD in Yeomans SG: The Clinical Application of Outcomes Assessment, Stamford Connecticut, Appleton & Lange, 2000) </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Subjective Questionnaires <ul><li>Subjective outcomes assessment information is gathered by the patient in self-administered questionnaires and scored by either the: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>health care provider </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>staff members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>by a computer </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Subjective Questionnaires <ul><li>In spite of the definition associated with the term “subjective,” these “pen-and-paper tools” have been described as very valid and reliable – in many cases more so than many of the “objective’ tests that health care providers have relied upon for years. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Chapman-Smith, 1992; Hansen, 1994; Mootz, 1994). </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Subjective vs Objective <ul><li>It must be emphasized that although the term “subjective” carries negative connotations, the reliability/validity data published regarding these methods of collecting outcomes is exceptional, typically out-performing the test-retest reliability and validity of most “objective” physical performance tests. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Chapman-Smith, 1992). </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Classification of Outcome Assessment Tools <ul><li>Subjective </li></ul><ul><li>(Patient Driven) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General Health </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pain Perception </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Condition or Disease Specific </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Psychometric </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disability Prediction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patient Satisfaction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Objective </li></ul><ul><li>(HCP Driven) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Range of Motion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strength - Endurance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nonorganic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proprioception </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cardiopulmonary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developmental </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Outcomes Assessment Tools <ul><li>It is important to remember to utilize the same outcome assessment tool through the course of case management with each patient. </li></ul>
  19. 19. General Health Questionnaires (GHQ) <ul><li>One can benefit from the use of a GHQ because it is not condition-specific and, therefore, can be applied to virtually any complaint. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yeomans SG: The Clinical Application of Outcomes Assessment, Stamford Connecticut, Appleton & Lange, 2000 </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Application of General Health Questionnaires (GHQ) <ul><li>The application of a GHQ should, at minimum, be used at the following intervals: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At the time of the initial presentation for baseline establishment of outcomes assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To identify problems for prompt management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At a plateau in care or discharge for outcomes assessment of the treatment benefits or lack thereof </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Six months after discharge in order to evaluate the long-term benefits of treatment </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Outcome-Based Practice <ul><li>Correlating this information to the patient’s specific clinical data and then making a clinical decision based on the results, represents a difficult but important step in making the “paradigm shift” into becoming an “outcome-based ” practice. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yeomans SG: The Clinical Application of Outcomes Assessment, Stamford Connecticut, Appleton & Lange, 2000 </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Condition-Specific Outcomes <ul><li>Over 40 low back functional questionnaires exist with five identified by researchers as “gold standards” (Kopec and Esdaile, 1995). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sickness Impact Profile (Bergner et al, 1981) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Roland and Morris, 1983) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Fairbank et al, 1980). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Million Visual Analogue Scale (Million et al, 1982). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Waddell Disability Index (Waddell, 1984). </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Pain Perception <ul><li>Visual Analogue Scales </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reliable and valid (Jensen and Karoly, 1993). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantages over other measurement methods (Scott and Huskisson 1976, Price et al 1994). </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Quadruple Visual Analogue Scale (QVAS) <ul><li>Four specific factors - Von Korff et al, 1992 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CURRENT Pain Level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AVERAGE or TYPICAL Pain Level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pain level at its BEST </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pain level at its WORST </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Final Score </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ratings are averaged x 10 = TOTAL SCORE (Range 0 – 100) </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. QVAS
  26. 26. QVAS – Guidelines <ul><li>Chronic Patient </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average Pain = Last 6 months </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Acute --- Frequency Use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Every 2 weeks since a patient’s failure to progress over a 2-week period may indicate a need for a change in management approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Haldeman et al, 1993). </li></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Revised Oswestry The Oswestry Disability Index (aka: Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire) is an extremely important tool that researchers and disability evaluators use to measure a patient's permanent functional disability. It has become one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders. The test has been around for 25 years and is considered the &quot;gold standard&quot; of low back functional outcome tools.
