Using patient-reported outcome measures to estimate cost-effectiveness of hip replacements in English hospitals

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 106, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 323-331

  Appleby, John ^a   Poteliakhoff, Emmi ^a   Shah, Koonal ^b   Devlin, Nancy ^b  

^a KING S FUND   (United Kingdom)

^b OFFICE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Cost per QALY; Health economics; Hip replacement; Orthopaedics; Patient reported outcome measures (PROMS)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP PROSTHESIS; HIP SURGERY; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84883139634     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0141076813489678     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Department of Health. Guidance on the Routine Collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). London: Department of Health, 2009.
2. Devlin N and Appleby J. Getting the Most Out of PROMs: Putting Health Outcomes at the Heart of NHS Decision Making. London: King's Fund, 2009.
3. NHS Information Centre. PROMs Outcomes Summary by Provider April 2009 to August 2010. London: NHS Information Centre, 2011.
4. Rabin R and de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med 2011; 33: 337-343.
5. Department of Health. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England: The Case-Mix Adjustment Methodology. London: Department of Health, 2012.
6. Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2009- 2010 Appendix: DBRC Organisation-Specific Reference Cost Data. London: Department of Health, 2010.
7. Department of Health. Confirmation of Payment by Results Arrangements for 2010-11. London: Department of Health, 2010.
8. Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2009-2010. London: Department of Health, 2011.
9. American Arthritis Society. Practical Tips for Artificial Hip Joints (5. How Long do Artificial Hip Joints Last Today?). Minneapolis, MN: American Arthritis Society 2013. See http://www.americanarthritis.org/ portal/loader.php?seite1/4practical_tips_for_artificial_ hip_joints (last accessed 24 April 2013).
10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the Selection of Prostheses for Primary Total Hip Replacement. NICE Technology Guidance Appraisal [Updated June 2012]. London: NICE, 2000. See http://publications.nice.org.uk/guidance-onthe- selection-of-prostheses-for-primary-total-hipreplacement- ta2 (last accessed 24 April 2013).
11. HM Treasury. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: TSO, 2011.
12. Department of Health. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England: A Methodology for Identifying Potential Outliers. London: Department of Health, 2011.
13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2008.
14. Fordham R, Skinner J, Wang X and Nolan J The Exeter Primary Outcome Group. 'The economic benefit of hip replacement: a 5-year follow-up of costs and outcomes in the Exeter Primary Outcomes Study'. BMJ Open 2012; 2: e000752.
15. Osnes-Ringen H, Kvamme MK, Kristiansen IS, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of elective orthopaedic surgical procedures in patients with inflammatory arthropathies. Scand J Rheumatol 2011; 40: 108-115.
16. Navarro Espigares JL and Hernández Torres E. Costoutcome analysis of joint replacement: evidence from a Spanish public hospital. Gaceta Sanitaria 2008; 22: 337-343.
17. Gutacker N, Bojke C, Daidone S, Devlin N, Parkin D and Street A. Truly Inefficient or Providing Better Quality of Care? Analysing the Relationship between Risk-Adjusted Hospital Costs and Patients' Health Outcomes. CHE Research paper 68. Heslington: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2011.
18. Hutchings A, Neuberger J, Grosse Frie K, Black N and Van der Muelan J. Factors associated with nonresponse in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health Qual Life Out 2012; 10: 34.
19. Hutchings A, Grosse Frie K, Neuberger J, Van der Muelan J and Black N. Late response to patientreported outcome questionnaires after surgery was associated with worse outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 218-225.
20. Audit Commission. Review of Reference Costs Findings from pilot reviews of the quality on 2008/09 submissions, 2010. http://webarchive.nationalarchives. gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digital asset/dh_118083.pdf (last accessed 30 April 2013).
21. Department of Health. Review of reference costs: Summary report, 2010. http://webarchive.national archives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/ digitalasset/dh_118080.pdf (last accessed 30 April 2013).
22. Department of Health. Payment by Results and the Market Forces Factor (MFF) in 2011-12. London: Department of Health, 2011.
23. Culyer AJ, McCabe C, Briggs AH, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007; 12: 56-58.
24. NHS Information Centre. PROMs Guide version 3: Provisional Monthly Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in England: A Guide to PROMs Methodology. London: NHS Information Centre, 2011.
25. NHS Information Centre. HRG4 2010/11 Reference Costs Grouper. London: NHS Information Centre, 2011.