Selection of patients for inpatient rehabilitation or direct home discharge following total joint replacement surgery: a comparison of health status and out-of-pocket expenditure of patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online December, 2005
Selection of patients for inpatient rehabilitation or direct home discharge following total joint replacement surgery: a comparison of health status and out-of-pocket expenditure of patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
Objectives: To analyse the differences in patient health outcomes and out-of-pocket costs following hip and knee joint replacement for osteoarthritis between patients who went home immediately after the acute care hospital stay and those who were admitted to inpatient rehabilitation care before going home.
Methods: One hundred and eighteen patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement in Sydney, Australia completed cost diaries, SF-36 and WOMAC Index, pre-operatively and for one year post-operatively.
Results: The health status of all groups improved significantly from before surgery to 12 months post-surgery. No significant difference in health status at 12 months post-surgery was seen between home and rehabilitation patients for either hip or knee replacement. Both hip replacement home and rehabilitation patients and knee replacement home patients reported lower out-of-pocket expenditure from before surgery to 1 year post-surgery.
Discussion: The majority of total joint replacement patients can be discharged directly home and achieve excellent outcomes at 12 months post-surgery. We would recommend more focused randomized studies to explore the most suitable patient selection for rehabilitation.
Meenan RF, Callahan LF, Helmick CGThe National Arthritis Action Plan: a public health strategy for a looming epidemic. Arthritis Care Res1999; 12: 79—81.
2.
March L., Cross M., Tribe K., Lapsley H., Courtenay B., Brooks P.Cost of joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis: the patients' perspective . J Rheumatol2002; 29: 1006—14.
3.
Jones CA, Voaklander DC, Johnstone Dwc, Suarez-Almazor ME. Health related quality of life outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasties in a community based population. J Rheumatol2000; 27: 1745—52.
4.
Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital.The Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2003. Available from http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/ (accessed 10 November 2005).
5.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital.The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register Report 2004. Available from http://www.haukeland.no/nrl/Report2004.pdf (accessed 10 November 2005).
6.
Canadian Institute for Health Information.Canadian Joint Replacement Registry 2004 Report. Available from htt://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=AR_30_E (accessed 10 November 2005).
7.
Australian Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing.National Hospital Cost Data Collection: Cost Report Round 7 2002—2003 . Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging, 2003.
8.
New South Wales Health Department Casemix Policy Unit.NSW Costs of Care Standards 2001/02. Canberra: New South Wales Health Department, Funding and Systems Policy Branch, 2001.
9.
Bachmeier Cjm , March LM, Cross MJ, et al. A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2001; 9: 137—146.
10.
March LM, Cross MJ, Lapsley HM, et al. Outcomes after hip or knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study comparing patients' quality of life before and after surgery with age-related population norms. Med J Aust1999; 171: 235—8.
11.
Lapsley HM, March LM, Tribe KL, Cross MJ, Brooks PMLiving with osteoarthritis: patient expenditures, health status, and social impact. Arthritis Rheum2001; 45: 301—6.
12.
Ware J., Snow K.SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1997.
13.
Bellamy N.WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index: a user's guide. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario, 1995 .
14.
Angst F., Aeschlimann A., Stucki G.Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum2001; 45: 384—91.
15.
Ehrich EW, Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bolognese JA, Seidenberg BC, Bellamy N.Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol2000; 27: 2635—41.
16.
Coyte PC, Young W., Croxford R.Costs and outcomes associated with alternative discharge strategies following joint replacement surgery: analysis of an observational study using a propensity score. J Health Economics2000; 19: 907—29.
17.
Mahomed NN, KooSeen Lin MJ, Levesque J, Lan S, Bogoch ER. Determinants and outcomes of inpatient versus home based rehabilitation following elective hip and knee replacement. J Rheumatol2000; 27: 1753—8.
18.
de Pablo P. , Losina E., Phillips CB, et al. Determinants of discharge destination following elective total hip replacement. Arthritis Care Res2004; 51: 1009—17.
19.
National Audit Office.Hip replacements: an update; HC 956 Session 2002—2003. United Kingdom House of Commons. Available from http://www.nao.gov.uk (accessed 10 November 2005).
20.
Oldmeadow LB , McBurney H., Robertson VJHospital stay and discharge outcomes after knee arthroplasty: implications for physiotherapy practice. Aust J Physiother2002; 48: 117—21.
21.
Cameron ID, Kurrle S., March L.Rehabilitation length of stay after hip fracture. Aust NZ J Med1998; 28: 480.
