Satisfaction with care is important to both patients
and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely
used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS
as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient
satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending
the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator
of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals
undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university
hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements
and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response. . Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval
(CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR
2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI
2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would
recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined
with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17),
drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation
in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar,
this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different
to satisfaction responses. The difference between
Wear debris released from bearing surfaces has been shown to
provoke negative immune responses in the recipient. Excessive wear
has been linked to early failure of prostheses. Analysis using coordinate
measuring machines (CMMs) can provide estimates of total volumetric
material loss of explanted prostheses and can help to understand
device failure. The accuracy of volumetric testing has been debated,
with some investigators stating that only protocols involving hundreds
of thousands of measurement points are sufficient. We looked to
examine this assumption and to apply the findings to the clinical
arena. We examined the effects on the calculated material loss from
a ceramic femoral head when different CMM scanning parameters were
used. Calculated wear volumes were compared with gold standard gravimetric
tests in a blinded study. Objectives
Methods