Ray Fitzpatrick

The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores

The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.

Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the status of a patients health condition that come directly from the patient. While PRO measures are a well-developed technology with robust standards in research, their use for informing healthcare decisions is still poorly understood. We review relevant examples of their application in the provision of healthcare and examine the challenges associated with implementing PROs in clinical settings. We evaluate evidence for their use and examine barriers to their uptake, and present an evidence-based framework for the successful implementation of PROs in clinical practice. We discuss current and future developments for the use of PROs in clinical practice, such as individualized measurement and computer-adaptive testing.

Change in health status in long-term conditions over a one year period: a cohort survey using patient-reported outcome measures

BackgroundEnhancing quality of life for people with long-term conditions by monitoring patient-reported outcome measure scores is a key domain of health care policy. This study investigated the responsiveness of patient-reported outcome measures for long-term conditions.MethodsA cohort survey was conducted in 33 primary care practices and 4485 patients (1334 asthma, 567 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 1121 diabetes, 525 epilepsy, 520 heart failure and 418 stroke) were sent a baseline survey containing a generic (EQ-5D) and a disease-specific measure. Baseline respondents were sent a follow-up after 1 year. Differences in scores for each long-term condition were assessed by paired t-tests. The relationship between scores and self-reported ‘change in health’ was assessed by analysis of variance.ResultsThe baseline achieved a 38.4% response rate and the follow-up 71.5%. The only significant difference for the EQ-5D was found for the Visual Analogue Scale in heart failure between baseline and follow-up, and for change in health. Significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores were found on the disease-specific measures for 1 asthma dimension and 1 stroke dimension. No significant differences were found for other conditions. Significant differences between self-reported change in health and the disease-specific measures were found for 4 asthma dimensions and 2 stroke dimensions.ConclusionsFew significant differences were found between the baseline and follow up or between ‘change in health’ and PROMs scores. This could be explained by the time frame of one year being too short for change to occur or by the PROMs not being responsive enough to change in a primary care sample. The latter is unlikely as the PROMs were in part chosen for their responsiveness to change. The baseline response rates may mean that the sample is not representative, and stable patients may have been more likely to participate. If PROMs are to be used routinely to monitor outcomes in LTCs, further research is needed to maximize response rates, to ensure that the PROMs used are reliable, valid and sensitive enough to detect change and that the time frame for data collection is appropriate.

Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty

Objectives To identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed and/or used with patients undergoing hip or knee replacement surgery and to provide a shortlist of the most promising generic and condition-specific instruments. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee replacement and extract and evaluate information on their methodological quality. Results Thirty-two shortlisted measures were reviewed for the quality of their measurement properties. On the basis of the review criteria, the measures with most complete evidence to date are the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) (for patients undergoing hip replacement surgery) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), with OKS-Activity and Participation Questionnaire (for patients undergoing knee replacement surgery). Conclusion A large number of these instruments lack essential evidence of their measurement properties (eg, validity, reliability, and responsiveness) in specific populations of patients. Further research is required on almost all of the identified measures. The best-performing condition-specific PROMs were the OKS, OHS, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The best-performing generic measure was the Short Form 12. Researchers can use the information presented in this review to inform further psychometric studies of the reviewed measures.

Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Hip Score in a meaningful way?: an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

Objective The objective of this study was to explore dimensionality of the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and examine whether self-reported pain and functioning can be distinguished in the form of subscales. Methods This was a secondary data analysis of the UK NHS hospital episode statistics/patient-reported outcome measures dataset containing pre-operative OHS scores on 97 487 patients who were undergoing hip replacement surgery. Results The proposed number of factors to extract depended on the method of extraction employed. Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial test and the Parallel Analysis suggested one factor, the Cattell’s scree test and Kaiser-over-1 rule suggested two factors. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor OHS had most of the items saliently loading either of the two factors. These factors were named ‘Pain’ and ‘Function’ and their respective subscales were created. There was some cross-loading of items: 8 (pain on standing up from a chair) and 11 (pain during work). These items were assigned to the ‘Pain’ subscale. The final ‘Pain’ subscale consisted of items 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The ‘Function’ subscale consisted of items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the recommended scoring of the subscales being from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.855 for the ‘Pain’ subscale and 0.861 for the ‘Function’ subscale. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor model of the OHS had a better fit. However, none of the one-factor or two-factor models was rejected. Conclusion Factor analyses demonstrated that, in addition to current usage as a single summary scale, separate information on pain and self-reported function can be extracted from the OHS in a meaningful way in the form of subscales. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:305–9.

Perspectives from health, social care and policy stakeholders on the value of a single self-report outcome measure across long-term conditions: a qualitative study

Objectives To explore the views of a range of stakeholders regarding whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be developed to measure key attributes of long-term conditions (LTCs) care in England, and the potential value of a single generic measure. Design Qualitative semistructured interview study, analysed using a framework approach. Participants and setting Interviews with 31 stakeholders from primary care, secondary care, social care, policy and patient-focused voluntary organisations in England. Results There was broad support for a single PROM that could be used to measure outcomes for patients with any LTCs in any health or social care setting. Interviewees identified three desired uses for a PROM: to improve the quality of individual care; to increase peoples engagement in their own care; and to monitor the performance of services. Interviewees felt that a PROM for LTCs should incorporate a mixture of traditional and non-traditional domains, such as functioning, empowerment and social participation, and be codesigned with patients and professional end-users. Stakeholders emphasised the need for a PROM to be feasible for practical implementation at the individual clinical level as a first priority. A number of concerns and potential problems were identified in relation to the application and interpretation of an LTC PROM. Conclusions This study has demonstrated support for a single self-report outcome measure that reflects the priorities of people with LTCs, if such a measure can be shown to be meaningful and useful at the individual level. People with LTCs and professional end-users in health and social care should be involved in the development and evaluation of such a measure.

The Outcomes and Experiences Questionnaire: development and validation

Background This report presents evidence regarding the development and validation of a new questionnaire, the Outcomes and Experiences Questionnaire (OEQ). The rationale for the questionnaire is to bring together into one short instrument questions about two distinct domains – patients’ reports of the outcomes of their care and how they experience care. Methods The OEQ was developed from literature reviews, iterative drafting and discussion within the research group and cognitive testing with a sample of patients who had a hospital experience. Two validation studies were carried out with an eleven item OEQ. The goals of the studies were to examine response rates and to test specific hypotheses of how OEQ should relate to other variables normally collected in the two studies. In the first study, the OEQ was added to the follow-up questionnaires for patients (n=490) receiving surgery for hip or knee replacement or varicose vein procedures participating in the national Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) program permitting the analysis of the OEQ against change scores for the measures obtained before and after surgery. In the second study the OEQ was included in a sample of patients (n=586) who had been selected to receive the National Health Service (NHS) inpatient survey from three contrasting hospital trusts. Results Results from study one provided consistent and substantial evidence of construct validity of OEQ particularly for those receiving hip or knee replacement. The OEQ sub-scales behaved differently and as predicted against other PROMs variables. Again hypotheses of how the two sub-scales regarding outcomes and experiences would relate to the existing domains of patient experience in the inpatient survey were broadly confirmed in study two. Conclusion The report provides encouraging evidence of the OEQ’s capacity to assess distinct reports from patients about outcomes and experiences of care within a single short questionnaire.

The Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire: conceptual framework and item development

Purpose To identify the main issues of importance when living with long-term conditions to refine a conceptual framework for informing the item development of a patient-reported outcome measure for long-term conditions. Materials and methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n=48) were conducted with people living with at least one long-term condition. Participants were recruited through primary care. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic analysis. The analysis served to refine the conceptual framework, based on reviews of the literature and stakeholder consultations, for developing candidate items for a new measure for long-term conditions. Results Three main organizing concepts were identified: impact of long-term conditions, experience of services and support, and self-care. The findings helped to refine a conceptual framework, leading to the development of 23 items that represent issues of importance in long-term conditions. The 23 candidate items formed the first draft of the measure, currently named the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire. Conclusion The aim of this study was to refine the conceptual framework and develop items for a patient-reported outcome measure for long-term conditions, including single and multiple morbidities and physical and mental health conditions. Qualitative interviews identified the key themes for assessing outcomes in long-term conditions, and these underpinned the development of the initial draft of the measure. These initial items will undergo cognitive testing to refine the items prior to further validation in a survey.

Refinement of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ): patient and expert stakeholder opinion

Purpose It is a key UK government priority to assess and improve outcomes in people with long-term conditions (LTCs). We are developing a new patient-reported outcome measure, the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ), for use among people with single or multiple LTCs. This study aimed to refine candidate LTCQ items that had previously been informed through literature reviews, interviews with professional stakeholders, and interviews with people with LTCs. Materials and methods Cognitive interviews (n=32) with people living with LTCs and consultations with professional stakeholders (n=13) and public representatives (n=5) were conducted to assess the suitability of 23 candidate items. Items were tested for content and comprehensibility and underwent a translatability assessment. Results Four rounds of revisions took place, due to amendments to item structure, improvements to item clarity, item duplication, and recommendations for future translations. Twenty items were confirmed as relevant to living with LTCs and understandable to patients and professionals. Conclusion This study supports the content validity of the LTCQ items among people with LTCs and professional stakeholders. The final items are suitable to enter the next stage of psychometric refinement.