The journey to total hip or knee replacement

Open Access Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 36(2)

doi:10.1071/AH11050

Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Committee

	Contacts

	For Advertisers



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Instructions to Authors

	Submit Article

	Open Access



	For Referees

	Referee Guidelines

	Review Article

	Call for Reviewers




	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with AHR

Connect with CP

The journey to total hip or knee replacement

Julie Lynette Walters ^A ^B, Shylie Mackintosh ^A and Lorraine Sheppard ^A

^A Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: shylie.mackintosh@unisa.edu.au, lorraine.sheppard@unisa.edu.au
^B Corresponding author. Email: Julie.walters@unisa.edu.au

Australian Health Review 36(2) 130-135 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH11050
Submitted: 24 May 2011 Accepted: 12 October 2011 Published: 25 May 2012





	Full Text



	PDF (148 KB)



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Objectives. Despite the incidence of joint replacements in Australia, there is a paucity of information regarding how patients progress from their referral to their surgery. The aim of this study was to describe a patient pathway from referral to receipt of total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery in South Australian public hospitals.

Methods. Patient perspectives of the pathway to THR and TKR surgery were obtained via a postal survey (n = 450) and hospital employee perspectives were attained via semi-structured interviews (n = 19). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data were analysed thematically.

Results. A typical patient pathway to THR and TKR surgery can be divided into two distinct phases; referral-to-initial appointment (9–24 months), and initial appointment-to-surgery (12–15 months). This gives an overall waiting period between 2 and 3 years for THR or TKR surgery.

Conclusions. Waiting times for THR and TKR surgery reported in this study were longer than other reports in the literature. Current Australian health policy does not consider the first (and longest) phase of the patient pathway. Excluding this initial phase could be generating an erroneous perception of the patient pathway to THR or TKR surgery, possibly leading to poorly considered health reforms.

What is known about the topic? Meeting the demand for elective surgery services in public hospitals is an ongoing challenge for governments and health systems alike. The persistent mismatch between supply and demand has resulted in the development of waiting lists for elective total hip replacement (THR) and total knee (TKR) replacement surgery in Australia. Current state-level health policies such as the Policy Framework and Associated Procedural Guidelines for Elective Surgery Services in South Australia or the Elective Surgery Access Policy in Victoria, outline a generic pathway consisting of a few linear steps that occur immediately before receipt of surgery, without consideration of the early stages of the journey. Aside from these types of policies, we were unable to identify any published literature outlining the patient journey from referral to receipt of THR or TKR surgery. As such, our understanding of the issue is inadequate due the paucity of existing research evidence.

What does this paper add? Our current understanding of the patient journey to THR and TKR surgery is limited to the perspective of the policy-makers, whose focus is the organisation of waiting lists and the systematic progression of an individual through the elective surgery system. This perspective reinforces the assumption that it is a simple, linear process and may lead to erroneous judgements regarding the impact that the patient pathway has on an individual and the time it takes to progress along that pathway. This study presents the patient pathway from the perspective of individuals working within the systems responsible for delivering THR and TKR surgery and from patients who have received a joint replacement in a South Australian public hospital. As such, this paper provides new insight into the length, impact and features of the entire patient journey, rather than a snap-shot of the final stages.

What are the implications for practitioners? This study is the first step towards better understanding of the patient pathway to joint replacement surgery in Australian public hospitals. Greater understanding of the complete pathway and identification of areas of congestion within the pathway, as evidenced by longer waiting periods, offers insight into areas with the potential for effective reforms. Should the patient pathway be significantly altered, the experience of practitioners responsible for the interim and postoperative management of patients undergoing THR and TKR surgery will also be changed. Additionally, practitioners currently frustrated by the long delays experienced by their patients who are in need of elective surgery in Australian public hospitals, could have that frustration abated by system improvements that reduce the length and complexity of the pathway to joint replacement surgery.

Additional keywords: orthopaedics, total hip replacement, total knee replacement, waiting time.

