Dataset Information

A Conceptual Model for Spine Surgery Recovery: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Expectations, Experiences, and Satisfaction.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Qualitative interview study.

Objective

The aim was to develop a conceptual model for Spine Surgery Recovery in order to better understand why patients undergo lumbar spine surgery and what factors influence patient satisfaction.

Summary of background data

Quantitative studies have assessed patients' expectations for lumbar spine surgery outcomes, with greater expectation fulfillment leading to higher satisfaction. However, there is limited literature using qualitative methods to understand the patient perspective from the decision to undergo lumbar spine surgery through long-term recovery.

Materials and methods

Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 20 participants (nine females, mean age ±SD=61.2±11.1 yr) and three focus groups with 12 participants (nine females, mean age ±SD=62.0±10.9 yr). Sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers coded the transcripts using a hierarchical coding system. Major themes were identified and a conceptual model was developed.

Results

A total of 1355 coded quotes were analyzed. The decision to have lumbar spine surgery was influenced by chronic pain impact on daily function, pain coping, and patient expectations. Results demonstrated that fulfilled expectations and setting realistic expectations are key factors for patient satisfaction after surgery, while less known constructs of accepting limitations, adjusting expectations, and optimism were found by many patients to be essential for a successful recovery. Emotional factors of fear, anxiety, and depression were important aspects of presurgical and postsurgical experiences.

Conclusion

Our Spine Surgery Recovery conceptual model provides guidance for future research and clinical practice to optimize treatment and improve overall patient satisfaction. Recommendations based on this model include the assessment of patient expectations and mental well-being throughout postoperative recovery as well as preoperatively to help set realistic expectations and improve satisfaction. Educational, acceptance-based or positive psychological interventions may be potentially beneficial for addressing key factors identified in this model.

SUBMITTER: Brintz CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10949898 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Conceptual Model for Spine Surgery Recovery: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Expectations, Experiences, and Satisfaction.

Brintz Carrie E CE Coronado Rogelio A RA Schlundt David G DG Haug Jenkins Christine C Bird Mackenzie L ML Bley Jordan A JA Pennings Jacquelyn S JS Wegener Stephen T ST Archer Kristin R KR

Spine 20221104 14

<h4>Study design</h4>Qualitative interview study.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim was to develop a conceptual model for Spine Surgery Recovery in order to better understand why patients undergo lumbar spine surgery and what factors influence patient satisfaction.<h4>Summary of background data</h4>Quantitative studies have assessed patients' expectations for lumbar spine surgery outcomes, with greater expectation fulfillment leading to higher satisfaction. However, there is limited literature using qual ...[more]

PMID: 36580586

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo improve our understanding of patients' perspectives regarding: (1) the decision-making and prehabilitation before lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) surgery and (2) their postoperative experiences.DesignQualitative research with semi-structured interviews.SettingGeneral community.ParticipantsIndividuals who received (N=10) and who did not receive (N=15) prehabilitation before LSS surgery were recruited at the 6-month postoperative follow-up (8 females; average age: 67.7±6.7 years) by purposive sampling. Additionally, 1 participant invited her daughter to accompany her in an interview.InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresConcerns and experiences of patients with LSS regarding prehabilitation and recovery after spine surgery.ResultsThematic analysis was conducted to identify 4 themes inductively: (1) sources of information about LSS surgery; (2) factors affecting the surgical decision-making; (3) attitudes toward prehabilitation; and (4) postoperative recovery. All participants desired to have more preoperative education to inform their surgical decision-making. There were mixed opinions regarding the perceived benefits of prehabilitation because some individuals hesitated to participate in prehabilitation because of their symptoms, or the cost or time of traveling. Many participants expected some or even complete relief of LSS-related symptoms after surgery. However, not all participants experienced the expected postoperative improvements. Some participants only experienced temporary symptomatic relief, while others experienced new postoperative symptoms. Patients generally found that postoperative exercises taught by physiotherapists were useful although their compliance decreased over time.ConclusionsOur study highlights the need for better preoperative LSS education. Because face-to-face prehabilitation or postoperative rehabilitation may not be feasible for all patients, future studies should explore whether online-based prehabilitation or postoperative rehabilitation may benefit certain patient subgroups.

Project description:BackgroundIndependent of efficacy, information on safety of surgical procedures is essential for informed choices. We seek to develop standardized methodology for describing the safety of spinal operations and apply these methods to study lumbar surgery. We present a conceptual model for evaluating the safety of spine surgery and describe development of tools to measure principal components of this model: (1) specifying outcome by explicit criteria for adverse event definition, mode of ascertainment, cause, severity, or preventability, and (2) quantitatively measuring predictors such as patient factors, comorbidity, severity of degenerative spine disease, and invasiveness of spine surgery.MethodsWe created operational definitions for 176 adverse occurrences and established multiple mechanisms for reporting them. We developed new methods to quantify the severity of adverse occurrences, degeneration of lumbar spine, and invasiveness of spinal procedures. Using kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients, we assessed agreement for the following: four reviewers independently coding etiology, preventability, and severity for 141 adverse occurrences, two observers coding lumbar spine degenerative changes in 10 selected cases, and two researchers coding invasiveness of surgery for 50 initial cases.ResultsDuring the first six months of prospective surveillance, rigorous daily medical record reviews identified 92.6% of the adverse occurrences we recorded, and voluntary reports by providers identified 38.5% (surgeons reported 18.3%, inpatient rounding team reported 23.1%, and conferences discussed 6.1%). Trained observers had fair agreement in classifying etiology of 141 adverse occurrences into 18 categories (kappa = 0.35), but agreement was substantial (kappa > or = 0.61) for 4 specific categories: technical error, failure in communication, systems failure, and no error. Preventability assessment had moderate agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.44). Adverse occurrence severity rating had fair agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.33) when using a scale based on the JCAHO Sentinel Event Policy, but agreement was substantial for severity ratings on a new 11-point numerical severity scale (ICC = 0.74). There was excellent inter-rater agreement for a lumbar degenerative disease severity score (ICC = 0.98) and an index of surgery invasiveness (ICC = 0.99).ConclusionComposite measures of disease severity and surgery invasiveness may allow development of risk-adjusted predictive models for adverse events in spine surgery. Standard measures of adverse events and risk adjustment may also facilitate post-marketing surveillance of spinal devices, effectiveness research, and quality improvement.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore patients' experiences of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and to identify issues in the implementation of ERAS from the patient's perspective.DesignThe systematic review and qualitative analysis were based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for conducting synthesis.Data sourcesRelevant studies published in four databases, that is, Web of Science, PubMed, Ovid Embase and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched, and some studies were supplemented by key authors and reference lists.Study selectionThirty-one studies were identified, involving 1069 surgical patients enrolled in the ERAS programme. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated based on the Population, Interest of phenomena, Context, Study design criteria recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute to determine the scope of article retrieval. The inclusion criteria were as follows: ERAS patients' experiences; qualitative data; English language and published from January 1990 to August 2021.Data extractionData were extracted from relevant studies using the standardised data extraction tool from Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument for qualitative research.Data synthesisThe themes in the structure dimension are as follows: (1) patients cared about the timeliness of healthcare professionals' help; (2) patients cared about the professionalism of family care; and (3) patients misunderstood and worried about the safety of ERAS. The themes in the process dimension are as follows: (1) patients needed adequate and accurate information from healthcare professionals; (2) patients needed to communicate adequately with healthcare professionals; (3) patients hoped to develop a personalised treatment plan and (4) patients required ongoing follow-up services. The theme in the outcome dimension is as follows: patients wanted to effectively improve severe postoperative symptoms.ConclusionsEvaluating ERAS from the patient's perspective can reveal the omissions and deficiencies of healthcare professionals in clinical care so that problems in patients' recovery process can be solved in a timely manner, reducing potential barriers to the implementation of ERAS.Prospero registration numberCRD42021278631.

Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies which explore health professionals' experiences of and perspectives on the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway.DesignSystematic review of qualitative literature using a qualitative content analysis. Literature includes the experiences and views of a wide range of multidisciplinary team and allied health professional staff, to incorporate a diverse range of clinical and professional perspectives.Data sourcesPsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL and PubMed were searched in May 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesThe searches included relevant qualitative studies across a range of healthcare contexts. We included studies published from 2000 to 2017, as an appropriate time frame to capture evidence about ERAS after implementation in the late 1990s. Only studies published in the English language were included, and we included studies that explicitly stated that they used qualitative approaches.Data extraction and synthesisLiterature searches were conducted by the first author and checked by the second author: both contributed to the extraction and analysis of data. Studies identified as relevant were assessed for eligibility using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme guidance.ResultsEight studies were included in the review, including studies in six countries and in four surgical specialties. Included studies focus on health professionals' experiences of ERAS before, during and after implementation in colorectal surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, abdominal hysterectomy and orthopaedics. Five main themes emerged in the analysis: communication and collaboration, resistance to change, role and significance of protocol-based care, and knowledge and expectations. Professionals described the importance of effective multidisciplinary team collaboration and communication, providing thorough education to staff and patients, and appointing a dedicated champion as means to implement and integrate ERAS pathways successfully. Evidence-based guidelines were thought to be useful for improvements to patient care by standardising practices and reducing treatment variations, but were thought to be too open to interpretation at local levels. Setting and managing 'realistic' expectations of staff was seen as a priority. Staff attitudes towards ERAS tend to become more favourable over time, as practices become successfully 'normalised'. Strengths of the review are that it includes a wide range of different studies, a variety of clinical populations, diversity of methodological approaches and local contexts. Its limitation is the inclusion of a small number of studies, although these represent six countries and four surgical specialties, and so our findings are likely to be transferable.ConclusionsStaff feel positive about the implementation of ERAS, but find the process is complex and challenging. Challenges can be addressed by ensuring that multidisciplinary teams understand ERAS principles and guidelines, and communicate well with one another and with patients. Provision of comprehensive, coherent and locally relevant information to health professionals is helpful. Identifying and recruiting local ERAS champions is likely to improve the implementation and delivery of ERAS pathways.Prospero registration numberCRD42017059952.

Project description:Deep prosthetic hip infection is a devastating complication of hip replacement surgery, and treatment often involves multiple revision surgeries with antibiotic chemotherapy to control the infection. The aim of this study was to explore patients' experiences of early and longer-term recovery after one-stage or two-stage revision with an excised hip, a temporary cement spacer or a custom-made articulating spacer. We interviewed 32 participants taking part in a surgical trial at two time points (2-4 months and 18 months) following one- or two-stage revision surgery. The analytic approach was inductive using the constant comparative method to generate themes from the data. Participants' early recovery after revision was characterised by a long hospital stay with burdensome antibiotics and limited physiotherapy provision. Participants undergoing two-stage revision with an excised hip or a cement spacer described severe mobility restrictions which affected all aspects of their lives, while those undergoing one-stage revision, or two-stage revision with an articulating spacer were more mobile and independent, with some limitations. Participants with a cement spacer also reported more pain than other treatment groups, while those with an articulating spacer appeared to perceive that their recovery was slow. At 18 months, participants in all groups described both improvements and losses in mobility and functional ability. Participants in all treatment groups expressed considerable emotional resilience during recovery from revision, which may be linked to opportunities to talk with the trial personnel. Participants identified the need for better information and psychological and physical support. Experience of recovery differs after one- and two-stage revision, and further in relation to the use of spacers. Mobility, function, independence and pain are important aspects of recovery which affect all aspects of day-to-day life. Increased information and more opportunities to talk and share experiences may provide psychological support during recovery.

Project description:Study Design Systematic review. Objective To examine the relationship between the patient's preoperative expectations and short-term postoperative satisfaction and functional outcome in lumbar spine surgery. Methods The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried using a predefined search algorithm to identify all lumbar spine studies analyzing the influence of preoperative expectations on postoperative satisfaction and functional outcome. Two independent reviewers and a third independent mediator reviewed the literature and performed study screening, selection, methodological assessment, and data extraction using an objective protocol. Results Of 444 studies identified, 13 met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality scores ranged from 59 to 100% with the greatest variability in defining patient characteristics and the methods of assessing patient expectations. Patient expectations were assessed in 22 areas, most frequently back and leg pain expectations and general expectations. Functional outcome was assessed by 13 tools; the most common were the visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Positive expectations for symptomatology, activity, general health, and recovery correlated with satisfaction. General expectations correlated with higher SF-36 Physical Subcomponent scores, better global function, and lower ODI outcome. Conclusions on the influence of the expectations for pain were limited due to the study heterogeneity, but the evidence suggests a positive correlation between the expectation and outcome for back and leg pain. Conclusions Positive expectations correlated significantly with short-term postoperative satisfaction and functional outcome, including higher SF-36 scores, earlier return to work, and decreased ODI scores. Future expectation-based investigations will benefit from implementation of the standardized methods of expectation, satisfaction, and outcome analysis discussed herein.

Project description:BackgroundPrediction calculators can help set outcomes expectations following orthopaedic surgery, however effective implementation strategies for these tools are unknown. This study evaluated provider and patient perspectives on clinical implementation of web-based prediction calculators developed using national prospective spine surgery registry data from the Quality Outcomes Database.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews in two health systems, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and Duke University Health System (DUHS) of orthopedic and neurosurgery health care providers (VUMC: n = 19; DUHS: n = 6), health care administrators (VUMC: n = 9; DUHS: n = 9), and patients undergoing elective spine surgery (VUMC: n = 16). Qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data, with a focus on end-user perspectives regarding clinical implementation of web-based prediction tools.ResultsHealth care providers, administrators and patients overwhelmingly supported the use of the calculators to help set realistic expectations for surgical outcomes. Some clinicians had questions about the validity and applicability of the calculators in their patient population. A consensus was that the calculators needed seamless integration into clinical workflows, but there was little agreement on best methods for selecting which patients to complete the calculators, timing, and mode of completion. Many interviewees expressed concerns that calculator results could influence payers, or expose risk of liability. Few patients expressed concerns over additional survey burden if they understood that the information would directly inform their care.ConclusionsInterviewees had a largely positive opinion of the calculators, believing they could aid in discussions about expectations for pain and functional recovery after spine surgery. No single implementation strategy is likely to be successful, and strategies vary, even within the same healthcare system. Patients should be well-informed of how responses will be used to deliver better care, and concerns over how the calculators could impact payment and liability should be addressed prior to use. Future research is necessary to determine whether use of calculators improves management and outcomes for people seeking a surgical consult for spine pain.

Dataset Information

A Conceptual Model for Spine Surgery Recovery: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Expectations, Experiences, and Satisfaction.

Study design

Objective

Summary of background data

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Conceptual Model for Spine Surgery Recovery: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Expectations, Experiences, and Satisfaction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets