Sending NHS Patients for Operations Abroad: Is the Holiday Over?

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The UK Department of Health, in its attempt to help NHS trusts reduce long elective waiting lists, set up the overseas commissioning scheme in 2002. This allowed hospitals to send their patients abroad for their surgery. In theory, this was a win-win situation, where pressures upon surgeons were reduced, and trusts could reach UK Government targets and avoid breaches. At our hospital, a significant number of patients, who had undergone a total joint replacement abroad, were discharged after only one postoperative review and often had very little physiotherapy. A few presented to our clinic with more serious problems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of two matched groups of patients (22 each), all of whom underwent a total knee replacement in 2003. The first group (abroad, Belgium) included 10 males and 12 females with a mean age of 74.5 years and a mean follow-up of 37 months. The second group (local institution) included 10 males and 12 females with a mean age of 71.4 years and a mean follow-up of 34 months. All patients were evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Score (KSS), and SF-12 systems. RESULTS: OKS and KSS were similar in the two groups. However, SF-12 figures revealed a statistically significant difference in both the physical (PCS) and mental components (MCS). Belgium group – mean PCS 40, mean MCS 48: local group – mean PCS 47, mean MCS 57; P < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that, although the majority of patients operated upon abroad got comparable functional results to patients operated locally, they often felt dissatisfied with the overall experience of travelling for their operation. Furthermore, the issues of ‘patient ownership’ and long-term follow-up need to be fully addressed in order to safeguard the high standard of care we should offer our patients.