Article Text

FRI0584-HPR Satisfaction and quality of hip and knee oa management in norwegian primary health care. is the glass half full or half empty?
  1. G. Grønhaug1,
  2. N. Østerås2,
  3. K. B. Hagen2
  1. 1National Resource Center For Rehabilitation In Rheumatology, Department Of Rheumatology, DIAKONHJEMMET HOSPITAL, Levanger
  2. 2National Resource Center For Rehabilitation In Rheumatology, Department Of Rheumatology, DIAKONHJEMMET HOSPITAL, Oslo, Norway


Background Little is known about the quality of osteoarthritis (OA) care in Norway, whether there are differences in OA care for knee OA vs. hip OA, and to what extent the OA patient is satisfied with the received care.

Objectives To investigate patient reported quality indicator (QI) pass rates among patients with knee or hip OA, and to compare QI pass rates and treatment satisfaction for patients with hip OA vs. knee OA in a primary health care setting.

Methods We collaborated with general practitioners (GP) in Nord Trøndelag county in the middle of Norway. During a consultation the collaborating GPs handed out an envelope to patients with hip and/or knee OA. The envelope contained information on the study, a questionnaire and a prepaid envelope for returning the questionnaire. Questionnaires were returned, either to the GP or by post. The QI pass rates were obtained using the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire, a 17-item questionnaire that includes QIs related to patient education and information, regular provider assessments, referrals and pharmacological treatment.1 The total QI pass rate for each patient were calculated as the total number of QIs they passed, divided by the total number of QIs for which they were eligible. Satisfaction with OA care was reported on a five-point Likert scale (very dissatisfied – very satisfied).

Results 238 patients were included, 119 returned the questionnaires, giving a response rate of 42%. Mean age was 65 years (SD 10), with an average BMI of 27, (SD 6). 60% reported knee OA and 40% hip OA. 73% were women. The mean total QI pass rate was 45% (44% for hip OA, 47% for Knee OA). Median summary IQ pass rates for non-pharmacological modalities were 47% (49% for Knee OA and 46% for Hip OA) and 44% (44% Knee OA and 42% Hip OA) for pharmacological treatment modalities. 44% (32% for knee OA and 46% for hip OA) were either pleased or very pleased with the received OA treatment. Only 7% (9% for knee and 6% for hip OA) were unpleased or very unpleased with the treatment. We found no statistically significant differences between knee OA and hip OA patients concerning self-reported QI pass rates or satisfaction with the OA treatment.

Conclusions According to our findings about half of the patients are satisfied with the primary care treatment, and in total about half of the QI’s were passed. There were no differences in the self-reported quality of OA care and treatment satisfaction between patients with knee OA compared with hip OA. We did not find any difference in QI pass rates between pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities. The relatively low patient self-reported QI pass rates and treatment satisfaction found in this study is in line with other similar studies, and further confirms the impression that it is room for improvements in the management of OA in primary health care.


  1. Østerås et al. Quality of osteoarthritis care: test-retest reliability and feasibility of the osteoarthritis quality indicator questionnaire. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20 (suppl 1): S185-S186.

Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.