Value-based healthcare analysis of joint replacement surgery for patients with primary hip osteoarthritis. Issue 2 (9th June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gabriel, Lucinda; Casey, Joseph; Gee, Matt; Palmer, Claire; Sinha, Joydeep; Moxham, John; Colegate-Stone, Toby James
• Is Part Of: BMJ open quality. Volume 8:Issue 2(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-06-09
• Subjects: quality measurement -- patient-centred care -- cost-effectiveness -- healthcare quality improvement -- teamwork; Medical care -- Quality control -- Periodicals; 362.106805
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000549
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2399-6641

Abstract

Abstract : Background: A quarter of the population present at least once a year with a musculoskeletal disorder. Primary hip osteoarthritis is a high-volume condition with significant clinical need and population-level costs. There remains much variation in patient outcomes and care delivery costs for this condition. Aims: The study aimed to gauge if pathway redesign based on the principles of value-based healthcare (VBHC) could increase value. The aim was to calculate the value of treatment for primary hip osteoarthritis through measuring outcomes that matter to patients, as well as the costs of delivering them. Additionally it aimed to compare two care pathways to identify which elements may better promote the delivery of high-value clinical care. Methods: Two care models were evaluated: the first being a traditional model with multiple entry points and without pathway standardisation, and the second an intentionally designed standardised multidisciplinary pathway. Mandated National Health Service patient-reported outcomes were assessed but were restructured into a patient-centred format to assess the impact on pain, function and psychological outcomes. Patient-level pathway economic evaluation was performed. Using these data, outcomes were mapped against cost to calculate value. Results: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two models. The intentionally designed model delivered better value care, having lower pathway costs. This model produced a small but inconsistent positive financial margin. Conclusions: Intentionally designed, integrated elective services offer an opportunity to develop and evaluate VBHC models. Analysis of two care pathways from a VBHC perspective demonstrated that an intentionally designed pathway had higher value. The higher value pathway maximised the benefits of having physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons working side by side. Developing and measuring patient-orientated outcomes and performing accurate economic evaluation are the key to understanding and achieving better value care.