Using patient experience in optimizing the total knee arthroplasty patient journey

Information was used to improve the patient journey and to achieve patient-centered care. Patients (\u3e18 years, purposive sampling) were interviewed once at one point of their total knee arthrosis journey within the hospital setting. Patients were accompanied and observed during their hospital visit by one of the 19 healthcare professionals which were trained as interviewers. A qualitative research approach with in-depth and semi-structured interviews using a standardized interview guide were used to gather an in-depth understanding of the perceptions of patients. Interviews were written out with the emphasis on positive and negative feedback, quotes and observations that were made. The audio recordings were verbatim transcribed and coded using selective and open coding. Thirty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted. Five different themes were identified: overall experience, waiting, communication, information and facilities. Several easy fixes were dealt with immediately to improve service quality, productivity and the organization of the healthcare service. Other improvements were discussed with the stakeholders and were resolved directly or were planned for the long-term. Involving patients and let them collaborate with healthcare professionals is essential in optimizing patient-centered care. Most feedback was related to clarification and comprehensibility of the patient journey, to improve autonomy and to remove uncertainty of the patients. Continuity of care with medical personnel, personal attention and recognition of the problem are fundamental during the knee arthrosis patient journey. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Quality & Clinical Excellence lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Interchangeability of Diverse Analog Scales Used Within the Constant-Murley Score

Purpose: To assess the interchangeability of various existing answering scales within the subjective part of the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and to determine the effect of the different answering scales on the inter- and intraobserver reliability. Methods: In this prospective, single-center, cross-sectional trial, patients with shoulder problems were included from June to September 2018. Subjects recruited were 18 years or older, presented various shoulder complaints, e.g., diagnosis of osteoarthritis, subacromial pain syndrome, rotator cuff or biceps tendon problems, or frozen shoulder. An extended version of the CMS was prepared including the same questions multiple times but with varying answer scales. Six versions were made with random order of the questions. The answering scales were a verbal and paper based visual analog scale (VAS), smiley face scale, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and categories. Internal consistency of the various CMS, Spearman correlation coefficients, intraobserver, and interobserver agreement was assessed (ICC). Results: In total, 93 patients were included. The total CMS using the paper-based VAS, smiley face score, and NRS were 46.9 ± 19.4, 45.2 ± 18.5, and 45.0 ± 18.7. Correlations of the total scores of the different versions varied from 0.98 to 0.99. CMS-category versus CMS-smiley face score and CMS-category versus CMS-NRS pain were significantly different (P = .02 and P = .01). Good internal consistency (0.76-0.79) and acceptable inter- and intraobserver reliability were found (ICC: 0.89-0.97, 0.98-0.99; P < .001). Conclusions: The different answering scales for the subjective subscales within the CMS for pain, work, and recreational activity were not interchangeable on item level and significantly influenced the total CMS score. Differences were below the smallest detectable change and interpreted as not clinically relevant. Particularly on item level, data from different studies cannot be pooled and compared when different answering scales are being used. The inter- and intraobserver reliability were excellent. Level of Evidence: Level I, prospective cross-sectional study