[Structured assessment for orthopaedic patients - method, results, and diagnostic potential].

BACKGROUND: Review of medical records demonstrates a moderate to low correlation (r = 0.57 to 0.22) between daily limitations and symptoms based upon patient history. This correlation could be improved with the ideal questionnaire which would assess patients using the same questions with the same response options in the same order. Therefore, a simple patient questionnaire for orthopaedic patients was developed and validated to assess 10 symptoms, 12 limitations of daily life and patients' well-being. The concept was to provide a universal questionnaire that could be used for all patients and provide the basis for a structured assessment that would then provide standardised and comparable patient information. Additional localisation of symptoms would allow a differential diagnosis. For example, pain in the groin/thigh while standing and walking may be caused by osteoarthritis of the hip or osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine. Further physical investigation and diagnostic imaging may lead to the diagnosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: This method was employed as part of routine quality control from November 2006 to October 2008 by two orthopaedic surgeons in their outpatient clinic in a tertiary health care hospital. Structured assessment was performed in all patients regardless of their pathology (hip, knee, shoulder, cervical spine, lumbar spine, foot) or situation (before/after surgery, conservative therapy). The completeness, symptom score, daily limitation score, and well-being as well as the relationships between symptom score, daily limitation score, and well-being were calculated. Answers regarding walking capacity and effective walking capacity could be compared. Several patients with combined orthopaedic pathologies were closely analysed.

RESULTS: Data of 2642 structured assessments in 1777 patients (957 women, 53.9 %) were evaluated. The average age was 64.4 years. The data completeness on the front page was 96.2 and 86.3 % on the back page. The mean value for symptoms (daily limitations) was 34.31 (27.45), and the median was 32.5 (25.0). The distributions of the symptom score and daily limitation score were asymmetrical; 80 % of the patients were below 50 and 38, respectively. Well-being was excellent in 21.4 %, good in 24 %, moderate in 24.2 %, poor in 11.4 %, and very poor in 16.7 %. The main symptom was pain on movement/walking, with an average of 60.32. The symptom score, daily limitation score, and well-being were found to have a correlation to each other (Spearman's r between 0.55 and 0.63). Thirty-nine patients reported an inability to walk, although 36 could walk in the office (1 had paraplegia and 2 had paraparesis caused by lumbar stenosis). Combined pathologies in orthopaedic patients were found for cervical-shoulder, lumbar-hip, and lumbar-knee pathologies.

CONCLUSIONS: A routine structured assessment can be performed with extra effort. A structured assessment provides patient information in a standardised form so that such information can be compared as well as allow a differential diagnosis. It is possible that answers to the questionnaire represent patients' subjective assessment rather than reality.