Patient-reported outcomes of a short hospital stay after total knee replacement in a regional public hospital: a prospective cohort treated 2018-2019

A pilot model of care to achieve next-day discharge in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty in an Australian public hospital setting

Objectives Internationally, hip or knee arthroplasty (TJA) with a 1-day hospital length of stay (LOS) is common and demonstrates improved patient and health service outcomes. This study aimed to develop and pilot an enhanced recovery program (ERP) for patients undergoing TJA to achieve a next-day discharge in an Australian public hospital setting. Methods A project lead and six perioperative clinical craft group leads developed an ERP protocol based on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles. Strict patient eligibility criteria were developed. Quality improvement methodology was used to implement the ERP. A patient navigator was put in place as a single contact point for patients. Results A total of 825 patients were screened for the ERP and 47 patients completed the protocol. The mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) of the LOS was 34.7 (± 7.2) h with 41 patients (87%) achieving next-day discharge, the remaining six (13%) discharged on Day 2. Compliance with ERAS was high (96%) with mobilisation within 12 h occurring on 87% of occasions. There were no adverse events. Patient experience was positive. Conclusion Next-day discharge was achieved with a selected cohort of patients with no adverse events and positive patient experience, using a multidisciplinary approach and an improvement framework. Broadening inclusion criteria will make ERP available to more patients.

Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantages associated with prolonged length of stay and non-home discharge following revision total hip and knee joint arthroplasty

Background

Discharge disposition and length of stay (LOS) are widely recognized markers of healthcare utilization patterns of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty (TJA). These markers are commonly associated with increased postoperative complications, patient dissatisfaction, and higher costs. Area deprivation index (ADI) has been validated as a composite metric of neighborhood-level disadvantage. This study aims to determine the potential association between ADI and discharge disposition or extended LOS following revision TJA.

Methods

This study conducted a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of revision hip and knee TJA patients from a single tertiary institution. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the association between ADI and discharge disposition or LOS, adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities.

Results

1047 consecutive revision TJA patients were identified across 463 different neighborhoods. 193 (18.4 %) had an extended LOS, and 334 (31.9 %) were discharged to non-home facilities. Compared with Q1 (least deprived cohort), Q2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.63; p = 0.030) and Q4 (most deprived cohort: OR = 2.04; p = 0.002) cohorts demonstrated higher odds of non-home discharge. Patients in the highest ADI quartile (most deprived cohort) were associated with increased odds of prolonged LOS following revision TJA compared to those in the lowest ADI quartile (OR = 2.63; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study suggests that higher levels of neighborhood-level disadvantage may be associated with higher odds of non-home discharge and prolonged LOS following revision TJA. Development of interventions based on the area deprivation index may improve discharge planning and reduce unnecessary non-home discharges in patients living in areas of socioeconomic deprivation.

Implementation of a day-stay joint replacement pathway in an Australian regional public hospital: A descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the implementation, feasibility and safety of a day-stay joint replacement pathway in a regional public hospital in Australia.

METHOD

Over a 12-month pilot period, a prospective descriptive analysis of consecutive patients undergoing total knee and hip arthroplasty was conducted. The number of eligible day-stay patients, proportion of successful same-day discharges and reasons for same-day failure to discharge were recorded. Outcome measures captured for all joint replacements across this period included length of stay (LoS), patient reported outcomes, complications and patient satisfaction. The implementation pathway as well as patient and staff identified success factors derived from interviews were outlined.

RESULTS

Forty-one/246 (17%) patients booked for joint replacement surgery were eligible for day-stay and 21/41 (51%) achieved a successful same-day discharge. Unsuccessful same-day discharges were due to time of surgery too late in the day (7/20), no longer meeting same-day discharge criteria (11/20) and declined discharge same-day (2/20). Over the implementation period 65% (162/246) of all patients were discharged with a LoS of 2 days or less. Patient satisfaction for the day-stay pathway was high. Complication rates and patient-reported outcomes were equivalent across LoS groups.

CONCLUSION

The day-stay joint replacement surgery pathway was feasible to implement, safe and acceptable to patients. Day-stay pathways have potential patient and system-level efficiency benefits.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-stay programmes for total hip and knee replacement, focusing on safety and optimal patient selection

BACKGROUND

Short-stay joint replacement programmes are used in many countries but there has been little scrutiny of safety outcomes in the literature. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the safety of short-stay programmes versus usual care for total hip (THR) and knee replacement (KR), and optimal patient selection.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies including a comparator group reporting on 14 safety outcomes (hospital readmissions, reoperations, blood loss, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, neurovascular injury, other complications, periprosthetic fractures, postoperative falls, venous thromboembolism, wound complications, dislocation, stiffness) within 90 days postoperatively in adults ≥ 18 years undergoing primary THR or KR were included. Secondary outcomes were associations between patient demographics or clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. Four databases were searched between January 2000 and May 2023. Risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included. Based upon low certainty RCT evidence, short-stay programmes may not reduce readmission (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.12-7.43); blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.27-11.36); neurovascular injury (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01-7.92); other complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26-1.53); or stiffness (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53-2.05). For registry studies, there was no difference in readmission, infection, neurovascular injury, other complications, venous thromboembolism, or wound complications but there were reductions in mortality and dislocations. For interrupted time series studies, there was no difference in readmissions, reoperations, blood loss volume, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, or neurovascular injury; reduced odds of blood transfusion and other complications, but increased odds of periprosthetic fracture. For other observational studies, there was an increased risk of readmission, no difference in blood loss volume, infection, other complications, or wound complications, reduced odds of requiring blood transfusion, reduced mortality, and reduced venous thromboembolism. One study examined an outcome relevant to optimal patient selection; it reported comparable blood loss for short-stay male and female participants (p = 0.814).

CONCLUSIONS

There is low certainty evidence that short-stay programmes for THR and KR may have non-inferior 90-day safety outcomes. There is little evidence on factors informing optimal patient selection; this remains an important knowledge gap.

Stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs: results from a national cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The capacity to meet anticipated growth in joint replacement demand requires safe, efficient models of care. While short-stay joint replacement programs are being used internationally, they have not been widely implemented in many countries. Importantly, the critical challenges that need to be addressed ahead of large-scale program implementation remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs, including perceived barriers and enablers to implementation and sustainability, and understand current practices in Australia.

METHODS

Four key stakeholder groups were invited to participate in this national study: (1) health professionals who provide joint replacement care; (2) hospital administrators involved in joint replacement provision; (3) patients with recent joint replacement; and (4) carers of people with recent joint replacement. Data on perceived feasibility (0 (not at all feasible) - 10 (highly feasible), appeal (0 (not at all appealing) - 10 (highly appealing), current practices, and barriers and enablers were collected using visual analogue scales, multiple response option and open-ended questions, via an online platform. Descriptive analysis and free-text content analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Data were available from 1,445 participants including 360 health professionals, 20 hospital administrators, 1,034 patients, and 31 carers. Short-stay program implementation was considered moderately feasible by health professionals (median 6, interquartile range (IQR) 3-8) and hospital administrators (median 5, IQR 5-6). Short-stay programs were moderately appealing to patients (median 7, IQR 2-9) but of little appeal to carers (median 3, IQR 1-7). Prominent implementation barriers included perceived limited appropriateness of short-stay programs, inadequate home supports, and issues around reimbursement models or program funding. Not having daily physiotherapy access and concerns about pain and mobility at home were common barriers for patients. Concern about patients' ability to manage daily activities was the most common barrier for carers. Access to post-discharge services, better funding models, improved staffing, and consistent protocols and national care standards were prominent enablers.

CONCLUSIONS

This national study has uniquely captured multiple stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs. The findings can guide future quality improvement and implementation initiatives and the development of resources to best support patients, carers, clinicians, and hospitals.