  28. 28. Revised Oswestry <ul><li>Retitled section 8, now identified as “Social Life,” </li></ul><ul><li>This section was originally entitled “sex life” and was left blank quite often by respondents. </li></ul><ul><li>In the revised version, all ten sections are completed more often than in the original version. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hudson-Cook N, Tomes-Nicholson K, Breen AC. A Revised Oswestry Back Disability Questionnaire. Manchester Univ Press, 1989. </li></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Revised Oswestry
  30. 30. Scoring the Oswestry <ul><li>There are ten sections and each section is scored 0-5 points. Now, simply add up the points for each section and plug it into the formula to calculate the level of disability: </li></ul><ul><li>'point total' divided by '50' multiply by ' 100 = percent disability) </li></ul><ul><li>For example: If the total points were 14 </li></ul><ul><li>14/50 X 100 = 28% </li></ul>
  31. 31. Oswestry - Score Interpretation <ul><li>0-20% Minimal Disability </li></ul><ul><li>20-40% Moderate Disability </li></ul><ul><li>40-60% Severe Disability </li></ul><ul><li>60-80% Crippled </li></ul><ul><li>80-100% Bed Bound or Exaggerating </li></ul><ul><li>Ref> Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB, “The Oswestry Disabilty Index” Spine 2000; 25(22):2940-2952 </li></ul>
  32. 32. The Revised Oswestry <ul><li>Use as a baseline every two weeks </li></ul><ul><li>A 5 point change is required to be minimally clinical different or meaningful </li></ul><ul><li>The provider should avoid “treating to zero” as it not currently clinically supportable </li></ul>
  33. 33. Oswestry Questionnaire (Discharge Score) <ul><li>A score of 11% may be used as an appropriate cut-off score for health care providers to consider for discharge and/or return to work in an uncomplicated Low Back Pain case. (Erhard et al 1994) </li></ul>
  34. 34. Neck Disability Index (NDI) <ul><li>“ was designed by modifying the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire” </li></ul><ul><li>“ The instrument was utilized on an initial sample of 17 consecutive patients with whiplash injuries with good statistical significance reported”. </li></ul>
  35. 35. Neck Disability Index
  36. 36. <ul><li>  Howard Vernon, DC, PhD BACKGROUND:   Published in 1991, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) was the first instrument designed to assess self-rated disability in patients with neck pain. This article reviews the history of the NDI and the current state of the research into its psychometric properties--reliability, validity, and responsiveness--as well as its translations. Focused reviews are presented into its use in studies of the prognosis of whiplash-injured patients as well as its use in clinical trials of conservative therapies for neck pain. SPECIAL FEATURES:   The NDI is a relatively short, paper-pencil instrument that is easy to apply in both clinical and research settings. It has strong psychometric characteristics and has proven to be highly responsive in clinical trials. As of late 2007, it has been used in approximately 300 publications; it has been translated into 22 languages, and it is endorsed for use by a number of clinical guidelines. SUMMARY:   The NDI is the most widely used and most strongly validated instrument for assessing self-rated disability in patients with neck pain. It has been used effectively in both clinical and research settings in the treatment of this very common problem. </li></ul>J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008 (Sep); 31 (7): 491-502
  37. 37. The Neck Disability Index <ul><li>Use as a baseline every two weeks </li></ul><ul><li>A 5 point change is required to be clinically meaningful </li></ul><ul><li>The provider should avoid “treating to zero” as it not currently clinically supportable </li></ul>
  38. 38. Interpretation: 0-4 = no disability 5 - 14 = mild 15 - 24 = moderate 25 - 34 = severe above 34 = complete The Neck Disability Index There are ten sections and each section is scored 0-5 points. Simply add up the points for each section and plug it in to the following formula to calculate the disability: point total / 50 X 100 = % disability For example: If the total points were 14 14/50 X 100 = 28%

×