Patient evaluation of early discharge after hip arthroplasty: development of a measure and comparison of three centres with differing durations of stay

Abstract

Objective:

We compared patients’ evaluation of care between a surgical unit with a rapid discharge policy and two comparison units to test the hypothesis that the centre with rapid discharge has outcomes that are not inferior to those of the comparison sites.

Design:

Cross-sectional cohort study.

Subjects:

Consecutive consenting patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty during 12 months in: a unit that had reduced postoperative stay to median three days; a specialised orthopaedic surgery treatment centre with median stay of five days; a traditional unit with median stay of six days (N = 316, 125, 119, respectively).

Methods:

Six weeks postoperatively, patients completed a specially developed questionnaire measuring their evaluation of care and recovery, together with measures of function and quality of life for validation purposes.

Results:

Factor analysis of questionnaire responses identified two independent components of patients’ evaluation: problems in staff care and problems in physical recovery. Neither component was impaired in the unit with rapid discharge: similar proportions of patients reported recovery problems in each site (odds radios (ORs) for the two comparators versus unit with rapid discharge: 0.96, 1.18); and more patients reported care problems in the two comparator sites (ORs 2.97, 2.16).

Conclusion:

Duration of stay after primary hip arthroplasty can be reduced to three days without intensive pre- or postoperative care, without detriment to patient evaluation.

Keywords

Arthroplasty patient satisfaction patient-centred outcome measure length of stay

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Shepperd

Harwood

Jenkinson

Gray

Vessey

Morgan

. Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. I: three month follow up of health outcomes. Brit Med J 1998; 316: 1786–1791.

Jester

Hicks

. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to compare Hospital at Home and in-patient interventions. Part 2. J Clin Nurs 2003; 12: 20–27.

Crowe

Henderson

. Pre-arthroplasty rehabilitation is effective in reducing hospital stay. Can J Occup Ther 2003; 70: 88–96.

Hunt

Crealey

Murthy

BVS

, et al. The consequences of early discharge after hip arthroplasty for patient outcomes and health care costs: comparison of three centres with differing durations of stay. Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 1067–1077.

Caljouw

van Beuzekom

Boer

. Patient’s satisfaction with perioperative care: development, validation, and application of a questionnaire. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100: 637–644.

Stubbe

Gelsema

Delnoij

. The Consumer Quality Index Hip Knee Questionnaire measuring patients’ experiences with quality of care after a total hip or knee arthroplasty. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7: 60.

Myles

Weitkamp

Jones

Melick

Hensen

. Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 11–15.

D’Agostino

Sr Massaro

Sullivan

. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues - the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med 2003; 22: 169–186.

Dawson

Fitzpatrick

Carr

Murray

. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185–190.

10.

Brooks

. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72.

11.

Dolan

. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–1108.

12.

Hunt

Hall

Murthy

BVS

, et al. Early discharge following hip arthroplasty: patients’ acceptance masks doubts and concerns. Health Expect 2009; 12: 130–137.

13.

Tabachnik

Fiddell

. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2007.

14.

Tunes da Silva

Logan

Klein

. Methods for equivalence and noninferiority testing. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15(1 Suppl): 120–127.

15.

Senn

. Consensus and controversy in pharmaceutical statistics. J Roy Stat Soc Series D Statistician 2000; 49: 135–156.

16.

Salmon

Hall

Peerbhoy

Shenkin

Parker

. Recovery from hip and knee arthroplasty: Patients’ perspective on pain, function, quality of life, and well-being up to 6 months postoperatively. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 360–366.

17.

Myles

Williams

Hendrata

Anderson

Weeks

. Patient satisfaction after anaesthesia and surgery: results of a prospective survey of 10,811 patients. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 6–10.

18.

Shepperd

Harwood

Gray

Vessey

Morgan

. Randomised controlled trial comparing hospital at home care with inpatient hospital care. II: cost minimisation analysis. Brit Med J 1998; 316: 1791–1796.

19.

National Audit Office. Hip Replacements: Getting it Right First Time. London: Stationery Office, 2000.

20.

National Audit Office. Hip Replacements: an Update. London, 2003.

21.

Ferrara

Rabini

Maggi

, et al. Effect of pre- operative physiotherapy in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis undergoing hip arthroplasty. Clin Rehabil 2008; 22: 977–986.

22.

Gocen

Sen

Unver

Karatosun

Gunal

. The effect of preoperative physiotherapy and education on the outcome of total hip replacement: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 353–358.

23.

Ackerman

Bennell

. Does pre-operative physiotherapy improve outcomes from lower limb joint replacement surgery? A systematic review. Aust J Physiother 2004; 50: 25–30.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.33 MB