Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 14, Number 3 > Pp. 174-182

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Appendices Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bream, E. Articles by Black, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Review

What is the relationship between patients' and clinicians' reports of the outcomes of elective surgery?

Elizabeth Bream , Nick Black ¹

NHS Lothian, Edinburgh; ¹ Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Correspondence to: elizabeth.bream{at}nhs.net

Objectives: To identify studies in which patients' and clinicians' reports of health status and complications of one of four elective operations – hip and knee replacement, varicose vein surgery and groin hernia repair – are reported, and to describe the associations that have been reported between clinicians' and patients' reports.

Methods: Systematic search of several bibliographic databases and review of citations of articles meeting inclusion criteria. A narrative summary of the findings was conducted.

Results: Most of the 62 studies of health status identified were for hip (23) or knee (33) disease. The literature on complications was even more limited with 12 studies of surgical site infection, one for urinary tract infection and none for lower respiratory tract infections. Procedure-specific complications were restricted to one for arthroplasties and three for hernia repair. Despite considerable variation in the findings of studies, some clear patterns emerge, albeit they are largely based on arthroplasty. Patients' and clinicians' views of health status generally correlate moderately (0.5–0.6) when both are reporting on the same dimension of health status. Inevitably this is confined to disability, though patients' and clinicians' reports of symptoms are also moderately correlated. In contrast, comparisons of different dimensions, such as patients' reports of disability and clinicians' reports of impairment, result in poor correlation (0.3). There is huge variation in the way postoperative complications are measured which limits the extent to which an overview can be undertaken. Despite that, moderate to strong correlations have been reported between patients' and clinicians' views of complications.

Conclusions: Patients' views of their level of disability reflect clinicians' views and can be relied upon to assess this dimension of health status. In addition, patients are the ‘gold standard’ judges of symptoms and quality of life. Given these findings, clinicians, provider managers, commissioners and politicians can be confident that patients' reports provide an accurate indication of the outcome of elective surgery.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Black and C. Jenkinson Measuring patients' experiences and outcomes BMJ, July 2, 2009; 339(jul02_1): b2495 - b2495. [Full Text]