Mancuso Carol A, Duculan Roland, Cammisa Frank P, Sama Andrew A, Hughes Alexander P, Lebl Darren R, Yang Jingyan, Ghomrawi Hassan M K, Girardi Federico P
Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY.
Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Feb 15;46(4):249-258. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003775.
Longitudinal cohort.
The aims of this study were to measure concordance between patients' and surgeons' preoperative expectations of lumbar surgery, and determine which member of the dyad more closely predicted fulfillment of expectations, defined as patient-reported status postoperatively.
Concordant patient-surgeon expectations reflect effective communication and should foster better outcomes.
Preoperatively patients and surgeons completed identical surveys measuring expectations for improvement in symptoms and physical/psychosocial function. Responses ranged from "complete improvement" to "do not have this expectation"; scores for each survey ranged from 0 to 100 (greatest expectations). Concordance between pairs of patient-surgeon scores was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Postoperatively, fulfillment of expectations was measured from patient-reported amount of improvement received and was calculated as the proportion of patient-reported postoperative score relative to patient-reported preoperative score, and surgeon-reported preoperative score (range 0 [no expectations fulfilled] to >1.2 [expectations surpassed]). Clinical measures included patient-reported spine-related disability.
For 402 patient-surgeon pairs, mean survey scores were 73 ± 19 (patients) and 57 ± 16 (surgeons); 84% of patients had higher scores than surgeons, mainly due to expecting complete improvement, whereas surgeons expected a lot/moderate/little improvement. The ICC for the entire sample was .31 (fair agreement); for subgroups, the greatest difference in ICC was for patients with more spine-related disability (ICC = .10, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.00-0.23) versus less disability (ICC = .46, 95% CI: 0.34-0.56). 96% of patients were contacted ≥2.0 years postoperatively. Proportions of expectations fulfilled were 0.79 (0-3.00) (patients) and 1.01 (0-2.29) (surgeons). Thus patients were less likely to anticipate subsequent postoperative status (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% CI 0.25-0.45) versus surgeons who were more likely to anticipate patient-reported postoperative status (OR 2.98, 95% CI: 2.22-4.00).
Concordance between patients' and surgeons' expectations was fair; due mostly to patients expecting complete improvement whereas surgeons expected a lot/moderate/little improvement. Compared to patients' expectations, surgeons' expectations more closely coincided with patient-reported fulfillment of expectations 2 years postoperatively.Level of Evidence: 1.
纵向队列研究。
本研究旨在衡量患者与外科医生术前对腰椎手术期望的一致性,并确定二元组中的哪一方更能准确预测期望的达成情况,期望的达成情况定义为患者术后报告的状态。
患者与外科医生期望的一致性反映了有效的沟通,并且应该能带来更好的结果。
术前,患者和外科医生完成相同的调查问卷,以衡量对症状改善以及身体/心理社会功能改善的期望。回答范围从“完全改善”到“没有这种期望”;每份调查问卷的分数范围为0至100分(期望程度最高)。使用组内相关系数(ICC)来衡量患者与外科医生分数对之间的一致性。术后,根据患者报告的改善程度来衡量期望的达成情况,并计算为患者报告的术后分数相对于患者报告的术前分数以及外科医生报告的术前分数的比例(范围从0[没有期望达成]到>1.2[期望超出])。临床测量包括患者报告的与脊柱相关的残疾情况。
对于402对患者与外科医生,调查问卷的平均分数分别为73±19(患者)和57±16(外科医生);84%的患者分数高于外科医生,主要是因为患者期望完全改善,而外科医生期望有很大/中等/很小程度的改善。整个样本的ICC为0.31(一致性一般);对于亚组,ICC差异最大的是脊柱相关残疾较多的患者(ICC = 0.10,95%置信区间[CI]:0.00 - 0.23)与残疾较少的患者(ICC = 0.46,95% CI:0.34 - 0.56)。96%的患者在术后≥2.0年时接受了随访。期望达成的比例分别为0.79(0 - 3.00)(患者)和1.01(0 - 2.29)(外科医生)。因此,与外科医生相比,患者不太可能预测后续的术后状态(优势比[OR] 0.34,95% CI 0.25 - 0.45),而外科医生更有可能预测患者报告的术后状态(OR 2.98,95% CI:2.22 - 4.00)。
患者与外科医生的期望一致性一般;主要是因为患者期望完全改善,而外科医生期望有很大/中等/很小程度的改善。与患者的期望相比,外科医生的期望与患者报告的术后2年期望达成情况更为吻合。证据级别:1级。