Revision Versus Primary Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Scores in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Abstract

BackgroundThe Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) score is a nationally standardized measure of a patient’s inpatient experience. This study aims to assess whether HCAHPS scores differ between patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and patients undergoing revision TJA. MethodsPatients who underwent primary or revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA or TKA) and returned a completed HCAHPS survey were included in this study. HCAHPS scores were collected from our institution’s Center for Quality and Patient Safety department, which was cross-referenced with our hospital’s electronic data warehouse. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and quality outcomes were queried. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed using MatLab 2017a and P-values less than .05 were deemed significant. ResultsIn total, 523 primary and 59 revision THA recipients completed HCAHPS surveys at our institution between October 2011 and November 2016. During this same period, 507 primary TKA recipients and 40 revision TKA recipients completed HCAHPS surveys. Compared to revision THA, primary THA patients had a significantly higher top box for overall hospital ratings (58.46% vs 41.38%), felt that nurses listened to them carefully (84.3% vs 72.88%), and felt that they clearly understood the role of each medication (69.48% vs 56.90%). Moreover, 18 of 20 HCAHPS question responses favored primary THA despite not reaching significance for the majority of HCAHPS questions. Patients with revision TKA demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of “top box” choices for quieter rooms and a trend favoring better HCAHPS scores in revision TKA in a further 12 of 20 HCAHPS responses. ConclusionPatients undergoing primary THA report higher HCAHPS scores than those undergoing revision THA, while revision TKA demonstrated a general trend toward higher scores when compared to primary TKA patients. This publicly reported quality measurement metric which factors into physician reimbursement may be biased by the patient’s health status, the complexity of the surgical procedure, and length of stay in hospital rather than a true reflection of the quality of their hospital experience.