Patient Reported Experience Measure
Dr. Mahesh D KumarConsultant AnaesthetistTrafford General Hospital
22nd March 2012
IntroductionValid, Reliable and Responsive measure
VASPONV impact scaleNine Item Questionaire40 item Questionaire
Myles, P.S. BJA 2000 Myles, P.S. BJA 2012
Quality of outcome
Patient’s perception of their outcome of careEberhart, L.H. Anaesthesist 2002 Gill, T.M. JAMA 1994 Guyatt, G.H. JAMA 1994
Traditional FactorsTime to awakeningDuration of stayPain, emesis and confusion
Lee, A. Anaesth Intensive Care 1996
Consequences of Traditional factorsTransient events: negative recollection of recovery from surgery
Poor quality recovery- prolongs duration of stay
Delays discharge from hospital- Resource utilisation
Moerman. ACTA Anaesthesiol Scan 1992 Tong, D. Anesthesiology 1997
Quality in Anaesthesia
Quality of recovery- An important dimension of the patient’s experience and related to the quality of care
Quality of recovery- related to patient satisfaction
Data collected on over 10000 patients
Myles, P.S. Minerva Anestesiol 2001
Nine item questionaire
Psychometric evaluationModerate validity and reliability (coefficients 0.5-0.61)
Acceptable for group measurements
40 item questionaire
Ethics committee approval
Men and Women >18yrs (n=160)
Exclusion criteria:Poor English comprehensionPsychiatric disturbanceKnown history of alcohol/drug dependenceSevere pre-existing medical condition limiting objective assessment
MethodsBase line data collected and patients asked to complete two questionaires
1st questionaire has nine items (3-point scale)
2nd questionaire has 50 items (5-point Likert scale, 1=None of the time, 5= all of the time)
Type of surgery, duration of recovery room stay and total hospital stay
MethodsOn the morning after surgery
Pts asked to rate overall recovery using VAS (poor recovery to excellent recovery)Complete QoR score50-item questionaireInpatients post in an internal mail envelopeDay cases instructed to complete and return in a self-addressed envelope provided
Time taken to complete QoR score and 50 item questionaire <10 min
QoR-4010 items removed from 50 item questionaire- Not correlated with quality of recovery, identified by Pearson correlation coefficient<0.3
Emotional state (n=9)
Physical comfort (n=12)
Psychological support (n=7)
Physical independence (n=5)
Pain (n=7)
QoR-40Emotional state
Feeling comfortableHaving general feeling of well-beingFeeling in controlBad dreamsFeeling anxiousFeeling angryFeeling depressedFeeling aloneDifficulty falling asleep
QoR-40Physical comfort:
Able to breathe easyHaving a good sleepBeing able to enjoy foodFeeling restedNauseaVomitingDry retchingFeeling restlessShaking or twitchingShiveringFeeling too coldFeeling dizzy
QoR-40Psychological support
Able to communicate with hospital staffAble to communicate with family or friendsGetting support from hospital doctorsGetting support from hospital nursesHaving support from family or friendsAble to understand instructions or adviceFeeling confused
QoR-40Physical independence
Able to return to work or usual home activitiesAble to writeHaving a normal speechAble to wash, brush teeth or shaveAble to look after own appearance
QoR-40Pain
Moderate painSevere painHeadacheMuscle painsBackacheSore throatSore mouth
Validity testingConvergent validity: comparing QoR 40 with VAS- measure inter-item correlations
Construct validity: QoR 40 between men and women- Women are expected to have poorer QoR but emerge faster from GA than men- Buchanan, F.F. BJA 2011QoR 40 and time for completion of questionaire, duration of stay in recovery and duration of hospital stay
ReliabilityA measure of consistency
Test-retest reliablility- Pts completed same questionaires on a second occasion, later on the same post-op day
Internal consistency of the QoR-40
Split-half reliability
Statistical analysis
Associations measured using Pearson correlation coefficients (r), Spearman rank correlation (rho) or Cronbach’s alpha (α), test-retest reliability (concordance) was measured using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ri)
Repeatability calculated within subjects based on the Bland-Altman method
Guyatt, J. Chronic Dis 1987 Katz, J.N. Med Care 1992
Patient demographicsExtent of surgery:
Day surgery 25 (16%)
Minor 78 (49%)
Major 57 (36%)
Type of surgery
General 48(30%), Gyn 33(21%), Ortho 25(16%), ENT 22(14%), Urol 15(9%)
Duration of surgery (min) 70 [45-120]
Recovery room stay (min) 60 [45-84]
ResultsGood convergent validity between QoR 40 and VAS (r=0.68, p<0.001)
Construct validity supported by negative correlation with duration of stay (rho=-0.24, p<0.001)
Lower mean QoR-40 score in women (162 (sd 26) compared with men (173(17) p=0.002
Good test-retest reliability (intra-class ri=0.92, P<0.001), internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.93, P<0.001) and Split-half coefficient (α=0.83, P<0.0001)
DiscussionValidity, reliability and clinical acceptability of the score was excellent
Pts able to complete 40-item questionaire in <10 min
Women have worse post-op recovery
Negative association between QoR-40 and duration of hospital stay
Recommendations
Scores would have been lower if pts were interviewed at an earlier time after surgery to detect greater changes in health status and responsiveness
Pts priorities may differ from anaesthetists and surgeons
Relevant to measure Pts QoR, and satisfaction with care.
