Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 2000 Sep;9(3):146–150. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.3.146

The value of short and simple measures to assess outcomes for patients of total hip replacement surgery

R Fitzpatrick 1, R Morris 1, S Hajat 1, B Reeves 1, D Murray 1, D Hannen 1, M Rigge 1, O Williams 1, P Gregg 1
PMCID: PMC1743526  PMID: 10980074

Abstract

Objectives—To evaluate the performance of a patient assessed outcome measure, the Oxford Hip Score, in a national study of primary hip replacement surgery.

Design—A survey of patients' health status before undergoing primary hip replacement surgery and three months and one year after surgery.

Setting—143 hospitals in three NHS English regions.

Patients—7151 patients admitted for primary total hip replacement surgery over a period of 13 months from September 1996.

Main measures—For patients, Oxford Hip Score and satisfaction with hip replacement and, for surgeons, American Anesthiologists' Society (ASA) classification of physical status.

Results—The response rates to the postal questionnaire at three and 12 months follow up were 85.2% and 80.7%, respectively. Including all three administrations of the questionnaire, all except two items of the Oxford Hip Score were completed by 97% or more respondents and only one item at one administration appeared marginally to reduce the reliability of the score. The effect sizes for changes in the score from baseline to three months was 2.50 and to 12 months was 3.05. Patients rated by surgeons as being healthy preoperatively by the ASA classification were somewhat more likely to return a completed questionnaire at three months (79.4% versus 75.3%) and 12 months (72.4% versus 70.3%) than those rated as having poorer health.

Conclusions—Overall there was little evidence of difficulties for patients in completing the Oxford Hip Score or of unreliable data, except in relation to one questionnaire item. The instrument was very responsive to change over time and score changes for the Oxford Hip Score related well to patients' satisfaction with their surgery. The instrument is an appropriate measure in terms of validity, responsiveness, and feasibility for evaluating total hip replacement from the perspective of the patient.

Key Words: total hip replacement surgery; Oxford Hip Score; questionnaire; assessment

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (114.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bulstrode C. J., Murray D. W., Carr A. J., Pynsent P. B., Carter S. R. Designer hips. BMJ. 1993 Mar 20;306(6880):732–733. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6880.732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cleary P. D., Reilly D. T., Greenfield S., Mulley A. G., Wexler L., Frankel F., McNeil B. J. Using patient reports to assess health-related quality of life after total hip replacement. Qual Life Res. 1993 Feb;2(1):3–11. doi: 10.1007/BF00642884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cowley D. E. Prostheses for primary total hip replacement. A critical appraisal of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995 Fall;11(4):770–778. doi: 10.1017/s026646230000920x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Carr A., Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Mar;78(2):185–190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Gundle R., Murray D. Provision of primary total hip replacement surgery. Lancet. 1999 Jun 19;353(9170):2161–2161. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)75602-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Murray D., Carr A. Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care. 1996 Jun;5(2):81–88. doi: 10.1136/qshc.5.2.81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Murray D., Carr A. The problem of 'noise' in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996 Oct;1(4):224–231. doi: 10.1177/135581969600100408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Donovan J. L., Frankel S. J., Eyles J. D. Assessing the need for health status measures. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Apr;47(2):158–162. doi: 10.1136/jech.47.2.158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Faulkner A., Kennedy L. G., Baxter K., Donovan J., Wilkinson M., Bevan G. Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: a critical review of evidence and an economic model. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(6):1–133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fitzpatrick R., Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Qual Health Care. 1994 Jun;3(2):107–113. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.2.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fitzpatrick R., Davey C., Buxton M. J., Jones D. R. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i-iv, 1-74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fitzpatrick R., Shortall E., Sculpher M., Murray D., Morris R., Lodge M., Dawson J., Carr A., Britton A., Briggs A. Primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(20):1–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hill S., Harries U., Popay J. Is the short form 36 (SF-36) suitable for routine health outcomes assessment in health care for older people? Evidence from preliminary work in community based health services in England. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996 Feb;50(1):94–98. doi: 10.1136/jech.50.1.94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hopwood P., Stephens R. J., Machin D. Approaches to the analysis of quality of life data: experiences gained from a medical research council lung cancer working party palliative chemotherapy trial. Qual Life Res. 1994 Oct;3(5):339–352. doi: 10.1007/BF00451726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kazis L. E., Anderson J. J., Meenan R. F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Liang M. H., Fossel A. H., Larson M. G. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990 Jul;28(7):632–642. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lydick E., Epstein R. S. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993 Jun;2(3):221–226. doi: 10.1007/BF00435226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. McMurray R., Heaton J., Sloper P., Nettleton S. Measurement of patient perceptions of pain and disability in relation to total hip replacement: the place of the Oxford hip score in mixed methods. Qual Health Care. 1999 Dec;8(4):228–233. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.4.228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Morris R. W. Evidence-based choice of hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Sep;78(5):691–693. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Wiklund I., Romanus B. A comparison of quality of life before and after arthroplasty in patients who had arthrosis of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991 Jun;73(5):765–769. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wright J. G., Rudicel S., Feinstein A. R. Ask patients what they want. Evaluation of individual complaints before total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994 Mar;76(2):229–234. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES