Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Rhinoplasty: Need for Use and Implementation

Chloe Warinner; Myriam Loyo; Jeffrey Gu; Nneoma S. Wamkpah; John J. Chi; Robin W. Lindsay

doi:10.1055/s-0043-1769806

Facial Plastic Surgery, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Facial Plast Surg 2023; 39(05): 517-526
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769806

Original Article

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Rhinoplasty: Need for Use and Implementation

Authors

Chloe Warinner

¹Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts
Myriam Loyo

²Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
Jeffrey Gu

²Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
Nneoma S. Wamkpah

³Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, Missouri
John J. Chi

⁴Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
Robin W. Lindsay

¹Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) are increasingly utilized to capture data about patients' quality of life. PROMs play an important role in the value-based health care movement by providing a patient-centered metric of quality. There are many barriers to the implementation of PROMs, and widespread adoption requires buy-in from numerous stakeholders including patients, clinicians, institutions, and payers. Several validated PROMs have been utilized by facial plastic surgeons to measure both functional and aesthetic outcomes among rhinoplasty patients. These PROMs can help clinicians and rhinoplasty patients participate in shared decision making (SDM), a process via which clinicians and patients arrive at treatment decisions together through a patient-centered approach. However, widespread adoption of PROMs and SDM has not yet been achieved. Further work should focus on overcoming barriers to implementation and engaging key stakeholders to increase the utilization of PROMs in rhinoplasty.

Keywords

PROM - patient-reported outcome metrics - rhinoplasty - shared decision making - value-based health care

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Sedaghat AR. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161 (04) 551-560
2 Calvert M, Kyte D, Price G, Valderas JM, Hjollund NH. Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ 2019; 364: k5267
3 Ciani O, Federici CB. Value lies in the eye of the patients: the why, what, and how of patient-reported outcomes measures. Clin Ther 2020; 42 (01) 25-33
4 Squitieri L, Bozic KJ, Pusic AL. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value Health 2017; 20 (06) 834-836
5 Damman OC, Jani A, de Jong BA. et al. The use of PROMs and shared decision-making in medical encounters with patients: an opportunity to deliver value-based health care to patients. J Eval Clin Pract 2020; 26 (02) 524-540
6 Baumhauer JF, Bozic KJ. Value-based healthcare: patient-reported outcomes in clinical decision making. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (06) 1375-1378
7 Pezold ML, Pusic AL, Cohen WA. et al. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg 2016; 151 (10) 930-936
8 Long C, Beres LK, Wu AW, Giladi AM. Patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures. Qual Life Res 2022; 31 (06) 1711-1718
9 Proceedings of the Surgeon General's Workshop on Improving Health Literacy. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2006
10 Lee SE, Farzal Z, Ebert Jr CS, Zanation AM. Readability of patient-reported outcome measures for head and neck oncology. Laryngoscope 2020; 130 (12) 2839-2842
11 Nordan L, Blanchfield L, Niazi S. et al. Implementing electronic patient-reported outcomes measurements: challenges and success factors. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 27 (10) 852-856
12 Palmen LN, Schrier JCM, Scholten R, Jansen JHW, Koëter S. Is it too early to move to full electronic PROM data collection?: A randomized controlled trial comparing PROM's after hallux valgus captured by e-mail, traditional mail and telephone. Foot Ankle Surg 2016; 22 (01) 46-49
13 Deutskens E, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P. Response rate and response quality of Internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Mark Lett 2004; 15: 21-36
14 Smith MG, Witte M, Rocha S, Basner M. Effectiveness of incentives and follow-up on increasing survey response rates and participation in field studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19 (01) 230
15 Thestrup Hansen S, Kjerholt M, Friis Christensen S, Brodersen J, Hølge-Hazelton B. User experiences on implementation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)in a haematological outpatient clinic. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2020; 4 (01) 87
16 Benson T. Person-specific outcome measure (PSO) for use in primary and community care. BMJ Open Qual 2021; 10 (02) e001379
17 Sisodia RC, Dankers C, Orav J. et al. Factors associated with increased collection of patient-reported outcomes within a large health care system. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (04) e202764
18 Carroll TL, Lee SE, Lindsay R, Locandro D, Randolph GW, Shin JJ. Evidence-based medicine in otolaryngology, part 6: patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 158 (01) 8-15
19 Batty MJ, Moldavsky M, Foroushani PS. et al. Implementing routine outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services: from present to future practice. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2013; 18 (02) 82-87
20 Wolpert M. Uses and abuses of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs): potential iatrogenic impact of PROMs implementation and how it can be mitigated. Adm Policy Ment Health 2014; 41 (02) 141-145
21 Stover AM, Haverman L, van Oers HA, Greenhalgh J, Potter CM. ISOQOL PROMs/PREMs in Clinical Practice Implementation Science Work Group. Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Qual Life Res 2021; 30 (11) 3015-3033
22 Mjåset C, Ikram U, Nagra NS, Feeley TW. Value-based health care in four different health care systems. NEJM Catal 2020 Nov 10; 1(06)
23 Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, Bass M, Cella D. The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. J Appl Meas 2010; 11 (03) 304-314
24 Wagner LI, Schink J, Bass M. et al. Bringing PROMIS to practice: brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care. Cancer 2015; 121 (06) 927-934
25 Gold HT, Karia RJ, Link A. et al. Implementation and early adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures into an electronic health record: a technical report. Health Informatics J 2020; 26 (01) 129-140
26 Rothrock N. et al. AO Patient Outcomes Center (AOPOC) � Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Software Application for Collection of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopedic Outpatient Clinics. 2018; 3 (02) e10880
27 Sokas C, Hu F, Edelen M, Sisodia R, Pusic A, Cooper Z. A review of PROM implementation in surgical practice. Ann Surg 2022; 275 (01) 85-90
28 Ellis LA, Sarkies M, Churruca K. et al. The science of learning health systems: scoping review of empirical research. JMIR Med Inform 2022; 10 (02) e34907
29 Franklin P, Chenok K, Lavalee D. et al. Framework to guide the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures in the learning healthcare system. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2017; 5 (01) 17
30 Rhee JS. Measuring outcomes in nasal surgery: realities and possibilities. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (06) 416-419
31 Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000; 24 (03) 192-197
32 Casey KP, Borojeni AAT, Koenig LJ, Rhee JS, Garcia GJM. Correlation between subjective nasal patency and intranasal airflow distribution. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (04) 741-750
33 Rhee JS, Weaver EM, Park SS. et al. Clinical consensus statement: diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 143 (01) 48-59
34 Verkest V, Pingnet L, Fransen E, Declau F. Multidimensionality of patient-reported outcome measures in rhinoplasty satisfaction. Facial Plast Surg 2022; 38 (05) 468-476
35 van Zijl FVWJ, Mokkink LB, Haagsma JA, Datema FR. Evaluation of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty: a systematic review. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (02) 152-162
36 Eggerstedt M, Shay AD, Brown HJ. et al. An update on level of evidence trends in facial plastic surgery research. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020; 22 (02) 105-109
37 Most SP, Barrera JE, Larrabee WF. Increasing levels of evidence in rhinoplasty: stepping up our role as leaders in the specialty. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (03) 162-164
38 Lee MK, Most SPE-BM. Evidence-based medicine: rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2015; 23 (03) 303-312
39 Spataro E, Most SP. Measuring nasal obstruction outcomes. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2018; 51 (05) 883-895
40 Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ. et al. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (2_suppl): S1-S30
41 Hassan Y, Leveille CF, Gallo L. et al. Reporting outcomes and outcome measures in open rhinoplasty: a systematic review. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (02) 135-146
42 Peterson AM, Miller B, Ioerger P. et al. Most-cited patient-reported outcome measures within otolaryngology-revisiting the minimal clinically important difference: a review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023; 149 (03) 261-276
43 Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL. et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 2
44 Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT. Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (02) 157-163
45 Lipan MJ, Most SP. Development of a severity classification system for subjective nasal obstruction. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013; 15 (05) 358-361
46 Floyd EM, Ho S, Patel P, Rosenfeld RM, Gordin E. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating functional rhinoplasty outcomes with the NOSE score. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (05) 809-815
47 Rhee JS, Sullivan CD, Frank DO, Kimbell JS, Garcia GJM. A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014; 16 (03) 219-225 , quiz 232
48 Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM. et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (03) 283-290
49 Justicz N, Fuller JC, Levesque P, Lindsay RW. Comparison of NOSE scores following functional septorhinoplasty using autologous versus cadaveric rib. Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35 (01) 103-108
50 Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Patel PN, Most SP. Natural history of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey after rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2021; 131 (01) E116-E123
51 Gerecci D, Casanueva FJ, Mace JC. et al. Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score outcomes after septorhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2019; 129 (04) 841-846
52 Lindsay RW. Disease-specific quality of life outcomes in functional rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (07) 1480-1488
53 Hismi A, Burks CA, Locascio JJ, Lindsay RW. Comparative effectiveness of cartilage grafts in functional rhinoplasty for nasal sidewall collapse. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (03) 240-246
54 Chambers KJ, Horstkotte KA, Shanley K, Lindsay RW. Evaluation of improvement in nasal obstruction following nasal valve correction in patients with a history of failed septoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (05) 347-350
55 Lindsay RW, George R, Herberg ME, Jackson P, Brietzke S. Reliability of a standardized nasal anatomic worksheet and correlation with subjective nasal airway obstruction. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (06) 449-454
56 Barbarite E, Gadkaree SK, Melchionna S, Zwicker D, Lindsay RW. Computational fluid dynamics modeling of nasal obstruction and associations with patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 148 (04) 592e-600e
57 Yamasaki A, Levesque PA, Bleier BS. et al. Improvement in nasal obstruction and quality of life after septorhinoplasty and turbinate surgery. Laryngoscope 2019; 129 (07) 1554-1560
58 Standlee AG, Hohman MH. Evaluating the effect of spreader grafting on nasal obstruction using the NOSE scale. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2017; 126 (03) 219-223
59 Loyo M, Gerecci D, Mace JC, Barnes M, Liao S, Wang TD. Modifications to the butterfly graft used to treat nasal obstruction and assessment of visibility. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (06) 436-440
60 Lam DJ, James KT, Weaver EM. Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway. Am J Rhinol 2006; 20 (05) 463-470
61 Rhee JS, Arganbright JM, McMullin BT, Hannley M. Evidence supporting functional rhinoplasty or nasal valve repair: a 25-year systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 139 (01) 10-20
62 Cannon DE, Rhee JSE-BP. Evidence-based practice: functional rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012; 45 (05) 1033-1043
63 Spielmann PM, White PS, Hussain SSM. Surgical techniques for the treatment of nasal valve collapse: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (07) 1281-1290
64 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clin Plast Surg 2013; 40 (02) 249-260
65 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA. et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (01) 27-35
66 Radulesco T, Mancini J, Penicaud M, Dessi P, Michel J. Assessing normal values for the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module: an observational study. Clin Otolaryngol 2018; 43 (04) 1025-1030
67 Fuller JC, Levesque PA, Lindsay RW. Analysis of patient-perceived nasal appearance evaluations following functional septorhinoplasty with spreader graft placement. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (04) 305-311
68 Schwitzer JA, Sher SR, Fan KL, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB. Assessing patient-reported satisfaction with appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q appraisal scales. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (05) 830e-837e
69 East C, Badia L, Marsh D, Pusic A, Klassen AF. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q: a single site study. Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33 (05) 461-469
70 Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandão KV. et al. Normal values for the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2012; 78 (04) 76-79
71 Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP. The 10-item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (01) 37-42
72 Patel PN, Wadhwa H, Okland T, Kandathil CK, Most SP. Comparison of the distribution of Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey scores between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (04) 305-309
73 Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Minimal clinically important difference of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (08) 837-840
74 Spataro EA, Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Olds CE, Most SP. Correlation of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey with psychiatric screening tools. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (12) 1373-1380
75 Boss EF, Mehta N, Nagarajan N. et al. Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 154 (03) 405-420
76 Chi JJ, Rosenberg A, Hahn S. et al. Patient concerns about nasal reconstruction after Mohs surgery and implications for shared decision making. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 144 (12) 1180-1181
77 Elwyn G. Shared decision making: what is the work?. Patient Educ Couns 2021; 104 (07) 1591-1595
78 de Mik SML, Stubenrouch FE, Balm R, Ubbink DT. SML. Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery. Br J Surg 2018; 105 (13) 1721-1730
79 Forner D, Noel CW, Densmore R. et al. Shared decision making for surgical care in the era of COVID-19. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 164 (02) 297-299
80 Niburski K, Guadagno E, Mohtashami S, Poenaru D. Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of the literature. Health Expect 2020; 23 (05) 1241-1249
81 Wamkpah NS, Gerndt SP, Kallogjeri D, Piccirillo JF, Chi JJ. Patients' views of shared decision-making and decisional conflict in otolaryngologic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 147 (10) 879-886
82 Carmona C, Crutwell J, Burnham M, Polak L. Guideline Committee. Shared decision-making: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2021; 373 (1430): n1430
83 Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C. et al. “Many miles to go …”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13 (Suppl 2, Suppl 2): S14
84 Ubbink DT, van Asbeck EV, Aarts JWM. et al. Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making. Patient Educ Couns 2022; 105 (07) 2475-2479
85 Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns 2012; 88 (02) 284-290
86 De Las Cuevas C, Peñate W. Validity of the Control Preferences Scale in patients with emotional disorders. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016; 10: 2351-2356
87 Lerman CE, Brody DS, Caputo GC, Smith DG, Lazaro CG, Wolfson HG. Patients' Perceived Involvement in Care Scale: relationship to attitudes about illness and medical care. J Gen Intern Med 1990; 5 (01) 29-33
88 Martin LR, DiMatteo MR, Lepper HS. Facilitation of patient involvement in care: development and validation of a scale. Behav Med 2001; 27 (03) 111-120
89 Melbourne E, Sinclair K, Durand MA, Légaré F, Elwyn G. Developing a dyadic OPTION scale to measure perceptions of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 78 (02) 177-183
90 Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A. et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect 2005; 8 (01) 34-42
91 Forner D, Noel CW, Shuman AG. et al. Shared decision-making in head and neck surgery: a review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 146 (09) 839-844
92 Ikeda AK, McShay C, Marsh R. Patient factors and preferences in choosing sleep surgery for obstructive sleep apnea: a qualitative study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022
93 Ankuda CK, Block SD, Cooper Z. et al. Measuring critical deficits in shared decision making before elective surgery. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 94 (03) 328-333