No abstract

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the only systematic approach through which the patient’s perspective can be considered by surgeons (in determining a procedure’s efficacy or appropriateness) or healthcare systems (in the context of value-based healthcare). PROMs in registries enable international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after total joint arthroplasty, but the extent to which those scores may vary between different registry populations has not been clearly defined.Questions/purposes(1) To what degree do mean change in general and joint-specific PROM scores vary across arthroplasty registries, and to what degree is the proportion of missing PROM scores in an individual registry associated with differences in the mean reported change scores? (2) Do PROM scores vary with patient BMI across registries? (3) Are comorbidity levels comparable across registries, and are they associated with differences in PROM scores?MethodsThirteen national, regional, or institutional registries from nine countries reported aggregate PROM scores for patients who had completed PROMs preoperatively and 6 and/or 12 months postoperatively. The requested aggregate PROM scores were the EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) index values, on which score 1 reflects “full health” and 0 reflects “as bad as death.” Joint-specific PROMs were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), with total scores ranging from 0 to 48 (worst-best), and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (KOOS-PS) values, scored 0 to 100 (worst-best). Eligible patients underwent primary unilateral THA or TKA for osteoarthritis between 2016 and 2019. Registries were asked to exclude patients with subsequent revisions within their PROM collection period. Raw aggregated PROM scores and scores adjusted for age, gender, and baseline values were inspected descriptively. Across all registries and PROMs, the reported percentage of missing PROM data varied from 9% (119 of 1354) to 97% (5305 of 5445). We therefore graphically explored whether PROM scores were associated with the level of data completeness. For each PROM cohort, chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (men versus women; age 20 to 64 years, 65 to 74 years, and older than 75 years; and high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were evaluated descriptively by comparing proportions with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of 3 or higher across registries for each PROM cohort.ResultsThe mean improvement in EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.16 to 0.33 for hip registries and 0.12 to 0.25 for knee registries. The mean improvement in the OHS (seven registries) ranged from 18 to 24, and for the HOOS-PS (three registries) it ranged from 29 to 35. The mean improvement in the OKS (six registries) range...

Background: Accessible measures specific to the Canadian context are needed to support health system planning for older adults living with frailty. We sought to develop and validate the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Hospital Frailty Risk Measure (HFRM). Methods: Using CIHI administrative data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients aged 65 years and older who were discharged from Canadian hospitals from Apr. 1, 2018, to Mar. 31, 2019. We used a 2-phase approach to develop and validate the CIHI HFRM. The first phase, construction of the measure, was based on the deficit accumulation approach (identification of age-related conditions using a 2-year look-back). The second phase involved refinement into 3 formats (continuous risk score, 8 risk groups and binary risk measure), with assessment of their predictive validity for several frailty-related adverse outcomes using data to 2019/20. We assessed convergent validity with the United Kingdom Hospital Frailty Risk Score. Results: The cohort consisted of 788 701 patients. The CIHI HFRM included 36 deficit categories and 595 diagnosis codes that cover morbidity, function, sensory loss, cognition and mood. The median continuous risk score was 0.111 (interquartile range 0.056–0.194, equivalent to 2–7 deficits); 35.1% ( n = 277 000) of the cohort were found at risk of frailty (≥ 6 deficits). The CIHI HFRM showed satisfactory predictive validity and reasonable goodness-of-fit. For the continuous risk score format (unit = 0.1), the hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year risk of death was 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38–1.41), with a C-statistic of 0.717 (95% CI 0.715–0.720); the odds ratio for high users of hospital beds was 1.85 (95% CI 1.82–1.88), with a C-statistic of 0.709 (95% CI 0.704–0.714), and the HR of 90-day admission to long-term care was 1.91 (95% CI 1.88–1.93), with a C-statistic of 0.810 (95% CI 0.808–0.813). Compared with the continuous risk score, using a format of 8 risk groups had similar discriminatory ability and the binary risk measure had slightly weaker performance. Interpretation: The CIHI HFRM is a valid tool showing good discriminatory power for several adverse outcomes. The tool can be used by decision-makers and researchers by providing information on hospital-level prevalence of frailty to support system-level capacity planning for Canada’s aging population.