Cargando…

Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?

INTRODUCTION: The use of PROs for assessing the outcomes of emergency hospital admissions requires a means of estimating patients’ pre-admission health status. A possible alternative to asking patients to recall how their health was before the incident causing admission is to use estimates derived f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kwong, Esther, Abel, Gary, Black, Nick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7024740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32104125
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S215513
_version_ 1783498449953488896
author Kwong, Esther
Abel, Gary
Black, Nick
author_facet Kwong, Esther
Abel, Gary
Black, Nick
author_sort Kwong, Esther
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The use of PROs for assessing the outcomes of emergency hospital admissions requires a means of estimating patients’ pre-admission health status. A possible alternative to asking patients to recall how their health was before the incident causing admission is to use estimates derived from matched samples from population surveys. Our aims were to explore the impact of different methods of matching and to compare the results with estimates based on retrospective reporting. METHODS: First, elective hip arthroplasty patients were matched to respondents to the General Practice Patient Survey using age, sex, socio-economic status and number of comorbidities. The impact of restricting matching for locality and specific co-morbidities was explored. Second, the best matching method was applied to emergency admissions for laparotomy and for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after acute myocardial infarction. Data were stratified by patient characteristics. Differences in mean EQ-5D scores between the patients and matched population respondents were tested using t tests. RESULTS: Modifying the most basic form of matching by also taking locality and the specific comorbid conditions into account made no significant difference to the mean EQ-5D score for hip arthroplasty patients. Even using the most detailed matching possible, patients’ mean EQ-5D score was significantly different to that of the general population for all three cohorts. The difference was greatest for elective hip arthroplasty (0.22 v 0.64), less so for emergency laparotomy (0.56 v 0.72) and least for PCI (0.79 v 0.71). This reflects hip arthroplasty patients having a long-standing condition characterised by pain and limited mobility, whereas the other two cohorts may have enjoyed reasonable health until an unexpected acute episode led to their emergency admission. CONCLUSION: Routine PRO data acquired from population surveys cannot be used as an accurate alternative to retrospectively reported PROMs by patients during their emergency admission episode.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7024740
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70247402020-02-26 Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions? Kwong, Esther Abel, Gary Black, Nick Patient Relat Outcome Meas Original Research INTRODUCTION: The use of PROs for assessing the outcomes of emergency hospital admissions requires a means of estimating patients’ pre-admission health status. A possible alternative to asking patients to recall how their health was before the incident causing admission is to use estimates derived from matched samples from population surveys. Our aims were to explore the impact of different methods of matching and to compare the results with estimates based on retrospective reporting. METHODS: First, elective hip arthroplasty patients were matched to respondents to the General Practice Patient Survey using age, sex, socio-economic status and number of comorbidities. The impact of restricting matching for locality and specific co-morbidities was explored. Second, the best matching method was applied to emergency admissions for laparotomy and for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after acute myocardial infarction. Data were stratified by patient characteristics. Differences in mean EQ-5D scores between the patients and matched population respondents were tested using t tests. RESULTS: Modifying the most basic form of matching by also taking locality and the specific comorbid conditions into account made no significant difference to the mean EQ-5D score for hip arthroplasty patients. Even using the most detailed matching possible, patients’ mean EQ-5D score was significantly different to that of the general population for all three cohorts. The difference was greatest for elective hip arthroplasty (0.22 v 0.64), less so for emergency laparotomy (0.56 v 0.72) and least for PCI (0.79 v 0.71). This reflects hip arthroplasty patients having a long-standing condition characterised by pain and limited mobility, whereas the other two cohorts may have enjoyed reasonable health until an unexpected acute episode led to their emergency admission. CONCLUSION: Routine PRO data acquired from population surveys cannot be used as an accurate alternative to retrospectively reported PROMs by patients during their emergency admission episode. Dove 2020-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7024740/ /pubmed/32104125 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S215513 Text en © 2020 Kwong et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Kwong, Esther
Abel, Gary
Black, Nick
Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?
title Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?
title_full Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?
title_fullStr Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?
title_full_unstemmed Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?
title_short Can Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) from Population Surveys Provide Accurate Estimates of Pre-Admission Health Status of Emergency Hospital Admissions?
title_sort can patient reported outcomes (pros) from population surveys provide accurate estimates of pre-admission health status of emergency hospital admissions?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7024740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32104125
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S215513
work_keys_str_mv AT kwongesther canpatientreportedoutcomesprosfrompopulationsurveysprovideaccurateestimatesofpreadmissionhealthstatusofemergencyhospitaladmissions
AT abelgary canpatientreportedoutcomesprosfrompopulationsurveysprovideaccurateestimatesofpreadmissionhealthstatusofemergencyhospitaladmissions
AT blacknick canpatientreportedoutcomesprosfrompopulationsurveysprovideaccurateestimatesofpreadmissionhealthstatusofemergencyhospitaladmissions