| Literature DB >> 28331990 |
N D Clement1, D Macdonald2, R Burnett3, A H R W Simpson3,2, C R Howie3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To assess whether patient satisfaction with their hospital stay influences the early outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Entities:
Keywords: Experience; Hospital; Outcome; Satisfaction; Stay; Total knee arthroplasty
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28331990 PMCID: PMC5401709 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-017-2661-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ISSN: 0936-8051 Impact factor: 3.067
Patient demographics and pre-operative functional scores according to their level of satisfaction with hospital stay
| Demographic | Descriptive | Cohort ( | Level of satisfaction with hospital stay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent ( | Very good ( | Good ( | Fair ( | Poor ( | |||
| Gender ( | Male | 963 (36.1) | 341 (48.2) | 355 (41.6) | 153 (35.7) | 75 (40.8) | 39 (43.8) |
| Female | 1301 (48.8) | 367 (51.8) | 499 (58.4) | 276 (64.3) | 109 (59.2) | 50 (56.2) | |
| Age (years: mean, SD) | 70.4 (9.3) | 70.3 (9.1) | 70.6 (9.4) | 71.0 (9.3) | 69.8 (9.8) | 68.2 (8.50) | |
| Comorbidity ( | Heart disease | 357 (13.4) | 102 (14.4) | 121 (14.2) | 81 (18.9) | 31 (16.8) | 22 (24.7) |
| Hypertension | 956 (35.9) | 295 (41.7) | 342 (40.0) | 190 (44.3) | 88 (47.8) | 41 (46.1) | |
| Lung disease | 225 (8.4) | 78 (11.0) | 69 (8.1) | 44 (10.2) | 25 (13.6) | 9 (10.1) | |
| Vascular disease | 109 (4.1) | 27 (3.8) | 36 (4.2) | 29 (6.8) | 12 (6.5) | 5 (5.6) | |
| Neurological disease | 100 (3.8) | 28 (4.0) | 32 (3.7) | 28 (6.5) | 11 (6.0) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Diabetes mellitus | 265 (9.9) | 86 (12.1) | 93 (10.9) | 47 (11.0) | 25 (13.6) | 14 (15.7) | |
| Gastric ulceration | 96 (3.6) | 35 (4.9) | 30 (3.5) | 19 (4.4) | 11 (6.0) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Kidney disease | 54 (2.0) | 17 (2.4) | 12 (1.4) | 14 (3.3) | 8 (4.3) | 3 (3.4) | |
| Liver disease | 37 (1.4) | 10 (1.4) | 11 (1.3) | 14 (3.3) | 1 (0.5) | 1 (1.1) | |
| Anaemia | 135 (5.1) | 39 (5.5) | 44 (5.2) | 40 (9.3) | 10 (5.4) | 2 (2.2) | |
| Back pain | 792 (29.7) | 215 (30.4) | 291 (34.1) | 167 (38.9) | 84 (45.7) | 35 (39.3) | |
| Depression | 237 (8.9) | 48 (6.8) | 84 (9.8) | 57 (13.3) | 34 (18.5) | 14 (15.7) | |
| Length of stay (days: mean, SD) | 6.0 (2.9) | 5.8 (2.8) | 6.0 (3.0) | 6.2 (2.9) | 6.2 (3.1) | 6.2 (3.0) | |
| Prosthesis ( | PFC | 773 (34.1) | 234 (33.1) | 297 (34.8) | 148 (34.5) | 68 (37.0) | 26 (29.2) |
| Triathlon | 1233 (54.5) | 387 (54.7) | 458 (53.6) | 233 (54.3) | 96 (52.2) | 59 (66.3) | |
| Kinemax | 258 (11.4) | 87 (12.3) | 99 (11.6) | 48 (11.2) | 20 (10.9) | 4 (4.5) | |
| Functional measures | |||||||
| OKS | Pre-operative (SD) | 18.9 (7.5) | 19.3 (8.1) | 19.4 (7.2) | 18.4 (7.4) | 17.5 (7.0) | 16.9 (7.1) |
| SF-12 PCS | Pre-operative (SD) | 29.4 (7.2) | 29.9 (7.9) | 29.6 (7.0) | 28.7 (6.6) | 28.6 (6.8) | 29.5 (7.6) |
| SF-12 MCS | Pre-operative (SD) | 47.7 (12.0) | 50.0 (11.5) | 48.5 (11.5) | 45.4 (11.7) | 44.1 (12.9) | 41.0 (13.8) |
Fig. 1Pre-operative OKS (diagonal lines), SF-12 PCS (dots) and MCS (grey) according to level of patient satisfaction with their hospital experience. 95% confidence interval error bars
Logistic regression analysis to identify independent pre-operative predictors of good to excellent satisfaction with hospital stay
| Predictors in model | Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Gender | 1.09 | 0.82 | 1.37 | 0.57 |
| Age | 1.01 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 0.15 |
| Comorbidity | ||||
| Heart disease | 0.76 | 0.53 | 1.12 | 0.14 |
| Hypertension | 0.86 | 0.65 | 1.14 | 0.30 |
| Lung disease | 0.89 | 0.57 | 1.33 | 0.60 |
| Vascular disease | 0.71 | 0.38 | 1.33 | 0.28 |
| Neurological disease | 1.19 | 0.58 | 1.90 | 0.64 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.85 | 0.56 | 1.25 | 0.42 |
| Gastric ulceration | 1.40 | 0.66 | 2.16 | 0.38 |
| Kidney disease | 0.38 | 0.16 | 1.27 |
|
| Liver disease | 10.47 | 1.13 | 12.70 | 0.05 |
| Anaemia | 1.74 | 0.87 | 2.43 | 0.12 |
| Back pain | 0.75 | 0.56 | 1.04 |
|
| Depression | 0.80 | 0.53 | 1.21 | 0.28 |
| Length of stay | 0.99 | 0.94 | 1.03 | 0.56 |
| Prosthesis | ||||
| PFC | Reference | |||
| Triathlon | 0.91 | 0.69 | 1.22 | 0.53 |
| Kinemax | 1.25 | 0.76 | 2.05 | 0.38 |
| Functional measures | ||||
| OKS | 1.01 | 0.99 | 1.04 | 0.27 |
| SF-12 PCS | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.02 | 0.82 |
| SF-12 MCS | 1.03 | 1.02 | 1.04 | < |
All variables (in Table 1) were all entered into the model using “enter” methodology (Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.06)
Significant values (p < 0.05) have been highlighted in bold
Post-operative outcome measures and the difference relative to pre-operative scores and satisfaction rate for the all patients and according to their level of satisfaction with hospital stay
| Score | All patients ( | Level of satisfaction with hospital stay |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent ( | Very good ( | Good ( | Fair ( | Poor ( | |||
| OKS (SD) | 34.3 (10.1) | 38.1 (8.4) | 35.3 (9.1) | 31.1 (9.7) | 27.2 (11.0) | 24.3 (12.2) | <0.0001* |
| Difference (95% CI) | 15.4 (15.0–15.7) | 18.9 (18.2–19.5) | 15.9 (15.3–16.5) | 12.8 (11.9–13.6) | 9.5 (8.2–10.9) | 8.0 (5.8–10.1) | <0.0001* |
|
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| PCS (SD) | 39.5 (10.7) | 43.2 (10.8) | 40.4 (9.9) | 35.8 (9.9) | 33.5 (9.5) | 33.2 (10.1) | <0.0001* |
| Difference (95% CI) | 10.1 (9.7–10.6) | 13.3 (12.5–14.1) | 10.9 (10.1–11.6) | 7.1 (6.2–8.0) | 4.9 (3.4 to 6.3) | 3.8 (1.7–5.9) | <0.0001* |
|
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.001 | |
| MCS (SD) | 51.1 (10.6) | 53.9 (9.2) | 51.9 (10.2) | 48.8 (10.6) | 44.8 (11.5) | 44.8 (12.5) | <0.0001* |
| Difference (95% CI) | 3.4 (2.9 –3.9) | 3.9 (3.0–4.8) | 3.4 (2.6 –4.1) | 3.4 (2.3–4.6) | 0.9 (−1.2–2.9) | 3.8 (0.7–6.9) | 0.06* |
|
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.41 | 0.02 | |
| Satisfied | 1877 (84.8) | 669 (94.5) | 763 (89.4) | 316 (74.0) | 92 (50.3) | 37 (42.0) | <0.001† |
| Unsatisfied ( | 382 (15.2) | 39 (5.5) | 90 (10.6) | 111 (26.0) | 91 (49.7) | 51 (58.0) | |
*ANOVA, **Paired t test, †Chi square test
Fig. 2Post-operative OKS (diagonal lines), SF-12 PCS (dots) and MCS (grey) according to level of patient satisfaction with their hospital experience. 95% confidence interval error bars
Fig. 3Improvement in OKS (diagonal lines), SF-12 PCS (dots) and MCS (grey) 1 year after TKA according to level of patient satisfaction with their hospital experience. 95% confidence interval error bars
Multivariable linear regression analysis to identify independent predictors of change in OKS, SF-12 PCS and MCS 1 year after TKA
| Model | Variable |
|
| 95% CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Change in OKS | Excellent | 0.38 | Reference | |||
| Very good | −2.51 | −3.30 | −1.72 | <0.001 | ||
| Good | −5.51 | −6.48 | −4.53 | <0.001 | ||
| Fair | −8.92 | −10.26 | −7.57 | <0.001 | ||
| Poor | −10.13 | −11.98 | −8.27 | <0.001 | ||
| Change in SF-12 PCS | Excellent | 0.44 | Reference | |||
| Very good | −2.13 | −3.00 | −1.72 | <0.001 | ||
| Good | −4.93 | −6.00 | −3.97 | <0.001 | ||
| Fair | −6.53 | −8.00 | −5.07 | <0.001 | ||
| Poor | −5.92 | −8.00 | −3.84 | <0.001 | ||
| Change in SF-12 MCS | Excellent | 0.59 | Reference | |||
| Very good | −1.18 | −2.02 | −034 | 0.006 | ||
| Good | −3.21 | −4.30 | −2.13 | <0.001 | ||
| Fair | −6.33 | −7.79 | 4.86 | <0.001 | ||
| Poor | −5.82 | −7.81 | −3.82 | <0.001 | ||
All variables (in Table 1) were entered into each model using “enter” methodology
Fig. 4Number of patients satisfied (black) and not satisfied (grey) with their TKA 1 year after surgery according to level of patient satisfaction with their hospital experience
Logistic regression analysis to identify the independent effect of perceived satisfaction of hospital stay on patient satisfaction with their TKA 1 year following surgery after adjusting for confounding variables
| Level of satisfaction with hospital stay |
| Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Excellent | 0.39 | Reference | |||
| Very good | 0.49 | 0.32 | 0.74 | 0.001 | |
| Good | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.24 | <0.0001 | |
| Fair | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.10 | <0.0001 | |
| Poor | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.09 | <0.0001 | |
All variables significant (in Table 1) were entered into the model using “enter” methodology
*Nagelkerke
Fig. 5A word cloud illustrating the declared worst aspects of the patients’ hospital stay for the study cohort. The larger the word the more frequent patients used this to describe their stay
Reasons why patients perceived their hospital stay as fair of poor
| Worst aspect of hospital stay ( | Fair ( | Poor ( |
|---|---|---|
| Food | 45 (24.5) | 15 (16.8) |
| Staff/care | 36 (19.6) | 26 (29.2) |
| Environment | 48 (26.1) | 22 (24.7) |
| Pain | 14 (7.6) | 7 (7.9) |
| Complication | 16 (8.7) | 11 (12.4) |
| Multiple of above | 22 (12.0) | 7 (7.9) |
| Other | 3 (1.6) | 1 (1.1) |