The COVID-19 pandemic led to a national suspension of “non-urgent” elective hip and knee arthroplasty. The study aims to measure the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) volume in Scotland. Secondary objectives are to measure the success of restarting elective services and model the time required to bridge the gap left by the first period of suspension. A retrospective observational study using the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset. All patients undergoing elective THAs and TKAs during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2020 were included. A negative binomial regression model using historical case-volume and mid-year population estimates was built to project the future case-volume of THA and TKA in Scotland. The median monthly case volume was calculated for the period 2008 to 2019 (baseline) and compared to the actual monthly case volume for 2020. The time taken to eliminate the deficit was calculated based upon the projected monthly workload and with a potential workload between 100% to 120% of baseline.Aims
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
To assess the responsiveness and ceiling/floor effects of the Forgotten Joint Score -12 and to compare these with that of the more widely used Oxford Hip Score (OHS) in patients six and 12 months after primary total hip arthroplasty. We prospectively collected data at six and 12 months following total hip arthroplasty from 193 patients undergoing surgery at a single centre. Ceiling effects are outlined with frequencies for patients obtaining the lowest or highest possible score. Change over time from six months to 12 months post-surgery is reported as effect size (Cohen’s d).Objectives
Methods
The Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) have been demonstrated
to vary according to age and gender, making it difficult to compare
results in cohorts with different demographics. The aim of this
paper was to calculate reference values for different patient groups
and highlight the concept of normative reference data to contextualise an
individual’s outcome. We accessed prospectively collected OHS and OKS data for patients
undergoing lower limb joint arthroplasty at a single orthopaedic
teaching hospital during a five-year period.
T-scores were calculated based on the OHS and OKS distributions. Objectives
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:
