This document provides an overview of registry participation and collecting patient-reported outcome measures through a registry. It discusses the University of Wisconsin's process for collecting PROs in their orthopedic clinics in two phases: a pilot phase and a full implementation phase. The pilot involved collecting PROs in 6 clinics using Epic and tablet computers. Lessons learned included that an integrated tablet/portal solution and coordinated project management were important. The full implementation will expand PRO collection to all orthopedic locations and improve reporting automation.
Call Girls In Indore đ9235973566đJust Call Inaayađ˛ Call Girls Service In Indo...
Â
Registry Participation 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to What You Really Need to Know from AJRR
1. Registry Participation 101:
A Simple Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding What You Really Need
to Know from AJRR
Joe Greene
University of WisconsinâDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation
AJRR Staff:
Phil Dwyer, Program Coordinator
Caryn Etkin, PhD, MPH, Director of Analytics
September Cahue, MPH, Senior Registry Analyst
2. Topics and Agenda
Agenda:
⢠Introduction to clinical data registries Phil Dwyer
⢠University of Wisconsin experience Joe Greene
⢠Patient-Reported Outcome Measures September Cahue
⢠Quality programs Caryn Etkin
Topics:
⢠What is a clinical data registry
⢠Who is using registry information and why
⢠Value of registry data
⢠Additional information, resources
4. What is a Registry?
⢠A clinical data registry records information about the
health status of patients and the health care they receive
over varying periods of time
⢠Designed to capture clinical data of importance to health
care practitioners, providers, and patient. Generally,
registries focus on clinical data for specific populations
based on:
â A disease/condition (e.g. cystic fibrosis, spina bifida)
â Procedure (e.g. coronary artery bypass graft)
â Device or drug (e.g. total joint replacement)
⢠More frequently are able to capture data from multiple
EHRs
⢠Designed for quality improvement efforts, payment,
research, etc.
5. Who Manages Registries?
⢠Medical Specialty Societies
⢠Health Plans
⢠Patient Advocacy Organizations
⢠Federal and State Governments
⢠For-profit Companies and Non-profit
Organizations
6. Who is Interested in Registries?
⢠Hospitals, health systems
⢠Private practice groups
⢠Health plans and other payers
⢠Researchers
⢠Patient and consumer organizations
⢠Federal, state, and local government
9. How Does a Registry Collect Data?
⢠Push
⢠Pull
⢠Certification
model
⢠Manual
⢠Linking with
different
databases
⢠Departmental
systems
⢠Direct from
patients
⢠From devices
Electronic
Health Records
Other IT
systems
Patients
11. More Patients, Less Burden
Clinical
registries
Collecting
structured data
On more patient
populations
Data pull
from EHRs
Is becoming less
dependent on
chart abstraction
Lowering
barriers
Source: https://download.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cqi/x-pub/pcpi-richardson-102915.pdf
12. AJRR is a multi-stakeholder, independent, not-for-profit with diverse
national constituents led by top orthopaedists
We optimize patient outcomes through collection of data on all
primary and revision total joint replacement procedures in the US
Our mission is to enhance patient safety, improve quality of care, and
reduce the cost of care
Our goal is to capture 90% of all total joint replacement
procedures in the U.S.
AJRR Mission and Vision
13. AJRR is supported by hospitals, health insurers, and
the following groups:
Supporters
15. Where Are We Now?
September 2014
The National Registry:
All 50 States
16. Participating Institution Types
Participating Institution Types
⢠Hospitals
⢠Academic Medical Centers
⢠Multiple Health Systems/Networks
⢠Ambulatory Surgery Centers
⢠Private Practice Groups
⢠Solo Practitioners
⢠Hospital bed count
â Small = 1-99 beds
â Medium = 100-399 beds
â Large = 400+ beds
Teaching
25%
Rural
9%
Univ/
Research
11% Major
Teaching
(21.0%)
Minor
Teaching
(35.6%)
Non-
Teaching
(43.3%)
Small
(21.1%)
Medium
(48.0%)
Large
(30.9%)
26. Registry Participation 101
A Simple Step-by-Step Guide from AJRR
The Acquisition and Reporting of Patient
Reported Outcomes
Joe Greene
University of Wisconsin
Department of Orthopedics and
Rehabilitation
27. Objectives
ď Outline the UW Health System approach to PRO
questionnaire deployment
ď Define current AJRR reporting status and goals
ď Describe Phase 1: The pilot collection of PRO
data in orthopedics
ď Outline Phase 2: Full implementation of PRO
data collection and reporting
ď Discuss lessons learned throughout
28. UW Health Orthopedics and
Rehabilitation
ď UW Health Orthopedic Service Line
⢠600+ employees
⢠Highly profitable service line with UW Health
⢠Highly comprehensive
ď Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation
⢠29 orthopedic surgeons and 16 rehabilitation providers
⢠20+ PAâs and APNPâs
⢠5 primary care sports medicine providers
ď Research and Education
⢠25 residents and 4 fellows
⢠4 PhD Level Scientists and multiple post-docâs
⢠Robust stem cell and regenerative medicine research
⢠Strong clinical research program
29. AJRR Data Elements
ďLevel 1 Data
⢠Patient, Surgeon, and Procedure Data
ďLevel 2 Data
⢠Risk Factors and Co-Morbidities
ďLevel 3 Data
⢠Patient Reported Outcomes
ďLevel 4 Data
⢠Radiographic Images
30. Current Status: AJRR Reporting
ďLevel 1 Reporting
⢠Automated since June, 2014
ďLevel 2 Reporting
⢠Goal of automating by monthly Epic extract by
June, 2016
ďLevel 3 Reporting
⢠Automate by monthly extract of PRO data from
Epic by July, 2016
ďLevel 4 Reporting
⢠Automate when AJRR is ready to accept
31. UW Health System Considerations
ďPatient Assessment Tools Workgroup
ďEpic vs Third Party Solution
ďGetting data in/out of Epic
ďIT and operational workflows implications
ďTablet vs Kiosk vs Portal
ďReal time access to results
ďCopyright and cost implications
32.
33. ďDiscrete data storage within EMR
ďReporting customization
ďMultiple data entry mechanisms
ďMeaningful Use benefits
ďNo interface required
ďLeveraged Epic investment
ďEpic will improve over time
Decision: Develop Epic Solution
34. ďStreamlined collection processes
ďEloquent and attractive user interfaces
ďBetter than EMR functionality at present
ďMy Recommendations
ďStrongly consider reporting capability
ďInterfacing ability is paramount
ďConsider depth of their questionnaire build
Third Party Solutions
35. Phase 1
Pilot Collection of PRO Data
6 Clinics at 2 different locations and approximately 100 users including
Staff affected : Physicians, ATâs, PTâs, PAâs, RNâs, MAâs, Schedulers
36. Phase 1
Project Overview Resources
UW Epic teams â 1024.75 hours
⢠EpicCare Ambulatory
⢠Cadence
⢠MyChart
⢠Prelude/Welcome
⢠Training Team
⢠Project Management
⢠Security
⢠Clinical Center for Knowledge
Management
⢠Server and Desktop
⢠Programming
Consultants (10 months)
⢠MyChart
⢠Programmer
⢠Reporting
37. Phase 1
Questionnaires
ď ACL Reconstruction (Clinics: Sports Med, Sports Rehab)
⢠VR-12 Physical & Psychological Health Form
⢠IKDC Knee Evaluation Form
⢠ACL-RSI Return to Sport After Injury Scale
⢠MARX Activity Rating Scale
⢠SANE - Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation
ď Total Hip Replacement (Clinic: Ortho)
⢠VR-12 Physical & Psychological Health Form
⢠HOOS Hip Disability & Osteoarthritis Score Survey
⢠UCLA Activity-Level Rating Form
⢠Modified Harris Hip Form
ď Low Back Pain (Clinics: Spine Ortho, Neuro, Spine PT)
⢠VR-12 Physical & Psychological Health Form
⢠Oswestry Low Back Pain Form
38. Phase 1
Project Overview Workflows
ď Assign Questionnaire Series
⢠Option 1: Scheduling question; Reporting
Workbench used by Scheduler
⢠Option 2: Order placed by clinician
ď Assign a Questionnaire
⢠Patient Entered Questionnaire Activity
ďAvailable on DAR and Multi-provider schedule
ď Patient entered questionnaires
⢠MyChart
⢠Welcome (Tablet Solution)
39. ď Initially sought a Windows 7 tablet
⢠Located a product and began testing
⢠Lack of device quantity made the decision to use Windows 8
ď Windows 8 models were tested (need about 75)
⢠Dell Model: Cost ~ $600.00 (Now about $800.00)
⢠Storage Units: Cost ~ $800.00 (Now about $800.00)
ď Extensive testing completed
⢠40 hours testing
ď Every questionnaire
ď Saved responses
ď Response filing
ď Ease of answering
ď Single item on each page
ď Auto advance
Tablet Selection and Testing
44. Phase 2
Full Implementation
ď Build and validate all remaining orthopedic
questionnaires
ď Deploy at all orthopedic locations
ď Identify and implement all reporting Needs
ď Consider research and HS-IRB implications
45. Phase 2 Considerations
ďQuality and Outcomes
ďResearch
ďClinical Reporting
ďRegistry Reporting
ďGovernment and Reporting
ďThird Party Payors and Bundling
ďMarketing
46. Phase 2
New Questionnaire Build
ď FAAM
ď FAAM Sport
ď NDI
ď SRS 22
ď UWRI
ď SILS (CJR)
ďPedâs QL 4.0
⢠5-7, 8-12, 13-18
ďquickDASH
ďKOOS
ďKnee Society Score
ďPSFS (Flowsheet)
47. Phase 2
Reporting Automation
ď Clinical and Marketing Reporting
⢠Automate Quarterly
ď Registry Reporting
⢠AJRR Level 3
ďVR-12, HOOS, KOOS
(Why? : WOMAC, Historical Database, CJR)
ďPre-op and 1 year
ď Payor and Government Reporting
⢠CJR
ďVR-12, HOOS, KOOS Pre-op and 1 year
ďSILS and Oswestry
ďTotal Painful Joint Count
48. Lessons Learned
ď Integrated tablet and portal solution was critical
ď Coordinated IT and Orthopedic project
management is imperative
ď An Epic solution was right for the UW, but may
not be the best, easiest or cost effective in many
cases
ď Consider reporting needs early
ď Physician and Management Champions are
essential!
49. Questions
Joe Greene (JGreene@uwhealth.org)
Orthopedics Project Manager
Ryley OâBrien (ROâBrien@uwhealth.org)
Patient Assessment Tools Workgroup Facilitator
Sara Balster and Johnna Bledsoe
(Sbalster@uwhealth.org)
(Jbledsoe@uwhealth.org)
IS Project Managers
Leandra Frank (Leandra.Frank@uwmf.wisc.edu)
IS Analyst, Hardware
Bret Wagner (bwagner@huronconsultinggroup.com)
Huron Consulting, Director of Portals and Population Health
51. ⢠Electronic submission of PRO scores (already captured at
your hospital/clinic)
⢠AJRR will provide a data specification file â you submit data to us
(similar to Level I submission)
⢠Selected EHR vendors can submit to AJRR on your behalf
⢠Collection direct from patients (or facilitated by clinician) via
AJRRâs Level III platform
How AJRR Can Accept Data
Information can be
found in our PRO
Guide on
www.ajrr.net
52. How to Start a PRO
Program
1. Define your PRO team
2. Define your PRO goals
3. Determine the PRO measure/s you
would like to use
4. Define the frequency for data collection
5. Develop workflow for data capture
53. ⢠Most likely, a core group of colleagues have decided that
including PROs in your practice of care for TJA may provide
important information to improve patient outcomes. Beyond
this core group, it will be critical to involve stakeholders at
each level of patient care
⢠Some groups to be considered:
⢠Orthopaedic Department
⢠Orthopaedic practice groups and clinics
⢠Quality Department
⢠Information Technology
⢠Orthopaedic Service Line
⢠Research
⢠Rehabilitation
⢠Hospital Administration
⢠Patient Advocate/Patient Representative
⢠Institutional Review Board (guidance/review)
Define Your PRO team
54. Define Your PRO goals
⢠For those interested in a PRO program, you and your
colleagues will need to determine the reasons you would
like to launch a PRO program
⢠You may consider asking yourselves questions such as:
⢠Are we launching a research initiative with specific aims?