Regional audit data
Pain is dynamic- interferes with rehabilitation
70% in pain after open shoulder surgery5
QoR- Dimension of patient experience- related to the quality of patient care
MethodsProspective audit conducted on patients undergoing arthroscopic and open shoulder procedures under a few designated consultant anaesthetists
During pre-operative assessment, patients were explained about the audit and verbal consent obtained to participate
MethodsAll patients had asleep interscalene brachial plexus block using combined ultrasound and peripheral nerve stimulator techniquePatients were followed up in the recovery areas monitoring their vital signs (BP/ HR), consciousness, PONV, Pain, Temp, Surgical bleeding every 5 min intervals and scored on a scale of 0-2 and discharged from the recovery only after their total score was at least 11/12.
MethodsPatients were asked to comment in their own words on the quality of recovery score (QoR 9) form on the ward, 4-6 hrs after discharge from the recovery area
Follow up 24 hrs & 10 days following discharge from the hospital done over the phone to evaluate their post-operative pain relief and signs of any residual effects from the nerve block.
On admission 5 mins 10 mins 15 mins 20 mins 30 mins Fit for Discharge (Score of 11/12)
Time Vital signs: BP2 = normal1 = low BP and high/ low HR managed with fluids
0 = low BP and high / low HR requiring IV medications
CONSCIOUSNESS2 = fully awake1 = rousable on command and maintaining airway
0 = not responding and requiring airway support
PONV2 = no PONV/ minimal PONV treated with PO medications
1 = moderate: treated with IM/IV medications
0 = continuesPAIN2 = non / well controlled1 = acceptable to patient0 = not acceptable requiring IV analgesics
TEMP2= NORMAL TEMP 1= 35.5 - 36.00 = <35 OR >37SURGICAL BLEEDING2 = non / minimal no dressing change required
1 = moderate upto 2 dressing changes required
0 = severe > 3 dressing change and blood transfusion needed
SCORES
RECOVERY DATA (provider centred): please mention the management if score is <2 e.g Vital signs score 1, IV Gelofusine started or Temp score 1, Bair hugger startedPatient Discharged at:…………………………………………………………………...Reasons for Delay (>15mins ) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Not at all Some of time Most of time
1 Had a feeling of general well-being
2 Had support from others (Doctors & nurses)
3 Been able to understand instructions and advice. Not being confused.
4 Been able to look after personal toilet and hygiene unaided
5 Been able to pass urine and having no trouble with bowel function.
6 Been able to breathe easily
7 Been free from headache, backache or muscle pains
8 Been free fromnausea, dry-retching or vomiting
9 Been free from experiencing severe pain or constant moderate pain
Total Score0 1 2
The Quality of recovery score (QoR Score)- patient centred
Results52 patients underwent ambulatory surgeries eg. SLAP, ASAD, RCR, Excision of AC joint
17 patients underwent in-patient surgeries eg. Open shoulder, TSR, TER, TSH, Open Bankart repair
Recovery score following ambulatory surgery
5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min >20 min0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Series1Series2Series3
No of Patients
Minutes to recover from Anaesthesia
Recovery score
Blue- 11/12Red- 9/10Green-<8
Recovery score following in-patient surgery
5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min >20 min0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Series1Series2Series3No of
patients
Minutes to recover from anaesthesia
Recovery score
Blue-11/12Red-9-10Green<8
QOR9 –Audit Results from Upper Limb ambulatory
Surgery
Questions: Pt.-No
Q1
Had a feeling of general well-being 87% 45/52
Q2
Had support from staff (nurses and doctors) 98% 51/52
Q3
Been able to understand instructions and advice. Not being confused
98% 51/52
Q4
Been able to look after personal toilet and hygiene unaided
81% 42/52
Q5
Been able to pass urine and having no trouble with bowel function.
81% 42/52
QOR9 –Ambulatory surgery Results continued
Q6 Been able to breathe easily 92% 48/52
Q7 Been free from headache, backache or muscle pains
79% 41/52
Q8 Been free from nausea, dry-retching or vomiting
87% 45/52
Q9 Been free from experiencing severe pain or constant moderate pain
88% 46/52
QOR9 – In-patient surgeryQuestions: Pt.-No
Q1 Had a feeling of general well-being 70% 12/17
Q2 Had support from staff (nurses and doctors) 94% 16/17
Q3 Been able to understand instructions and advice Not being confused
82% 14/17
Q4 Been able to look after personal toilet and hygiene unaided
76% 13/17
Q5 Been able to pass urine and having no trouble with bowel function.
82% 14/17
QOR9 –In-patients result
Q6 Been able to breathe easily 100%
17/17
Q7 Been free from headache, backache or muscle pains
76% 13/17
Q8 Been free from nausea, dry-retching or vomiting
82% 14/17
Q9 Been free from experiencing severe pain or constant moderate pain
76% 13/17
Comparison of QoR9
Our audit showed most patients expressed satisfaction with anaesthesia care
Ambulatory patients have higher QoR 9 score
(16.79) compared to in-patients (15.05)
These figures are in-accordance with the results of P. Myles group (5672 patients analysed) in Anesthesia and intensive care 2000- (16.6 Vs 14.6)
Conclusion
An important component of improving the quality of healthcare is that relevant patient information, including patient preferences and expectations, are incorporated into clinical care decisions.
We advocate the widespread introduction of reporting systems for patient feedback on our clinical service
ANESTH ANALG,1999;89:652–8
ECONOMICS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS RESEARCH MACARIO ET ALPATIENT PREFERENCES FOR ANESTHESIA OUTCOMES
THANK YOU