The primary aim was to assess change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients as they waited from six to 12 months for a total hip (THA) or total or partial knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess change in joint-specific function, mental health, quality of sleep, number living in a state worse than death (WTD), wellbeing, and patient satisfaction with their healthcare. This prospective study included 142 patients awaiting a THA (mean age 66.7 years (SD 11.4); 71 female) and 214 patients awaiting KA (mean age 69.7 years (SD 8.7); 117 female). Patients completed questionnaires (EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire (EQ-5D), Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS), University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale, wellbeing assessment, and satisfaction with their healthcare) at six and 12 months while awaiting surgery.Aims
Methods
The EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire is a widely used multiattribute general health questionnaire where an EQ-5D < 0 defines a state ‘worse than death’ (WTD). The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in a health state WTD and to identify associations with this state. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of WTD status on one-year outcomes. A cross-sectional analysis of 2073 patients undergoing 2073 THAs (mean age 67.4 years (Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this study was to identify predictors of return to
work (RTW) after revision lower limb arthroplasty in patients of
working age in the United Kingdom. We assessed 55 patients aged ≤ 65 years after revision total
hip arthroplasty (THA). There were 43 women and 12 men with a mean
age of 54 years (23 to 65). We also reviewed 30 patients after revision
total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There were 14 women and 16 men with
a mean age of 58 years (48 to 64). Preoperatively, age, gender,
body mass index, social deprivation, mode of failure, length of
primary implant survival, work status and nature, activity level
(University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score), and Oxford
Hip and Knee Scores were recorded. Postoperatively, RTW status,
Oxford Hip and Knee Scores, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), UCLA score, and
Work, Osteoarthritis and Joint-Replacement Questionnaire (WORQ)
scores were obtained. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed.Aims
Patients and Methods
To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12)
as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in
a United Kingdom population. All patients undergoing surgery between January and August 2014
were eligible for inclusion. Prospective data were collected from
205 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 231 patients
undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Outcomes were assessed
with the FJS-12 and the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) pre-operatively,
then at six and 12 months post-operatively. Internal consistency,
convergent validity, effect size, relative validity and ceiling
effects were determined.Aims
Patients and Methods
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 THR (NPS 71) and
TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department
should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the
Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to
our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery. Cite this article:
