header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

“HOW ARE YOU NOW?”: A DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCORDANCE BETWEEN PATIENTS’ AND CLINICIANS’ VIEW OF OUTCOME AFTER A FRACTURE.



Abstract

Clinicians ask patients “How are you now?” to ascertain treatment outcomes and to set a plan for subsequent care. However, sometimes patient views do not agree with those of the clinicians. This study compared patient and clinician views of outcome one to two years after an operatively managed extremity fracture and described any discordance. There were significant differences between groups, especially in areas such as pain and disruption of their personal and work lives. A discordance was observed between patient and physician views of recovery after fracture, likely associated with disruptions to personal life, unaccounted for in a clinician’s view of outcome.

Clinicians ask patients “How are you now?” to ascertain treatment outcomes and to set a plan for subsequent care. However, sometimes patient views differ from those of clinicians’.

The purpose of this study is to compare patient and clinician views of outcome one to two years after an extremity fracture and to describe any discordance.

Cross-sectional survey of patients one to two years after an operatively managed upper or lower extremity fracture. Patients were recruited from two tertiary care centres and completed a mailback questionnaire that included measures of health (DASH, SMFA), self-rated recovery, burden of illness (Illness Intrusiveness, Loss of self), symptoms, and work status. These were linked with clinical records of radiologic and clinical recovery.

Two hundred and fifty-five patients returned usable questionnaires. Mean age was forty-two years and 42% were female. Sixty-seven patients said that they were completely better (CB), one hundred and thirty-four almost better (AB) and fifty-four not completely better (NCB). Significant differences were found between groups. In four variables, NCB was distinct from AB/CB, while in all other variables, such as pain, disability and disruption of their personal and work lives, all three groups were unique (Duncan’s post hoc). However, of the patients who said they were not better, the radiologist and clinician reports stated that thirty (68%) and twenty-eight (64%) were healed, respectively.

A discordance was observed between patient and physician views of recovery after fracture. It appeared associated with disruptions to personal life that may not be accounted for in a clinician’s view of outcome.

Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

Correspondence should be addressed to Cynthia Vezina, Communications Manager, COA, 4150-360 Ste. Catherine St. West, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada