Assessment on patient outcomes of primary hip replacement: an interrupted time series analysis from 'The National Joint Registry of England and Wales'. Issue 11 (21st November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Garriga, Cesar; Murphy, Jacqueline; Leal, Jose; Arden, Nigel K; Price, Andrew James; Prieto-Alhambra, Daniel; Carr, Andrew J; Rangan, Amar; Cooper, Cyrus; Peat, George; Fitzpatrick, Ray; Barker, Karen L; Judge, Andrew
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 11(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-11-21
• Subjects: hip -- epidemiology -- health economics -- health services administration & management; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031599
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Effects of the UK Department of Health's national Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Programme on outcomes after primary hip replacement. Design: Natural experimental study using interrupted time series to assess the changes in trends before, during and after ERAS implementation (April 2009 to March 2011). Setting: Surgeries in the UK National Joint Registry were linked with Hospital Episode Statistics containing inpatient episodes from National Health Service trusts in England and patient reported outcome measures. Participants: Patients aged ≥18 years from 2008 to 2016. Main outcome measures: Regression coefficients of monthly means of length of hospital stay, bed day cost, change in Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) 6 months post-surgery, complications 6 months post-surgery and revision rates 5 years post-surgery. Results: 438 921 primary hip replacements were identified. Hospital stays shortened from 5.6 days in April 2008 to 3.6 in December 2016. There were also improvements in bed day costs (£7573 in April 2008 to £5239 in December 2016), positive change in self-reported OHS from baseline to 6 months post-surgery (17.7 points in April 2008 to 22.9 points in December 2016), complication rates (4.1% in April 2008 to 1.7% March 2016) and 5 year revision rates (5.9 per 1000 implant-years (95% CI 4.8 to 7.2) in April 2008 to 2.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 3.9) in December 2011). The positive trends in all outcomes started before ERAS was implemented and continued during and after the programme. Conclusions: Patient outcomes after hip replacement have improved over the last decade. A national ERAS programme maintained this improvement but did not alter the existing rate of change.