Browsing by Author "Harman, Jeffrey S"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A value proposition for early physical therapist management of neck pain: a retrospective cohort analysis.
    (BMC Health Serv Res, 2016-07-12) Horn, Maggie E; Brennan, Gerard P; George, Steven Z; Harman, Jeffrey S; Bishop, Mark D
    BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the most common reasons for entry into the healthcare system. Recent increases in healthcare utilization and medical costs have not correlated with improvements in health. Therefore there is a need to identify management strategies for neck pain that are effective for the patient, cost efficient for the payer and provided at the optimal time during an episode of neck pain. METHODS: One thousand five hundred thirty-one patients who underwent physical therapist management with a primary complaint of non-specific neck pain from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 were identified from the Rehabilitation Outcomes Management System (ROMS) database at Intermountain Healthcare. Patients reporting duration of symptoms less than 4 weeks were designated as undergoing "early" management and patients with duration of symptoms greater than 4 weeks were designated as receiving "delayed" management. These groups were compared using binary logistic regression to examine odds of achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) on the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Separate generalized linear modeling examined the effect of timing of physical therapist management on the metrics of value and efficiency. RESULTS: Patients who received early physical therapist management had increased odds of achieving MCID on the NDI (aOR = 2.01, 95 % CI 1.57, 2.56) and MCID on the NPRS (aOR = 1.82, 95 % CI 1.42, 2.38), when compared to patients receiving delayed management. Patients who received early management demonstrated the greatest value in decreasing disability with a 2.27 percentage point change in NDI score per 100 dollars, best value in decreasing pain with a 0.38 point change on the NPRS per 100 dollars. Finally, patients receiving early management were managed more efficiently with a 3.44 percentage point change in NDI score per visit and 0.57 point change in NPRS score per visit. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that healthcare systems that provide pathways for patients to receive early physical therapist management of neck pain may realize improved patient outcomes, greater value and higher efficiency in decreasing disability and pain compared to delayed management. Further research is needed to confirm this assertion.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Clinical Outcomes, Utilization, and Charges in Persons With Neck Pain Receiving Guideline Adherent Physical Therapy.
    (Eval Health Prof, 2016-12) Horn, Maggie E; Brennan, Gerard P; George, Steven Z; Harman, Jeffrey S; Bishop, Mark D
    In efforts to decrease practice variation, clinical practice guidelines for neck pain have been published. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of receiving guideline adherent physical therapy (PT) on clinical outcomes, health care utilization, and charges for health care services in patients with neck pain. A retrospective review of 298 patients with neck pain receiving PT from 2008 to 2011 was performed. Clinical outcomes, utilization, and charges were compared between patients who received guideline adherent care and nonadherent care. Patients in the adherent care group experienced a lower percentage improvement in pain score compared to nonadherent care group (p = .01), but groups did not significantly differ on percentage improvement in disability (p = .32). However, patients receiving adherent care had an average 3.6 fewer PT visits (p < .001) and less charges for PT (p < .001). Additionally, patients receiving adherent care had 7.3 fewer visits to other health care providers (p < .001), one less prescription medication (p = .02) and 43% fewer diagnostic images (p = .02) but did not differ in their charges to other health care providers (p = .68) during the calendar year of undergoing PT. Although receiving guideline adherent care demonstrated positive effects on health care utilization and financial outcomes, there appears to be a trade-off with clinical outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Description of Common Clinical Presentations and Associated Short-Term Physical Therapy Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Neck Pain.
    (Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2015-10) Horn, Maggie E; Brennan, Gerard P; George, Steven Z; Harman, Jeffrey S; Bishop, Mark D
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of clinical presentations of neck pain on short-term physical therapy outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of pair-matched groups from a clinical cohort. SETTING: Thirteen outpatient physical therapy clinics in 1 health care system. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=1069) grouped by common clinical presentations of neck pain: nonspecific neck pain (NSNP) with duration <4 weeks; NSNP with duration >4 weeks; neck pain with arm pain; neck pain with headache; and neck pain from whiplash. INTERVENTION: Conservative interventions provided by physical therapists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Neck Disability Index (NDI) and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) recorded at the initial and last visits. The main outcome of interest was achieving recovery status on the NDI. Changes in NDI and NPRS were compared between clinical presentation groups. RESULTS: Compared with patients presenting with NSNP >4 weeks, patients with NSNP <4 weeks had increased odds of achieving recovery status on the NDI (P<.0001) and demonstrated the greatest changes in clinical outcomes of pain (P≤.0001) and disability (P≤.0001). Patients with neck pain and arm pain demonstrated an increased odds of achieving recovery status on the NDI (P=.04) compared with patients presenting with NSNP >4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Treating patients with NSNP within <4 weeks of onset of symptoms may lead to improved clinical outcomes from physical therapy compared with other common clinical presentations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Implications of practice setting on clinical outcomes and efficiency of care in the delivery of physical therapy services.
    (J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2014-12) Childs, John D; Harman, Jeffrey S; Rodeghero, Jason R; Horn, Maggie; George, Steven Z
    STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of episodes of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the implications of practice setting (hospital outpatient settings versus private practice) on clinical outcomes and efficiency of care in the delivery of physical therapy services. BACKGROUND: Many patients with musculoskeletal conditions benefit from care provided by physical therapists. The majority of physical therapists deliver services in either a private practice setting or in a hospital outpatient setting. There have not been any recent studies comparing whether clinical outcomes or efficiency of care differ based on practice setting. METHODS: Practices that use the Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes, Inc system were surveyed to determine the specific type of setting in which outcomes were collected in patients with musculoskeletal impairments. Patient outcome data over 12 months (2011-2012) were extracted from the database and analyzed to identify differences in the functional status achieved and the efficiency of the care delivery process between private practices and hospital outpatient settings. RESULTS: The data suggest that patients experience more efficient care when receiving physical therapy in hospital outpatient settings compared to private practice settings, as demonstrated by 3.1 points of greater improvement in functional status over 2.9 fewer physical therapy visits. However, the difference in improvement between settings is less than the minimum clinically important difference of 9 points in functional status outcome score. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, our data suggest that more efficient care was delivered in the hospital outpatient setting compared to the private practice setting. However, we cannot conclude that care delivered in the hospital setting is more cost-effective, because it is possible that any difference in efficiency of care favoring the hospital outpatient setting is more than offset by higher costs of care.