Do Patients Accurately Represent Their Experiences After Hip and Knee Replacements?
arthroplasty
patient-reported outcome measures
postoperative complications
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jan 2021
17 Jan 2021
Historique:
entrez:
22
2
2021
pubmed:
23
2
2021
medline:
23
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background To investigate discrepancies, if any, between the complications that patients report on the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire and what is formally recorded in their medical records. Methodology A retrospective analysis of PROMs-reported complications was performed at a single elective center for all patients who had an elective primary total knee or hip replacement between April 2016 and March 2017. Corresponding patient medical records were then analyzed to correlate the PROMs with any documentation of postoperative complications, which similar to the PROMs data were categorized into wound complications, urinary complications, readmission, and further operative procedures. Results A set of 54 complete patient records were compared to the corresponding PROMs data. The combined overall positive predictive value was 0.47 while the overall negative predictive value was 0.91. Concordance between patients and the medical records was 70.4% for wound complication, 66.7% for urinary complications, 83.3% for readmission, and 96.3% for reoperation. Conclusion PROMs data are becoming increasingly important in auditing and planning healthcare provision. This study highlights a significant level of discrepancy between the PROMs-reported complication rates and those documented in the medical records. There is a visible disparity between patient perception and the medical definition of postoperative complications. Further patient education and empowerment are required in preparation for arthroplasty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33614344
doi: 10.7759/cureus.12745
pmc: PMC7886602
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e12745Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021, Ashdown et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Aug;94(8):1120-5
pubmed: 22844056
Anaesthesia. 2009 Jun;64(6):694-5
pubmed: 19453336
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 Jan;36(1):S55-S60
pubmed: 31933608
BMJ. 2013 Jan 28;346:f167
pubmed: 23358487
Patient Saf Surg. 2011 Nov 22;5(1):30
pubmed: 22107603
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Jan;80(1):63-9
pubmed: 9460955
J Hosp Infect. 2002 Nov;52(3):155-60
pubmed: 12419265
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Dec;26(8):1338-42
pubmed: 21256700
Bone Joint J. 2015 Jan;97-B(1):10-8
pubmed: 25568407
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86(5):963-74
pubmed: 15118039
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Aug;27(7):1310-5
pubmed: 22197286
Bone Joint J. 2018 Dec;100-B(12):1572-1578
pubmed: 30499320
Bone Joint J. 2013 Sep;95-B(9):1153-5
pubmed: 23997123
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Aug;89(8):1010-4
pubmed: 17785736
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jan 11;19(1):15
pubmed: 30634917
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Aug;83(8):1149-56
pubmed: 11507122
Lancet. 2012 Mar 31;379(9822):1199-204
pubmed: 22417410
World J Surg. 2017 Aug;41(8):1935-1942
pubmed: 28271262
Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2019 Jul 10;10:217-226
pubmed: 31372076
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jan;474(1):246-55
pubmed: 26472587
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Nov;33(11):3416-3421
pubmed: 30057269