Patient Reported Outcomes in Orthopedics

Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) play a central role in the field of orthopedics. In clinical research, PROMs have been used for decades as the gold standard to measure health status (e.g. symptoms or physical disability) and quality of life from the patient’s perspective.1,2 PROMs expand the clinician’s understanding of their patients’ experience throughout the course of a therapy and open up new possibilities in routine care.

Orthopedics 1

Orthopedics 2

Use Outcomes to Deliver High Quality Care and Drive Innovation

Utilization of routinely collected PROM data can significantly improve the delivery of care for patients. In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), Baker et al. used the British joint registry and demonstrated that the use of the implant of a particular manufacturer significantly improved Oxford Knee Score (OKS) results.3 Moverley et al. showed that preservation of the infrapatella fat pad (IFP) during TKA significantly improved OKS and EQ-5D results.4 Following these publications, a British hospital consortium subsequently switched to the corresponding implant manufacturer, implemented IFP preservation and was therefore able to significantly improve the OKS and EQ-5D-3L results of its own patients.5

heartbeat ONE enables orthopedic specialists to routinely collect PROMs and to deliver high quality care tailored to their patients’ needs.

Find out what we offer in the field of orthopedics for:

“By collecting Patient Reported Outcomes in our everyday clinical routine, we constantly review our own treatment quality for the benefit of our patients.”

Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Imhoff – Head of Sport Orthopedics, University Hospital Munich Rechts der Isar (MRI)


Start using PROMs in your orthopedic clinic

It is important to us at heartbeat medical to drive progress in the area of PROMs. That is why we strive to make the implementation of the method as simple and uncomplicated as possible.

In our white paper, we describe the current state of the art and potential of PROMs in osteoarthritis of the knee. If you are interested, you are welcome to download our whitepaper without obligation.

heartbeat PRO Sets in Orthopedics

To ensure the highest standard of data collection, we offer condition-specific outcome-sets and can support you with the implementation of scientifically validated and time-tested instruments to collect Patient Reported Outcomes:

Orthopedics 3

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

Orthopedics 4

heartbeat PRO Sets
(Patient- & Clinician-reported)

Orthopedics 5

Clinician-Reported
Outcome Measures 

Disease-specific instruments
Generic instruments

*upcoming

Scientific publications on Patient Reported Outcomes
in Orthopedics

Proven benefits of collecting Patient Reported Outcomes in Orthopedics include:

Identification and implementation of superior
implants and surgical technique in total knee arthroplasty based on PROMs

Baker et al., using the British joint registry, demonstrated in 2012 that the use of the implant of a particular manufacturer significantly improved Oxford Knee Scores (OKS). Moverley et al. showed in 2014
that preservation of the infrapatella fat pad (IFP) significantly improved OKS and EQ-5D results. Following the publication of those results, a British hospital consortium consecutively switched to the corresponding implant manufacturer, implemented IFP preservation and was therefore able to significantly improve the treatment outcome of its own patients.

References
  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims (2015).
  2. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products (2005).
  3. Baker P, Deehan D, Lees D et al. The effect of surgical factors on early patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following total knee replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British volume 2012;94-B(8):1058-1066.
  4. Moverley R, Williams D, Bardakos N, Field R. Removal of the infrapatella fat pad during total knee arthroplasty: does it affect patient outcomes?. International Orthopaedics 2014;38(12):2483-2487.
  5. Partridge T, Carluke I, Emmerson K, Partington P, Reed M. Improving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in total knee replacement by changing implant and preserving the infrapatella fatpad: a quality improvement project. BMJ Quality Improvement Reports 2016;5(1):u204088.w3767.