Predictors of poor patient satisfaction after hip replacement
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A prospective cohort study to identify red-flags for clinical complications and poor patient satisfaction after Total Hip Replacement
IRAS ID
192280
Contact name
Richard Field
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 10 months, 3 days
Research summary
Whilst total hip replacements are very successful operations, approximately 5% of patients are not satisfied with the procedure and/or suffer complications. Both medical and psychological characteristics have been linked to a poor outcome. By administering questionnaires to both staff and patients at clinic before and after the operation we aim to gauge the link between the risk assessment of specific complications by staff and the actual rate of complications. We also will examine whether the patients themselves are aware of the fact they may be deemed at a higher risk of developing any of these named complications.
Satisfaction will also be predicted by: patients, the surgeon listing the patient for the procedure, the consenting surgeon (if different), the pre-assessment nurse and the scheduler contacting the patient. At 6 months patients will complete a satisfaction visual assessment score and this will be compared to that predicted. The SF-12 questionnaire will be given to the patient both before and after surgery in addition to the Euroqol and Oxford Hip Score questionnaire which are already routinely used in the department. The occurrence of complications will be determined through examination of patient records and self-reported complications.
Our primary aim is to determine any link between predicted risk of complications and dissatisfaction with actual complications and satisfaction. Secondary aims will include determining relationship between satisfaction and pre-operative oxford hip scores, Euroqol scores and SF-12.REC name
London - London Bridge Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/0931
Date of REC Opinion
6 Jun 2016
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion