Wisconsin Spine Outcome Study-Pilot
Patients were recruited from a single spine center in Madison, Wisconsin. Four neurosurgeons and 1 orthopedic surgeon participated in the WISPOS-P. After IRB approval, the first patient gave consent in September 2011. The goal sample size for this pilot project was 100 patients (Fig. 2). The sample size represents a procedural goal and will help to determine sample sizes more accurately for follow-up studies. The sample size was attained after a 4.5-month registration period. During this time period, 189 eligible patients were evaluated through the spine center. Of these patients, the clinic schedulers mailed appointment letters to 80 prior to screening by the research coordinator, and 9 patients were invited into the study but did not show up for their clinic appointment. These 89 patients were excluded from the sample. One hundred patients were invited into the WISPOS-P and arrived at their clinic appointment. Ninety of these patients consented and participated in the preappointment survey, whereas 10 patients withdrew from the study. Reasons for withdrawal included time concerns, lack of interest in a study, not being offered surgery, security concerns, and other.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 2.
Flowchart describing demographic characteristics of invited patients as a function of mode of completion of survey. Appt. = appointment.
The 90 patients who participated were subdivided into groups based on method of completion of the preappointment survey. There were 4 subgroups, as follows: 1) electronic completion prior to clinic visit (41 patients); 2) telephone completion prior to clinic visit (3 patients); 3) completion using clinic computer just prior to appointment (2 patients); and 4) paper completion, with the coordinator converting data into electronic format (44 patients). The reasons for paper completion are listed in Table 2.
The median age of participating patients was 55 years, and the median age of patients who withdrew was 52.69 years. When evaluating the 2 largest subgroups of participating patients, those completing their intake forms prior to clinic and those completing the paper forms, the median ages were 44.72 and 59.06 years, respectively. The median time to complete the preappointment survey (Fig. 3) was 23.69 minutes (range 12.1–177.75 minutes). Patients who completed their survey electronically before their clinic visit had a median time of completion of 28.08 minutes. Note that the time for the research coordinator to convert paper forms into electronic data is included in the median time of all patients.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 3.
Bar graph showing median time for survey completion as a function of mode of completion of survey.
Patients who participated in the study were sent their study introduction packet a median of 20.5 days prior to their clinic appointment, whereas patients who withdrew were sent this material a median of 11 days prior to their appointment. Of the 90 participating patients, 63% listed an email address. Ninety percent of patients who completed their intake form electronically prior to their clinic visit listed an email address, compared with 39% of patients using the paper format.
Four standardized outcome indices were evaluated for each participating patient (Fig. 4): the SF-36 PCS score, the SF-36 MCS score, the ODI value, and the VAS score. The median score for all participating patients was a PCS of 29.41, an MCS of 47.15, an ODI of 45.5%, and a VAS of 7.0. For those who completed their intake form electronically before clinic, the median PCS was 30.02, the MCS was 45.65, the ODI was 34.0%, and the VAS was 7.0. Those who completed the paper forms had a median PCS of 27.92, an MCS of 48.13, an ODI of 53.0%, and a VAS of 7.0.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 4.
Flowchart describing variations in outcome indices as a function of mode of completion of survey.
Of the 90 patients who participated in the study, a physician-assigned diagnosis was obtained in 88. Patients were evaluated using SF-36, ODI, and VAS scores, stratified by diagnosis (Fig. 5).
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 5.
Flowchart describing variations in outcome indices as a function of diagnosis. Min = minutes; Pts. = patients.
Results
Patients were recruited from a single spine center in Madison, Wisconsin. Four neurosurgeons and 1 orthopedic surgeon participated in the WISPOS-P. After IRB approval, the first patient gave consent in September 2011. The goal sample size for this pilot project was 100 patients (Fig. 2). The sample size represents a procedural goal and will help to determine sample sizes more accurately for follow-up studies. The sample size was attained after a 4.5-month registration period. During this time period, 189 eligible patients were evaluated through the spine center. Of these patients, the clinic schedulers mailed appointment letters to 80 prior to screening by the research coordinator, and 9 patients were invited into the study but did not show up for their clinic appointment. These 89 patients were excluded from the sample. One hundred patients were invited into the WISPOS-P and arrived at their clinic appointment. Ninety of these patients consented and participated in the preappointment survey, whereas 10 patients withdrew from the study. Reasons for withdrawal included time concerns, lack of interest in a study, not being offered surgery, security concerns, and other.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 2.
Flowchart describing demographic characteristics of invited patients as a function of mode of completion of survey. Appt. = appointment.
The 90 patients who participated were subdivided into groups based on method of completion of the preappointment survey. There were 4 subgroups, as follows: 1) electronic completion prior to clinic visit (41 patients); 2) telephone completion prior to clinic visit (3 patients); 3) completion using clinic computer just prior to appointment (2 patients); and 4) paper completion, with the coordinator converting data into electronic format (44 patients). The reasons for paper completion are listed in Table 2.
The median age of participating patients was 55 years, and the median age of patients who withdrew was 52.69 years. When evaluating the 2 largest subgroups of participating patients, those completing their intake forms prior to clinic and those completing the paper forms, the median ages were 44.72 and 59.06 years, respectively. The median time to complete the preappointment survey (Fig. 3) was 23.69 minutes (range 12.1–177.75 minutes). Patients who completed their survey electronically before their clinic visit had a median time of completion of 28.08 minutes. Note that the time for the research coordinator to convert paper forms into electronic data is included in the median time of all patients.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 3.
Bar graph showing median time for survey completion as a function of mode of completion of survey.
Patients who participated in the study were sent their study introduction packet a median of 20.5 days prior to their clinic appointment, whereas patients who withdrew were sent this material a median of 11 days prior to their appointment. Of the 90 participating patients, 63% listed an email address. Ninety percent of patients who completed their intake form electronically prior to their clinic visit listed an email address, compared with 39% of patients using the paper format.
Four standardized outcome indices were evaluated for each participating patient (Fig. 4): the SF-36 PCS score, the SF-36 MCS score, the ODI value, and the VAS score. The median score for all participating patients was a PCS of 29.41, an MCS of 47.15, an ODI of 45.5%, and a VAS of 7.0. For those who completed their intake form electronically before clinic, the median PCS was 30.02, the MCS was 45.65, the ODI was 34.0%, and the VAS was 7.0. Those who completed the paper forms had a median PCS of 27.92, an MCS of 48.13, an ODI of 53.0%, and a VAS of 7.0.
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 4.
Flowchart describing variations in outcome indices as a function of mode of completion of survey.
Of the 90 patients who participated in the study, a physician-assigned diagnosis was obtained in 88. Patients were evaluated using SF-36, ODI, and VAS scores, stratified by diagnosis (Fig. 5).
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 5.
Flowchart describing variations in outcome indices as a function of diagnosis. Min = minutes; Pts. = patients.