The Library

Referral recommendations for osteoarthritis of the knee incorporating patients' preferences

Tools

Musila, N., Underwood, M., McCaskie, A. W., Black, N., Clarke, Aileen and Meulen, J. H. van der. (2011) Referral recommendations for osteoarthritis of the knee incorporating patients' preferences. Family Practice, Vol.28 (No.1). pp. 68-74. ISSN 0263-2136

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Clarke_PubDocView.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (183Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmq066

Abstract

Background. GPs have to respond to conflicting policy developments. As gatekeeper they are supposed to manage the growing demand for specialist services and as patient advocate they should be responsive to patients' preferences. We used an innovative approach to develop a referral guideline for patients with chronic knee pain that explicitly incorporates patients' preferences.

Methods. A guideline development group of 12 members including patients, GPs, orthopaedic surgeons and other health care professionals used formal consensus development informed by systematic evidence reviews. They rated the appropriateness of referral for 108 case scenarios describing patients according to symptom severity, age, body mass, co-morbidity and referral preference. Appropriateness was expressed on scale from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 9 (‘strongly agree’).

Results. Ratings of referral appropriateness were strongly influenced by symptom severity and patients' referral preferences. The influence of other patient characteristics was small. There was consensus that patients with severe knee symptoms who want to be referred should be referred and that patient with moderate or mild symptoms and strong preference against referral should not be referred. Referral preference had a greater impact on the ratings of referral appropriateness when symptoms were moderate or severe than when symptoms were mild.

Conclusions. Referral decisions for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee should only be guided by symptom severity and patients' referral preferences. The guideline development group seemed to have given priority to avoiding inefficient resource use in patients with mild symptoms and to respecting patient autonomy in patients with severe symptoms.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

R Medicine > RC Internal medicine

Divisions:

Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) > Warwick Evidence
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Osteoarthritis -- Treatment, Medical referral, Physician practice patterns

Journal or Publication Title:

Family Practice

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

ISSN:

0263-2136

Official Date:

February 2011

Dates:

Date	Event
February 2011	Published

Volume:

Vol.28

Number:

No.1

Page Range:

pp. 68-74

Identification Number:

10.1093/fampra/cmq066

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Publication Status:

Published

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain) (NIHR)

Grant number:

08/1310/72 (NIHR)

References:

1 National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Referral Advice—A
guide to Appropriate Referral from General to Specialist Services.
London: NICE, 2001.
2 National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Osteoarthritis: National
Clinical Guideline for Care in Adults. London: NICE, 2008.
3 Davies M, Elywn G. Referral management centres: promising innovations
or Trojan horses? BMJ 2006; 332: 844–6.
4 Department of Health. Building on the Best: Choice Responsiveness
and Equity in the NHS. London: HMSO, 2003.
5 Raine R, Black N, Sanderson C. Developing clinical guidelines:
a challenge to current methods. BMJ 2005; 331: 631–3.
6 National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Fourth Annual Report.
NJR, 2007.
7 Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MS et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness
Method User’s Manual. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation, 2001.
8 McAlindon TE, Cooper C, Kirwan JR, Dieppe PA. Determinants
of disability in osteoarthritis of the knee. Ann Rheum Dis 1993;
52: 258–62.
9 Dieppe PA, Cushnaghan J, Shepstone L. The Bristol ‘‘OA500’’
study: progression of osteoarthritis (OA) over 3 years and
the relationship between clinical and radiographic changes at
the knee joint. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1997; 5: 87–97.
10 Hannan MT, Felson DT, Pincus T. Analysis of discordance between
radiographic changes and knee pain in osteoarthritis of
the knee. J Rheumatol 2000; 27: 1513–7.
11 Peat G, McCarney R, Croft P. Knee pain and osteoarthritis in older
adults: a review of community burden and current use of primary
healthcare. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 91–7.
12 Anderson JG, Wixson RL, Tsai D, Stulberg SD, Chang RW. Functional
outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients
over the age of 75. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11: 831–40.
13 Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P et al. Health-related quality of life
after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998; 80: 163–73.
14 Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, Lubitz RM, Freund DA.
Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat
Res 1998; 356: 93–110.
15 Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patients
satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372
knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop
Scand 2000; 71: 262–7.
16 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement
Registry. Annual Report. AOA, 2006.
17 Edwards A, Elwyn G. Evidence-Based Patient Choice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
18 Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL et al. Consensus development
methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1–88.
19 Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing clinical
guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318: 593–6.
20 Raine R, Sanderson C, HutchingsAet al. An experimental study of
determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development.
Lancet 2004; 364: 429–37.
21 Woolhead GM, Donovan JL, Chard JA, Dieppe PA. Who should
have priority for a knee joint replacement? Rheumatology
2002; 41: 390–4.
22 Naylor CD, Williams JI. Primary hip and knee replacement surgery:
Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority.
Qual Health Care 1996; 5: 20–30.
23 Dieppe P, Basler HD, Chard J et al. Knee replacement surgery for
osteoarthritis: effectiveness, practice variations, indications and
possible determinants of utilization. Rheumatology 1999; 38: 73–83.
24 Escobar A, Quintana JM, Aro´ stegui I et al. Development of explicit
criteria for total knee replacement. Int J Technol Assess
Health Care 2003; 19: 57–70.
25 Jones IR, Berney L, Kelly M et al. Is patient involvement possible
when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of
decision-making in primary care. Soc Sci Med 2004; 59: 93–102.
26 Department ofHealth. TheMusculoskeletal Services Framework—A
Joint Responsibility: Doing It Differently. London: DH, 2006.
27 Clark JP, Hudak PL, Hawker GA et al. The moving target: a qualitative
study of elderly patients' decision-making regarding total
joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86:
1366–74.