References

[1] Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The state of our public hospitals: June 2009. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing; 2009.

[2] Pearson S, Moraw I, Maddern GJ. Clinical pathway management of total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative study. Aust N Z J Surg 2000; 70: 351–4.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[3] Muñoz ABJ. Clinical pathway for hip arthroplasty six years after introduction. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2006; 19: 237–45.
| CrossRef |

[4] Lemmens L, van Zelm R, Rinkes IB, van Hillegersberg R, Kerkkamp H. Clinical and organizational content of clinical pathways for digestive surgery: a systematic review. Dig Surg 2009; 26: 91–9.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[5] Macario A, Horne M, Goodman S, Vitez T, Dexter F, Heinen R, et al The effect of a perioperative clinical pathway for knee replacement surgery on hospital costs. Anesth Analg 1998; 86: 978–84.
| CAS |

[6] Tan JJY, Foo AYZ, Cheong DMO. Colorectal clinical pathways: a method of improving clinical outcome? Asian J Surg 2005; 28: 252–6.
| CrossRef |

[7] Basse L, Jakobsen DH, Billesbolle P, Werner M, Kehlet H. A clinical pathway to accelerate recovery after colonic resection. Ann Surg 2000; 232: 51–7.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[8] Black N. Surgical waiting lists are inevitable: time to focus on work undertaken. J R Soc Med 2004; 97: 159–60.
| CrossRef |

[9] Cipriano LE, Chesworth BM, Anderson CK, Zaric GS. Predicting joint replacement waiting times. Health Care Manag Sci 2007; 10: 195–215.
| CrossRef |

[10] Cromwell DA, Griffiths DA. Waiting time information services: how well do different statistics forecast a patient’s wait? Aust Health Rev 2002; 25: 75–85.
| CrossRef |

[11] Gross M. Waiting times for knee arthroplasty. Can J Surg 2002; 45: 247.

[12] Rotstein DL, Alter DA. Where does the waiting list begin? A short review of the dynamics and organization of modern waiting lists. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 3157–60.
| CrossRef |

[13] Sanmartin C. A study of surgical waiting lists and waiting times for selected procedures in British Columbia. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia; 2000.

[14] Welfare AIoHa. Australian trends in life expectancy. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2006 [updated 12/10/2010 cited 2010 July 4].

[15] Stoop AP, Vrangbæk K, Berg M. Theory and practice of waiting time data as a performance indicator in health care: a case study from The Netherlands. Health Policy 2005; 73: 41–51.
| CrossRef |

[16] Healy J, Sharman E, Lokuge B. Australia: health system review. Health Systems in Review 2006; 8(5): 1–158.

[17] Grbich C, editor. Qualitative research in health. An introduction. Sydney: Sage Publications; 1999.

[18] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.
| CrossRef |

[19] Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification of strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Meth 2002; 1: 1–19.

[20] Patton MQ, editor. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. California: Sage Publications; 2002.

[21] Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 1999; 34: 1189–208.
| CAS |

[22] Welfare AIoHa. Arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2005.

[23] Smith T. Monitoring the total post-referral wait. BMJ 1994; 309: 593–6.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[24] Welfare AIoHa. Australian hospital statistics 2005–2006. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2007.

[25] Snider MG, MacDonald SJ, Pototschnik R. Waiting times and patient perspectives for total hip and knee arthroplasty in rural and urban Ontario. Can J Surg 2005; 48: 355–360.

[26] Löfvendahl S, Eckerlund I, Hansagi H, Malmqvist B, Resch S, Hanning M. Waiting for orthopaedic surgery: factors associated with waiting times and patients’ opinion. Int J Qual Health Care 2005; 17: 133–40.
| CrossRef |

[27] Buchanan-Welch S. The patient journey. Presented at: Change champions. Improving patient flows: elective surgery. Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, 2008.

[28] Dart C. Elective orthopaedic patient pathways. Melbourne, Australia, 2009.

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help