Patients on the waiting list for total hip replacement: a 1-year follow-up study
Untreated osteoarthritis (OA) in the hip causes pain and reduced physical and social functioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of waiting time on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functional condition and dependence on help at the time of surgery and during follow-up 1 year after surgery. A further aim was to elucidate possible differences between men and women. Two hundred and twenty-nine consecutively included patients with OA in the hip were interviewed when assigned to the waiting list, again 1 week prior to surgery with unilateral total hip replacement (THR), and 1 year after surgery. Health-related quality of life and function were measured using the Nottingham Health Profile, EuroQoL and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The result showed that the average waiting time was 239 days, that 15% of the patients were operated on within 3 months, and that 21% had to wait more than 6 months. At the time of surgery, HRQOL had deteriorated significantly (p < 0.05) and the number of patients receiving support from relatives had increased from 31% to 58% during the wait. At the 1-year follow-up, both HRQOL and functional condition had improved significantly despite the wait, and the need for support from relatives had decreased to 11% (p < 0.001). In conclusion, long waiting time for THR is detrimental to patients HRQOL causing reduced functional condition, pain and increased need for support from relatives, which limit the independence in daily life.
Background: Reliable assessment of nursing workload is necessary for the quantitative approach to staffing of intensive care units. The Nursing Care Recording System (NCR11) scores both the nursing contribution to patient care and those related to medical procedures. The purpose of the present work was to compare NCR11 scoring with the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) and Nine Equivalents of Nurse Manpower use Score (NEMS) and to examine the interrater reliability of NCR11 scoring. Methods: Bias and precision of workload scores (NCR11 vs. TISS or NEMS) were assessed for 6126 consecutive admissions (23910 ICU-days) at three intensive care units. Inter-rater reliability was analyzed by having nurses at nine ICUs score workload using NCR11 for three dummy intensive care patient cases presented over a 3-year period. Variability in scoring was analyzed using the coefficient of variation. Results: Agreement between NCR11 and TISS or NEMS was poor and limits of agreement were wide. Linear relationships between NCR11 and TISS or NEMS scores differed between units. Variability in NCR11 scoring decreased significantly from 10.4% to 5.9% between dummy cases 1 and 2 and remained low for patient case 3. Conclusion: The NCR11 does not measure the same elements of workload in the ICU as do TISS and NEMS. Inter-rater reliability with NCR11 is good, showing little variation in scoring between nurses.