⢠Are we seeking comparative benchmarks to our peers?
⢠Are we wanting to quantify our outcomes from our patientsâ
perspective?
⢠Do we want to measure if patients have improved function or
reduced pain?
⢠Do we want to measure whether our patientsâ overall health has
improved?
⢠What are the requirements of the payer-specific program for which
we are hoping to qualify?
55. Determine the PRO Measure/s
⢠Your reasons for implementing PRO program will direct your
team to a certain instrument(s) that will allow you to meet
your objectives.
⢠For example, if your institution has decided to collect PROMs
for research initiatives, you may choose an instrument that
measures multiple domains.
⢠However, if you are focused on measuring patientsâ outcomes
as part of your clinical care, a shorter instrument will suffice as
long as it is able to detect change.
Consider:
1. What does the measure assess â quality of life or
function?
2. What is the cost (licensing fee) to use the form?
3. What is the associated patient burden?
a. What is the length of form?
b. How easy/hard is the form to complete?
4. What is the associated staff burden (FTE time)?
56. Define Frequency for PRO
Data Collection
⢠PROMs guidelines from the International Consortium for
Health Outcome Measurement (ICHOM) have
recommended pre-op (baseline) and one-year follow-up
as appropriate time points for data collection to provide
meaningful data for comparing outcomes across
providers
⢠The CJR Final Rule also advises that post-operative surveys be
collected between 270 and 365 days post-surgery
⢠AJRRâs platform will allow for other time points (e.g.,
three-month, six-months, etc.) to be submitted and
stored in AJRRâs database. However, national benchmarks
will only be reported for pre-op and one-year outcomes.
⢠Each time point will have a two-month window for data
collection
57. Develop Workflow for Data
Capture
Consider the following:
1. Points of patient contact
2. Staff responsibilities
3. Electronic completion versus paper capture of forms
4. Collection at clinic or allow patients to complete on
their own
5. Will surgeon be using the measure responses during
the patient encounter?
58.
59.
60. Other PROM resources
⢠Patient-Reported Outcomes in Performance Measurement
RTI document
⢠International Consortium for Health Outcomes
Measurement - Hip & Knee Osteoarthritis Data Collection
Reference Guide
ICHOM document
⢠National Quality Forum â Patient Reported Outcomes
(PROs) in Performance Measurement
NQF document
⢠International Society for Quality of Life Research -
Userâs Guide to Implementing Patient-Reported
Outcomes Assessment in Clinical Practice
ISOQOL document
61. Health-Related Quality of Life Measures
⢠VR-12: VR-12
⢠PROMIS-10 Global: PROMIS-10 Global
⢠SF-12: SF-12
⢠SF-36: SF-36
⢠EQ-5D: EQ-5D
Joint-Specific Measures
⢠HOOS and KOOS: HOOS and KOOS
⢠HOOS, JR and KOOS JR.: HOOS JR and KOOS JR
⢠Oxford Hip: Oxford Hip
⢠Oxford Knee: Oxford Knee
⢠KSS: Knee Society Knee Scoring System
⢠Harris Hip Score: Harris Hip Score
⢠WOMAC: WOMAC
Other PROM resources
62. AJRR and Quality Programs
⢠Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR)
â CJR Final Rule
â AJRR's efforts related to CJR
⢠AJRR is also a Qualified Clinical Data Registry
(QCDR), which means Eligible Professionals can
use our platform for the Physician Quality
Reporting System (PQRS)
â AJRR's QCDR Platform
â QCDR Reporting
⢠Meaningful Use
63. Additional Registry Resources
⢠National Quality Registry Network NQRN Home Page
â Registry inventory, âWhat is a registryâ handout, registry vendor
assessment
⢠CMS Qualified Clinical Data Registries QCDR Home Page
⢠AHRQ Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR)
⢠Numerous other efforts: