Search

Abstract Background A high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis. Methods The performance of the Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI) was evaluated in two samples: (1) a cross-sectional mail survey with 489 patients and 77 providers (study 1); and (2) a randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid with 138 osteoarthritis patients considering total joint replacement (study 2). The HK-DQI results in two scores. Knowledge items are summed to create a total knowledge score, and a set of goals and concerns are used in a logistic regression model to develop a concordance score. The concordance score measures the proportion of patients whose treatment matched their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of the knowledge and concordance scores were examined. Results In study 1, the HK-DQI was completed by 382 patients (79%) and 45 providers (58%), and in study 2 by 127 patients (92%), with low rates of missing data. The DQI-knowledge score was reproducible (ICC = 0.81) and demonstrated discriminant validity (68% decision aid vs. 54% control, and 78% providers vs. 61% patients) and content validity. The concordance score demonstrated predictive validity, as patients whose treatments were concordant with their goals had more confidence and less regret with their decision compared to those who did not. Conclusions The HK-DQI is feasible and acceptable to patients. It can be used to assess whether patients with osteoarthritis are making informed decisions about surgery that are concordant with their goals.

Background: Patient decision aids are effective in randomized controlled trials, yet little is known about their impact in routine care. The purpose of this study was to examine whether decision aids increase shared decision-making when used in routine care., Methods: A prospective study was designed to evaluate the impact of a quality improvement project to increase the use of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis, lumbar disc herniation, or lumbar spinal stenosis. A usual care cohort was enrolled before the quality improvement project and an intervention cohort was enrolled after the project. Participants were surveyed 1 week after a specialist visit, and surgical status was collected at 6 months. Regression analyses adjusted for clustering of patients within clinicians and examined the impact on knowledge, patient reports of shared decision-making in the visit, and surgical rates. With 550 surveys, the study had 80% to 90% power to detect a difference in these key outcomes., Results: The response rates to the 1-week survey were 70.6% (324 of 459) for the usual care cohort and 70.2% (328 of 467) for the intervention cohort. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in any patient characteristic between the 2 cohorts. More patients received decision aids in the intervention cohort at 63.6% compared with the usual care cohort at 27.3% (p = 0.007). Decision aid use was associated with higher knowledge scores, with a mean difference of 18.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4 to 26.1 points; p < 0.001) for the usual care cohort and 15.3 points (95% CI, 7.5 to 23.0 points; p = 0.002) for the intervention cohort. Patients reported more shared decision-making (p = 0.009) in the visit with their surgeon in the intervention cohort, with a mean Shared Decision-Making Process score (and standard deviation) of 66.9 ± 27.5 points, compared with the usual care cohort at 62.5 ± 28.6 points. The majority of patients received their preferred treatment, and this did not differ by cohort or decision aid use. Surgical rates were lower in the intervention cohort for those who received the decision aids at 42.3% compared with 58.8% for those who did not receive decision aids (p = 0.023) and in the usual care cohort at 44.3% for those who received decision aids compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive them (p = 0.45)., Conclusions: The quality improvement project successfully integrated patient decision aids into a busy orthopaedic clinic. When used in routine care, decision aids are associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, and lower surgical rates., Clinical Relevance: There is increasing pressure to design systems of care that inform and involve patients in decisions about elective surgery. In this study, the authors found that patient decision aids, when used as part of routine orthopaedic care, were associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, higher patient experience ratings, and lower surgical rates.

Background: A high quality decision requires that patients who meet clinical criteria for surgery are informed about the options (including non-surgical alternatives) and receive treatments that match their goals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical sensibility of a patient self report instrument, to measure the quality of decisions about total joint replacement for knee or hip osteoarthritis., Methods: The performance of the Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis Decision Quality Instrument (HK-DQI) was evaluated in two samples: (1) a cross-sectional mail survey with 489 patients and 77 providers (study 1); and (2) a randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid with 138 osteoarthritis patients considering total joint replacement (study 2). The HK-DQI results in two scores. Knowledge items are summed to create a total knowledge score, and a set of goals and concerns are used in a logistic regression model to develop a concordance score. The concordance score measures the proportion of patients whose treatment matched their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of the knowledge and concordance scores were examined., Results: In study 1, the HK-DQI was completed by 382 patients (79%) and 45 providers (58%), and in study 2 by 127 patients (92%), with low rates of missing data. The DQI-knowledge score was reproducible (ICC = 0.81) and demonstrated discriminant validity (68% decision aid vs. 54% control, and 78% providers vs. 61% patients) and content validity. The concordance score demonstrated predictive validity, as patients whose treatments were concordant with their goals had more confidence and less regret with their decision compared to those who did not., Conclusions: The HK-DQI is feasible and acceptable to patients. It can be used to assess whether patients with osteoarthritis are making informed decisions about surgery that are concordant with their goals.

Background: Health status questionnaires are important, especially with the growing interest in outcome studies. However, these questionnaires continue to be administered in their original paper format. We hypothesized that total hip arthroplasty outcome data derived with computer-based questionnaires do not differ significantly from those derived with established paper-based formats., Methods: From January 2006 to January 2007, the clinic schedules of four attending arthroplasty surgeons were screened weekly to identify patients who could potentially be included in the study. Charts were reviewed for subjects who were scheduled for or had received primary total hip arthroplasty. Patients were recruited during their office visit or when they attended a preoperative educational class, and five health status questionnaires (the Harris hip score, WOMAC [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index], SF-36 [Short Form-36], EQ-5D [EuroQol-5D], and UCLA [University of California at Los Angeles] activity score) were administered in three formats: paper, touch screen, and web-based. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and Pearson correlations were used to compare the questionnaire modes for the Harris hip score (normally distributed data), and the Friedman test and Spearman correlations were used to compare the modes for the other health status scores (non-normally distributed data). The study was designed with 90% power for detecting 10% differences between modes in the entire series of sixty-one patients and with 82% and 87% power in preoperative and postoperative subgroups, respectively., Results: The mean age was sixty-three years, with thirty-seven male and twenty-four female patients in the study. Forty-seven hips (77%) had osteoarthritis as the primary diagnosis. No significant differences were detected, for any of the five health outcome systems, among the paper, touch screen, and web-based modes, and there were highly significant correlations among all questionnaire modes in the entire series of patients and in the preoperative and postoperative subgroups (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The scores obtained with the paper, touch screen, and web-based modes of the five questionnaires demonstrated excellent agreement. Thus, touch screen and web-based formats can be used to collect and track patient outcome data. Use of electronic formats of these questionnaires will facilitate a more efficient and reliable data collection process.