The effect of waiting time on health-related quality of life, pain, and physical function in patients awaiting primary total hip replacement: a randomized controlled trial

The impact of waiting time for orthopaedic consultation on pain levels in individuals with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Time spent waiting for access to orthopaedic specialist health services has been suggested to result in increased pain in individuals with osteoarthritis (OA). We assessed whether time spent on an orthopaedic waiting list resulted in a detrimental effect on pain levels in patients with knee or hip OA.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBSCOhost databases from inception until September 2021. Eligible articles included individuals with OA on an orthopaedic waitlist and not receiving active treatment, and reported pain measures at two or more time points. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled effect of waiting time on pain levels. Meta-regression was used to determine predictors of effect size.

RESULTS

Thirty-three articles were included (n = 2,490 participants, 67 ± 3 years and 62% female). The range of waiting time was 2 weeks to 2 years (20.8 ± 18.8 weeks). There was no significant change in pain over time (effect size = 0.082, 95% CI = -0.009, 0.172), nor was the length of time associated with longitudinal changes in pain over time (β = 0.004, 95% CI = -0.005, 0.012). Body mass index was a significant predictor of pain (β = -0.043, 95% CI = -0.079, 0.006), whereas age and sex were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain remained stable for up to 1 year in patients with OA on an orthopaedic waitlist. Future research is required to understand whether pain increases in patients waiting longer than 1 year.

Supporting COVID-19 elective recovery through scalable wait list modelling: Specialty-level application to all hospitals in England

The recovery of elective waiting lists represents a major challenge and priority for the health services of many countries. In England’s National Health Service (NHS), the waiting list has increased by 45% in the two years since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in March 2020. Long waits associate with worse patient outcomes and can deepen inequalities and lead to additional demands on healthcare resources. Modelling the waiting list can be valuable for both estimating future trajectories and considering alternative capacity allocation strategies. However, there is a deficit within the current literature of scalable solutions that can provide managers and clinicians with hospital and specialty level projections on a routine basis. In this paper, a model representing the key dynamics of the waiting list problem is presented alongside its differential equation based solution. Versatility of the model is demonstrated through its calibration to routine publicly available NHS data. The model has since been used to produce regular monthly projections of the waiting list for every hospital trust and specialty in England.

Modeling the Recovery of Elective Waiting Lists Following COVID-19: Scenario Projections for England

OBJECTIVES

A significant indirect impact of COVID-19 has been the increasing elective waiting times observed in many countries. In England's National Health Service, the waiting list has grown from 4.4 million in February 2020 to 5.7 million by August 2021. The objective of this study was to estimate the trajectory of future waiting list size and waiting times up to December 2025.

METHODS

A scenario analysis was performed using computer simulation and publicly available data as of November 2021. Future demand assumed a phased return of various proportions (0%, 25%, 50%, and 75%) of the estimated 7.1 million referrals "missed" during the pandemic. Future capacity assumed 90%, 100%, and 110% of that provided in the 12 months immediately before the pandemic.

RESULTS

As a worst-case scenario, the waiting list would reach 13.6 million (95% confidence interval 12.4-15.6 million) by Autumn 2022, if 75% of missed referrals returned and only 90% of prepandemic capacity could be achieved. The proportion of patients waiting under 18 weeks would reduce from 67.6% in August 2021 to 42.2% (37.4%-46.2%) with the number waiting over 52 weeks reaching 1.6 million (0.8-3.1 million) by Summer 2023. At this time, 29.0% (21.3%-36.8%) of patients would be leaving the waiting list before treatment. Waiting lists would remain pressured under even the most optimistic of scenarios considered, with 18-week performance struggling to maintain 60%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals the long-term challenge for the National Health Service in recovering elective waiting lists and potential implications for patient outcomes and experience.

The impact of waiting time on patient outcomes: Evidence from early intervention in psychosis services in England

Recently, new emphasis was put on reducing waiting times in mental health services as there is an ongoing concern that longer waiting time for treatment leads to poorer health outcomes. However, little is known about delays within the mental health service system and its impact on patients. We explore the impact of waiting times on patient outcomes in the context of early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services in England from April 2012 to March 2015. We use the Mental Health Services Data Set and the routine outcome measure the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale. In a generalised linear regression model, we control for baseline outcomes, previous service use, and treatment intensity to account for possible endogeneity in waiting time. We find that longer waiting time is significantly associated with a deterioration in patient outcomes 12 months after acceptance for treatment for patients that are still in EIP care. Effects are strongest for waiting times longer than 3 months, and effect sizes are small to moderate. Patients with shorter treatment periods are not affected. The results suggest that policies should aim to reduce excessively long waits in order to improve outcomes for patients waiting for treatment for psychosis.

What is the current evidence of the impact on quality of life whilst waiting for management/treatment of orthopaedic/musculoskeletal complaints? A systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

To describe quality of life (QoL) outcome measures that are reported in the literature in patients waiting for outpatient orthopaedic/musculoskeletal specialist care and how waiting impacts on QoL in these terms.

METHODS

A subset of studies reporting on QoL outcome measures were extracted from literature identified in a recent scoping search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Prospero registration CRD42016047332). The systematic scoping search examined impacts on patients waiting for orthopaedic specialist care. Two independent reviewers ranked study design using the National Health and Medical Research Council aetiology evidence hierarchy, and appraised study quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools. QoL measures were mapped against waiting period timepoints.

RESULTS

The scoping search yielded 142 articles, of which 18 reported on impact on QoL. These studies reported only on patients waiting for hip and/or knee replacement surgery. The most recent study reported on data collected in 2006/7. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and the SF-36 were the most commonly reported QoL measures. QoL was measured at variable timepoints in the waiting period (from a few weeks to greater than 12 months). The impact of waiting on QoL was inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base was over 10 years old, reported only on patients with hip and knee problems, and on limited QoL outcome measures, and with inconsistent findings. A better understanding of the impact on QoL for patients waiting for specialist care could be gained by using standard timepoints in the waiting period, patients with other orthopaedic conditions, comprehensive QoL measures, as well as expectations, choices and perspectives of patients waiting for specialist care.

How do patients trade-off surgeon choice and waiting times for total joint replacement: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

Patients face significant waiting times for hip and knee total joint replacement (TJR) in publicly funded healthcare systems. We aimed to assess how surgeon selection and reputation affect patients' willingness to wait for TJR.

DESIGN

We assessed patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment questionnaire with 12 choice scenarios administered to patients referred for TJR. Based on qualitative research, pre- and pilot-testing, we characterized each scenario by five attributes: surgeon reputation, surgeon selection, waiting time to surgeon visit (initial consultation), waiting time to surgery, and travel time to hospital. Preferences were assessed using hierarchical Bayes (HB) analysis and evaluated for goodness-of-fit. We conducted simulation analyses to understand how patients value surgeon reputation and surgeon selection in terms of willingness to wait for surgeon visit and surgery.

RESULTS

Of 422 participants, 68% were referred for knee TJR. The most important attribute was surgeon reputation followed by waiting times, surgeon selection process and travel time. Patients appear willing to wait 10 months for a visit with an excellent reputation surgeon before switching to a good reputation surgeon. Patients in the highest pain category were willing to wait 7.3 months before accepting the next available surgeon, compared to 12 months for patients experiencing the least pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm that patients value surgeon reputation in the context of wait times and surgeon selection. We suggest opportunities to reduce wait times by explicitly offering the next available surgeon to increase patient choice, and by reporting surgeon performance to reduce potential misinformation about reputation.

Personal Perspectives on Enablers and Barriers to Accessing Care for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing demand for joint replacement surgery and other health services for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), barriers and enablers to individual access to care are not well understood. A comprehensive understanding of drivers at all levels is needed to inform efforts for improving access.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore perceived barriers and enablers to receiving conservative (nonsurgical) and surgical treatment for hip and knee OA.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative study using directed content analysis.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted, with 33 participants randomly sampled from an Australian population-based survey of hip and knee OA. Each interview covered factors contributing to receiving treatment for OA and perceived barriers to accessing care. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into themes.

RESULTS

Key barriers to accessing care for OA included medical opinions about saving surgery for later and the appropriate age for joint replacement. Other common barriers included difficulty obtaining referrals or appointments, long waiting times, work-related issues, and limited availability of primary and specialist care in some areas. Several participants perceived a lack of effective treatment for OA. Private health insurance was the most frequently cited enabler and was perceived to support the costs of surgical and conservative treatments, including physical therapy, while facilitating faster access to surgery. Close proximity to services and assistance from medical professionals in arranging care also were considered enablers.

CONCLUSIONS

People with hip or knee OA experience substantial challenges in accessing treatment, and these challenges relate predominantly to health professionals, health systems, and financial factors. Private health insurance was the strongest perceived enabler to accessing care for OA.

Disclosing total waiting times for joint replacement: evidence from the English NHS using linked HES data

For the last decade, stringent monitoring of waiting time performance targets provided English hospitals with incentives to reduce official waiting times for elective surgery. It is less clear whether the total amount of time patients waited in secondary care, from first referral to outpatient clinic until treatment, has also fallen. We used Hospital Episode Statistics inpatient data for patients undergoing total joint replacement during a period of active monitoring of targets (between 2006/7 and 2008/9) and linked it to outpatient data to reconstruct patients' pathway in the 3 years before surgery and provide alternative measurements of waiting times. Our findings suggest that although official waiting times decreased drastically in our study period, total waiting time in secondary care has not declined. Patients with shorter official waits spent a longer time in a 'work-up' period prior to inclusion in the official waiting list, and socio-economic inequities persisted in waiting times for joint replacement. We found no evidence that target policies achieved efficiency gains during our study period.

Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders

OBJECTIVE

To provide new data on minimally clinical important difference (MCID) and percentages of responders on pain and functional dimensions of Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

METHODS

1-year prospective multicentre study with two different cohorts. Consecutive patients on the waiting list were recruited. There were 415 and 497 patients included. Pain and function were collected by the reverse scoring option of the WOMAC (0-100, worst to best). Transition items (five point scale) were collected at 1-year and MCID was calculated through mean change in patients somewhat better, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and two other questions about satisfaction. Analysis was performed in the whole sample and by tertiles of baseline severity. Likewise were calculated the percentages of patients who attained cut-off values.

RESULTS

Global MCID for pain were about 30 in both cohorts and 32 for. By ROC these values were about 20 and 24 respectively. According to the other two transitional questions these values were for pain 27 and 20 for function. By tertiles the worst the baseline score the higher the cut-off values. Percentage of responders does not change when comparing responders to the global MCID with their own tertile MCID and were about 61% for pain and 50% for function.

CONCLUSION

Due to the wide variations, MCID estimates should be calculated and used according to the baseline severity score.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus late total hip replacement in Italy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of early primary total hip replacement (THR) for functionally independent older adult patients with osteoarthritis (OA) versus 1) nonsurgical therapy followed by THR once the patient has progressed to a functionally dependent state ("delayed THR") and 2) nonsurgical therapy alone ('medical therapy'), from the Italian National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

Individual patient data and evidence from published literature on disease progression, economic costs and THR outcomes in OA, including utilities, perioperative mortality rates, prosthesis survival, and costs of prostheses, THR, rehabilitation, follow-up, revision, and nonsurgical management, combined with population life tables, were synthesized in a Markov model of OA. The model represents the lifetime experience of a patient cohort following their treatment choice, discounting costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life-years) at 3% annually.

RESULTS

At age 65 years, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of THR over delayed THR was €987 in men and €466 in women; the figures for delayed THR versus medical therapy were €463 and €82, respectively. Among 80-year-olds, early THR is (extended) dominant. With gradual utility loss after primary THR, delaying surgery may be more appealing in women than in men in their 50s, because longer female life expectancy implies longer latter periods of low health-related quality of life (HRQOL) with early THR.

CONCLUSIONS

THR is cost-effective. Patients' HRQOL benefits forgone with delayed THR are worth more than the costs it saves to the Italian National Health Service. This analysis might help to explain women's consistently lower HRQOL by the time of primary operation.

Wait watchers: the application of a waiting list active management program in ambulatory care

OBJECTIVE

This study describes and evaluates the application of a waiting list management program in ambulatory care.

DESIGN

Waiting list active management survey (telephone call and further contact); before and after controlled trial.

SETTING

Local Health Trust in Veneto Region (North-East of Italy) in 2008-09.

PARTICIPANTS

Five hundred and one people on a 554 waiting list for C Class ambulatory care diagnostic and/or clinical investigations (electrocardiography plus cardiology ambulatory consultation, eye ambulatory consultation, carotid vessels Eco-color-Doppler, legs Eco-color-Doppler or colonoscopy, respectively).

INTERVENTION

Active list management program consisting of a telephonic interview on 21 items to evaluate socioeconomic features, self-perceived health status, social support, referral physician, accessibility and patients' satisfaction. A controlled before-and-after study was performed to evaluate anonymously the overall impact on patients' self-perceived quality of care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The rate of patients with deteriorating healthcare conditions; rate of dropout; interviewed degree of satisfaction about the initiative; overall impact on citizens' perceived quality of care.

RESULTS

95.4% patients evaluated the initiative as useful. After the intervention, patients more likely to have been targeted with the program showed a statistically significant increase in self-reported quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive impact of the program on some dimensions of ambulatory care quality (health status, satisfaction, willingness to remain in the queue), thus confirming the outstanding value of 'not to leave people alone' and 'not to leave them feeling themselves alone' in healthcare delivery.

Impact of total hip arthroplasty on pain, walking ability, and cardiovascular fitness

We tested the hypothesis that total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients have less pain and are able to walk longer post-operatively than pre-operatively, and that THA patients before and after have higher heart rates and compromised gas exchange determinants at rest and following exercise compared to healthy subjects with a post-operative improvement. Fifty-two patients completed questionnaires and an incremental walking stress test pre-operatively and 6-months after THA. Twenty-four age-matched control subjects completed the same stress test. Fifty-one patients had less pain 6-months after THA compared to pre-operative levels. Forty-three patients showed an improvement of at least one walking duration category. Patients had compromised cardiovascular fitness compared to the control group with a tendency to improve after THA. Hence, 6-months following THA, deficits exist other than reduced strength as reported in the literature. Prior to THA, the ability to walk longer is compromised by pain and not by poor cardiovascular fitness. Studies on specific rehabilitation programs of varying intensities may demonstrate opportunities to improve the cardiovascular fitness of this population.

Health-related quality of life after total knee or hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a 7-year prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a prospective study with 7 years of follow-up in 49 consecutive patients who underwent a total joint replacement because of osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Generic HRQOL was assessed with the short-form 36 (SF-36) and specific HRQOL with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).

RESULTS

Out of the 39 subjects who have completed the 7 years of follow-up of this study, 22 (56.4 %) underwent a hip replacement surgery and the other 17 (43.6 %) a knee replacement. Six months after surgery, a significant improvement, compared to preoperative scores, was observed in two of the eight dimensions of the SF-36 (i.e. physical function and pain). The same dimensions, pain and physical function, at the same time, 6 months after surgery, measured by the WOMAC, showed a significant improvement as well, but there was no significant change in the stiffness score. From 6 months to the end of follow-up, changes in SF-36 scores showed a significant improvement in physical function (p = 0.008), role-physical (p = 0.004) and role-emotional (p = 0.01) while all scores of the WOMAC improved (p < 0.001 for pain, p < 0.001 for stiffness and p < 0.01 for physical function).

CONCLUSION

The improvements observed in HRQOL at short term after surgery, are at least maintained over a 7-year follow-up period.