Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2542-7534
Special Focus Section

Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Collection for TKA: What Surgeons Need to Know

Matthew T. Geiselmann 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwell Health Huntington Hospital, Huntington, New York
,
Mathew J. Whittaker
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwell Health Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Giles R. Scuderi
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwell Health Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

As the population ages and the prevalence of knee osteoarthritis increases, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is expected to grow in demand. Traditionally, the success of TKA has been measured through clinical assessments, imaging, and the incidence of postoperative complications. Over the past decade, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become crucial in evaluating clinical outcomes. PROMs are soon to be tied to financial incentives in value-based payment programs as a measure of the quality of care provided. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has implemented a nationwide policy to enhance and standardize the collection of PROMs for those undergoing total joint arthroplasty. The policy is titled Patient Reported Outcome based Performance Measure or “PRO-PM.” This requires mandatory reporting in 2025, and by 2028, hospital payment evaluations will incorporate this data. CMS will require hospitals to achieve at least 50% postoperative PROM collection rates to qualify for full annual payment in 2028. Providers are incentivized to improve scores on PROMs, such as pain levels and physical function after procedures, as higher PROM scores often correlate with better reimbursement rates under these programs. Recent advancements in interactive technology, including mobile apps and telemedicine platforms, have enabled the collection of PROMs from patients without requiring or prior to a clinic visit. Looking ahead, the mandatory PROM reporting requirements set by the CMS highlight the urgency of adopting scalable, technology-driven solutions. Literature suggests women, individuals with lower socioeconomic status, lower educational attainment, and non-English speakers have significantly lower PROM response rates. While these mandates aim to standardize care quality, they also risk exacerbating disparities if underserved populations face barriers to participation. Equity-focused strategies, alongside continued investment in technology, will be critical to achieving widespread adoption and maximizing the benefits of PROMs in TKA care. Ultimately, the integration of electronic and adaptive PROM systems has the potential to transform the TKA landscape, offering a model for leveraging technology to enhance patient engagement, optimize care delivery, and improve outcomes across diverse populations.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - patient-reported outcome measures - total joint - arthroplasty


Publication History

Received: 16 January 2025

Accepted: 19 February 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 February 2025

Article published online:
16 April 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Klug A, Gramlich Y, Rudert M. et al. The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future health care systems over the next 30 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (10) 3287-3298
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE, Namba RS, Nemes S. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States - an alternative projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25 (11) 1797-1803
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U. S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (17) 1455-1460
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A. et al. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4 (06) 357-367
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Dávila Castrodad IM, Recai TM, Abraham MM. et al. Rehabilitation protocols following total knee arthroplasty: a review of study designs and outcome measures. Ann Transl Med 2019; 7 (Suppl. 07) S255-S255
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Khalifa AA, Mullaji AB, Mostafa AM, Farouk OA. A protocol to systematic radiographic assessment of primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Res Rev 2021; 13: 95-106
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4 (01) 79
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Franklin PD, Bond CP, Rothrock NE, Cella D. Strategies for effective implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103 (24) e97
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Pasqualini I, Piuzzi NS. New CMS policy on the mandatory collection of patient-reported outcome measures for total hip and knee arthroplasty by 2027: what orthopaedic surgeons should know. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2024; 106 (13) 1233-1241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. Response to CMS on Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measure (PRO-PM) Submission for Public Comment. Published November 17, 2021. Accessed December 8, 2024 at: https://www.aahks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AAHKS-PRO-PM-Response-11.17.21.pdf
    PubMed
  • 11 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Quality and Payment Methodology. Published September 2020. Accessed December 8, 2024 at: https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/files/x/cjr-qualsup.pdf
    PubMed
  • 12 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Measures. QualityNet. Accessed December 8, 2024 at: https://qualitynet.cms.gov/inpatient/measures/THA_TKA
    PubMed
  • 13 Ghoshal S, Harary J, Jay JF, Al-Nassir Z, Chen AF. BWH PROMs Workgroup. Evaluating patient-reported outcome measure collection and attainment of substantial clinical benefit in total joint arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2024; 23 (S0883): 5403
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems.; 2023. Accessed December 8, 2023 at: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-24293
    PubMed
  • 15 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2023 Rates.; 2022. Accessed December 8, 2023 at: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-16472.pdf
    PubMed
  • 16 Orthotoolkit. KOOS-12. Orthotoolkit. Accessed December 8, 2024 at: https://orthotoolkit.com/koos-12/
    PubMed
  • 17 Giesinger JM, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Behrend H, Giesinger K. Womac, eq-5d and knee society score thresholds for treatment success after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2154-2158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Reddy KIA, Johnston LR, Wang W, Abboud RJ. Does the Oxford Knee Score complement, concur, or contradict the American Knee Society score?. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (05) 714-720
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ, Bershadsky B. et al. Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale. Use for patients treated with revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (09) 1985-1994
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Singh V, Fiedler B, Huang S, Oh C, Karia RJ, Schwarzkopf R. Patient acceptable symptom state for the forgotten joint score in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (08) 1557-1561
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Veterans RAND-12 (VR-12). American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Published 2021. Accessed December 8, 2024 at: https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/quality-and-practice-resources/patient-reported-outcome-measures/quality-of-life/veterans-rand-12-vr-12.pdf
    PubMed
  • 22 Cella D, Riley W, Stone A. et al. PROMIS Global Health Scoring Manual. HealthMeasures. Published March 2018. Accessed December 8, 2024 at: https://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/manuals/Scoring_Manuals_/PROMIS_Global_Health_Scoring_Manual.pdf
    PubMed
  • 23 Available Promis measures for adults. HealthMeasures. September 16, 2024. Accessed December 8, 2024 at: https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis/intro-to-promis/list-of-adult-measures
    PubMed
  • 24 Czerwonka N, Gupta P, Desai SS, Hickernell TR, Neuwirth AL, Trofa DP. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literature. Knee Surg Relat Res 2023; 35 (01) 27
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Liu TC, Ohueri CW, Schryver EM, Bozic KJ, Koenig KM. Patient-identified barriers and facilitators to pre-visit patient-reported outcomes measures completion in patients with hip and knee pain. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (03) 643-649.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Steinbeck V, Langenberger B, Schöner L. et al. Electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring to improve quality of life after joint replacement: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (09) e2331301
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG. et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (06) 557-565
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC. et al. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 2017; 318 (02) 197-198
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Lavallee DC, Austin E, Franklin PD. How can health systems advance patient-reported outcome measurement?. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2018; 44 (08) 439-440
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Sutton RM, Baker CM, D'Amore T, Courtney PM, Krueger CA, Austin MS. Poor patient compliance limits the attainability of patient-reported outcome measure completion thresholds for the comprehensive care for joint arthroplasty model. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (7, suppl 2): S63-S68
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Konopka JA, Bloom DA, Lawrence KW, Oeding JF, Schwarzkopf R, Lajam CM. Non-English speakers and socioeconomic minorities are significantly less likely to complete patient-reported outcome measures for total hip and knee arthroplasty: analysis of 16,119 cases. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (7, suppl 2): S69-S77
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Schamber EM, Takemoto SK, Chenok KE, Bozic KJ. Barriers to completion of patient reported outcome measures. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (09) 1449-1453
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Ho A, Purdie C, Tirosh O, Tran P. Improving the response rate of patient-reported outcome measures in an Australian tertiary metropolitan hospital. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2019; 10: 217-226
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Brook EM, Glerum KM, Higgins LD, Matzkin EG. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in your practice: pearls and pitfalls. Am J Orthop 2017; 46 (06) 273-278
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Patel J, Lee JH, Li Z, SooHoo NF. et al. Predictors of low patient-reported outcomes response rates in the California Joint Replacement Registry. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2071-2075
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Grobaty L, Lajam C, Hutzler L. Impact of value-based reimbursement on health-care disparities for total joint arthroplasty candidates. JBJS Rev 2020; 8 (11) e2000073
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar