Abstract
Patient-orientated questionnaires are becoming increasingly popular in the assessment of outcome and are considered to provide a less biased assessment of the surgical result than traditional surgeon-based ratings. The present study sought to quantify the level of agreement between patients’ and doctors’ global outcome ratings after spine surgery. 1,113 German-speaking patients (59.0 ± 16.6 years; 643 F, 470 M) who had undergone spine surgery rated the global outcome of the operation 3 months later, using a 5-point scale: operation helped a lot, helped, helped only little, didn’t help, made things worse. They also rated pain, function, quality-of-life and disability, using the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and their satisfaction with treatment (5-point scale). The surgeon completed a SSE Spine Tango Follow-up form, blind to the patient’s evaluation, rating the outcome with the McNab criteria as excellent, good, fair, and poor. The data were compared, in terms of (1) the correlation between surgeons’ and patients’ ratings and (2) the proportions of identical ratings, where the doctor’s “excellent” was considered equivalent to the patient’s “operation helped a lot”, “good” to “operation helped”, “fair” to “operation helped only little” and “poor” to “operation didn’t help/made things worse”. There was a significant correlation (Spearman Rho = 0.57, p < 0.0001) between the surgeons’ and patients’ ratings. Their ratings were identical in 51.2% of the cases; the surgeon gave better ratings than the patient (“overrated”) in 25.6% cases and worse ratings (“underrated”) in 23.2% cases. There were significant differences between the six surgeons in the degree to which their ratings matched those of the patients, with senior surgeons “overrating” significantly more often than junior surgeons (p < 0.001). “Overrating” was significantly more prevalent for patients with a poor self-rated outcome (measured as global outcome, COMI score, or satisfaction with treatment; each p < 0.001). In a multivariate model controlling for age and gender, “low satisfaction with treatment” and “being a senior surgeon” were the most significant unique predictors of surgeon “overrating” (p < 0.0001; adjusted R 2 = 0.21). Factors with no unique significant influence included comorbidity (ASA score), first time versus repeat surgery, one-level versus multilevel surgery. In conclusion, approximately half of the patient’s perceptions of outcome after spine surgery were identical to those of the surgeon. Generally, where discrepancies arose, there was a tendency for the surgeon to be slightly more optimistic than the patient, and more so in relation to patients who themselves declared a poor outcome. This highlights the potential bias in outcome studies that rely solely on surgeon ratings of outcome and indicates the importance of collecting data from both the patient and the surgeon, in order to provide a balanced view of the outcome of spine surgery.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brokelman RB, van Loon CJ, Rijnberg WJ (2003) Patient versus surgeon satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:495–498
Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJHM, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013. doi:10.1097/00007632-199809150-00018
Ferrer M, Pellise F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine 31:1372–1379. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000218477.53318.bc discussion 1380
Jung DG, Baynes HG (1921) Psychological types, or, the psychology of individuation. Kegan Paul Trench Trubner, London
Levinson W, Frankel RM, Roter D, Drum M (2006) How much do surgeons like their patients? Patient Educ Couns 61:429–434. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.009
Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P, Schumacher L, Thomas BJ, Kilgus DJ, Finerman GA (1996) Differences between patients’ and physicians’ evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:835–838
Macnab I (1973) Chapter 14. Pain and disability in degnerative disc disease. Clin Neurosurg 20:193–196
Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Dvorak J, Jacobshagen N, Semmer NK, Boos N (2007) Predictors of multidimensional outcome after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 16:777–786. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0255-0
Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9
Mannion AF, Junge A, Elfering A, Dvorak J, Porchet F, Grob D (2009) Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery? Spine (in press)
Marquie L, Raufaste E, Lauque D, Marine C, Ecoiffier M, Sorum P (2003) Pain rating by patients and physicians: evidence of systematic pain miscalibration. Pain 102:289–296. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00402-5
McGee MA, Howie DW, Ryan P, Moss JR, Holubowycz OT (2002) Comparison of patient and doctor responses to a total hip arthroplasty clinical evaluation questionnaire. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:1745–1752
McGrory BJ, Morrey BF, Rand JA, Ilstrup DM (1996) Correlation of patient questionnaire responses and physician history in grading clinical outcome following hip and knee arthroplasty. A prospective study of 201 joint arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 11:47–57. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80160-4
Ragab AA (2003) Validity of self-assessment outcome questionnaires: patient–physician discrepancy in outcome interpretation. Biomed Sci Instrum 39:579–584
Ronnberg K, Lind B, Zoega B, Halldin K, Gellerstedt M, Brisby H (2007) Patients’ satisfaction with provided care/information and expectations on clinical outcome after lumbar disc herniation surgery. Spine 32:256–261. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000251876.98496.52
Smith AM, Barnes SA, Sperling JW, Farrell CM, Cummings JD, Cofield RH (2006) Patient and physician-assessed shoulder function after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:508–513. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00132
Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press Inc., Oxford
White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine 29:1923–1930. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000137066.50291.da
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Gordana Balaban and Julian Amacker for their excellent work collecting the questionnaire data and managing our quality management system.
Conflict of interest statement
None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lattig, F., Grob, D., Kleinstueck, F.S. et al. Ratings of global outcome at the first post-operative assessment after spinal surgery: how often do the surgeon and patient agree?. Eur Spine J 18 (Suppl 3), 386–394 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1028-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1028-3