Does the organisation of care process affect outcome in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty?

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Impact Factor: 1.08). 01/2010; 16(1):121 - 128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01130.x


Background  Surgeons realize that safe and efficient care processes for total joint replacement requires more than just well-performed operations. Orthopaedic teams are reorganizing care process to improve efficacy and shorten length of stay. Little is known on the impact of organizational changes on patient outcome. This paper studies the relation between the organization of care processes and patient outcomes in hip and knee. Clinical pathways are used as one of the methods to structure the care process. Although evidence is available on the effect of pathways in total joint replacement, their impact with the organization of the care process has not been studied previously.Methods  A cross-sectional multicentre study was performed on 39 care processes and 737 consecutive patients. Regression models were used to analyse the relation between the organization of the care process and risk-adjusted patient outcomes. The use of pathways and the organization of the care process, measured by the Care Process Self Evaluation Tool (CPSET), were measured at organizational level. Length of stay, pain, mobility and elapsed time to discharge were measured at patient level.Results  The use of pathways had a positive effect on four out of five subscales and the overall CPSET score. Using pathways decreased length of stay (P = 0.014), pain (P = 0.052) and elapsed time to discharge (P = 0.003). The CPSET subscale communication was related with three risk adjusted outcomes. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significant effect by three different variables on the length of stay; (1) use of pathways; (2) coordination of care processes; and (3) communication with patients and family. Both the use of pathways and coordination of the care process were determinants for the elapsed time to discharge. A significant interaction effect was found between use of pathways and coordination of the care process.Conclusion  This large multicentre study revealed the relation between the use of pathways, organization of the care process and patient outcomes. This information is important for both clinicians and managers to understand and further improve the organization of orthopaedic care.Level of evidence  Level I prognostic study.

Download full-text


Available from: Emmanuel Lesaffre, Jul 02, 2014
  • Source
    • "They argued that programs work (i.e., have good outcomes) to the extent that they introduce appropriate ideas and opportunities (the mechanism) to groups in the appropriate social and cultural conditions (the context) [21,26]. This realistic evaluation paradigm has already been used in pathway research [12,15,45] and was recently promoted by Berwick [21]. In pathways, the mechanism will need to be based on the basic active components as described above but the fine-tuning of the intervention will be based on the actual performance challenges and on the context of the organization and team involved. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Proximal femur fracture (PFF) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The European Quality of Care Pathway (EQCP) study on PFF (NCT00962910) was designed to determine how care pathways (CP) for hospital treatment of PFF affect consistency of care, adherence to evidence-based key interventions, and clinical outcome. Methods/Design An international cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) will be performed in Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. Based on power analyses, a sample of 44 hospital teams and 437 patients per arm will be included in the study. In the control arm, usual care will be provided. Experimental teams will implement a care pathway which will include three active components: a formative evaluation of quality and organization of the care setting, a set of evidence-based key interventions, and support of the development and implementation of the CP. Main outcome will be the six-month mortality rate. Discussion The EQCP study constitutes the first international cRCT on care pathways. The EQCP project was designed as both a research and a quality improvement project and will provide a real-world framework for process evaluation to improve our understanding of why and when CP can really work. Trial registration number NCT00962910
    BMC Health Services Research 05/2012; 12(1):124. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-124 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the use of clinical pathways for hip and knee joint replacements when compared with standard medical care. The impact of clinical pathways was evaluated assessing the major outcomes of in-hospital hip and knee joint replacement processes: postoperative complications, number of patients discharged at home, length of in-hospital stay and direct costs. Medline, Cinahl, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. The search was performed from 1975 to 2007. Each study was assessed independently by two reviewers. The assessment of methodological quality of the included studies was based on the Jadad methodological approach and on the New Castle Ottawa Scale. Data analysis abided by the guidelines set out by The Cochrane Collaboration regarding statistical methods. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan software, version 4.2. Twenty-two studies met the study inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis for a total sample of 6,316 patients. The aggregate overall results showed significantly fewer patients suffering postoperative complications in the clinical pathways group when compared with the standard care group. A shorter length of stay in the clinical pathway group was also observed and lower costs during hospital stay were associated with the use of the clinical pathways. No significant differences were found in the rates of discharge to home. The results of this meta-analysis show that clinical pathways can significantly improve the quality of care even if it is not possible to conclude that the implementation of clinical pathways is a cost-effective process, because none of the included studies analysed the cost of the development and implementation of the pathways. Based on the results we assume that pathways have impact on the organisation of care if the care process is structured in a standardised way, teams critically analyse the actual organisation of the process and the multidisciplinary team is highly involved in the re-organisation. Further studies should focus on the evaluation of pathways as complex interventions to help to understand which mechanisms within the clinical pathways can really improve the quality of care. With the need for knee and hip joint replacement on the rise, the use of clinical pathways might contribute to better quality of care and cost-effectiveness.
    BMC Medicine 08/2009; 7(32):32. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-7-32 · 7.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Care pathways, also known as clinical pathways, critical pathways or integrated care pathways, are used all over the world. Although they are used internationally, there are still a large number of misunderstandings. The goal of this paper is to provide an overview on the history of pathways and how pathways are actually perceived and defined. Pathways are more than just a document in the patient record. They are a concept for making patient-focused care operational and supporting the modelling of patient groups with different levels of predictability. Pathways are a method within the field of continuous quality improvement and are used in daily practice as a product in the patient record. This paper explains these different issues and provides an extensive list of references that should support pathway facilitators, clinicians, managers and policy-makers in their search for excellence.
    International Journal of Care Pathways 09/2010; 14(3):117-123. DOI:10.1258/jicp.2010.010019
Show more