Effectiveness,Patient Satisfaction,and Cost Reduction of Virtual Joint Replacement Clinic Follow-Up of Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundTotal hip and knee arthroplasties are increasingly performed operations, and routine follow-up places huge demands on orthopedic services. This study investigates the effectiveness, patients’ satisfaction, and cost reduction of Virtual Joint Replacement Clinic (VJRC) follow-up of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patients in a university hospital. VJRC is especially valuable when in-person appointments are not advised or feasible such as during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA total of 1749 patients who were invited for VJRC follow-up for knee or hip arthroplasty from January 2017 to December 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were referred to VJRC after their 6-week postoperative review. Routine VJRC postoperative review was undertaken at 1 and 7 years and then 3-yearly thereafter. We evaluated the VJRC patient response rate, acceptability, and outcome. Patient satisfaction was measured in a subgroup of patients using a satisfaction survey. VJRC costs were calculated compared to face-to-face follow-up.ResultsThe VJRC had a 92.05% overall response rate. Only 7.22% required further in-person appointments with only 3% being reviewed by an orthopedic consultant. VJRC resulted in an estimated saving of £42,644 per year at our institution. The patients’ satisfaction survey showed that 89.29% of the patients were either satisfied or very satisfied with VJRC follow-up.ConclusionVJRC follow-up for hip and knee arthroplasty patients is an effective alternative to in-person clinic assessment which is accepted by patients, has high patient satisfaction, and can reduce the cost to both health services and patients.     

Differentiating poor validity from probable impairment on the medical symptom validity test: a cross-validation study

Aims: In neuropsychological evaluations, it is often difficult to ascertain whether poor performance on measures of validity is due to poor effort or malingering, or whether there is genuine cognitive impairment. Dunham and Denney created an algorithm to assess this question using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). We assessed the ability of their algorithm to detect poor validity versus probable impairment, and concordance of failure on the MSVT with other freestanding tests of performance validity.

Methods: Two previously published datasets (n?=?153 and n?=?641, respectively) from outpatient neuropsychological evaluations were used to test Dunham and Denney’s algorithm, and to assess concordance of failure rates with the Test of Memory Malingering and the forced choice measure of the California Verbal Learning Test, two commonly used performance validity tests.

Results: In both datasets, none of the four cutoff scores for failure on the MSVT (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85%) identified a poor validity group with proportionally aligned failure rates on other freestanding measures of performance validity. Additionally, the protocols with probable impairment did not differ from those with poor validity on cognitive measures.

Conclusions: Despite what appeared to be a promising approach to evaluating failure on the easy MSVT subtests when clinical data are unavailable (as recommended in the advanced interpretation program, or advanced interpretation [AI], of the MSVT), the current findings indicate the AI remains the gold standard for doing so. Future research should build on this effort to address shortcomings in measures of effort in neuropsychological evaluations.     

Prenatal Substance Use and Perceptions of Parent and Partner Use Using the 4P’s Plus Screener

Maternal and Child Health Journal - Background Prenatal substance use screening is recommended. The 4 P’s Plus screener includes questions on perceived problematic substance use in parents...