Abstract
Oxford hip and knee scores are being used by many heath care commissioners to determine whether individual patients are eligible for joint replacement surgery. Oxford scores were not designed for use in deciding whether patients are suitable for surgery and they are not validated as a triage tool. The aim of this study was to assess what effect these predetermined threshold Oxford Scores would have on a contemporary patient cohort.
An analysis was undertaken of 4254 pre-operative Oxford scores in patients who had already undergone either hip resurfacing, a total hip, total knee or unicompartmental knee replacement surgery at our institution between 2008 and 2011. We assessed how these scores would affect the decision making pathway determining which patients would be eligible for joint replacement surgery. We also evaluated the effects this would have on patients undergoing surgery in terms of gender, sex, age and type of arthroplasty.
22.4% hip resurfacings, 10.0% of total hip replacements, 7.5% total knee replacements and 11.0% unicompartmental knee replacements would have been declined on the Oxford Scores system. The selection criteria as set by the health care commissioners was found to be ageist as there was a bias against older patients obtaining surgery. There was a bias against different forms of arthroplasty, particularly those patients suitable for resurfacing or unicompartmental knee replacement. It was also sexist as it selectively excluded male patients from surgery.
Rather than using pre-operative Oxford scores to discern which patients are eligible for surgery, evaluation of patient factors which are reported to adversely affect the outcome of hip and knee replacement surgery, may offer a better solution to improving quality of care. Oxford scores are undertaken to benchmark a providers performance and not to decide on an individual's suitability for surgery.
