Top

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Published in:

Open Access 19-03-2024 | Reports of Original Investigations

Validation of the postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire after emergency surgery and association with quality of life at three months

Authors: Victoria Le Bescond, MD, Jonathan Petit-Phan, MD, Maëva Campfort, MD, Claire Nicolleau, MD, Mathieu Conté, MD, Guillaume Bouhours, MD, Louis Rony, MD, PhD, Sigismond Lasocki, MD, PhD, Maxime Léger, MD, PhD

Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie | Issue 5/2024

Abstract

Purpose

The Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) tool, validated for measuring postoperative recovery following scheduled surgeries, has not been psychometrically assessed in emergency contexts. Moreover, the QoR-15’s associations with long-term outcomes remain underexplored. This study aimed to confirm the validity and reliability of the QoR-15 following emergency surgery and assess its association with three-month postoperative quality of life.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study (August 2021–April 2022) on adult patients who underwent emergency surgery. The QoR-15 questionnaire was administered before surgery (H0) and at 24 hr (H24) and 48 hr (H48) after surgery. We examined the H24 score’s associations with both the three-month quality of life, as assessed by the EQ-5D scale, and the number of days spent at home at 30 (DAH30) and 90 (DAH90) days.

Results

Of the 375 included patients, 352 (94%) completed the QoR-15 at H24 and 338 (90%) were followed up at three months. The population represented the following diverse surgical specialties: orthopedic (51%), gastrointestinal (27%), urologic (13%), and others (9%). The QoR-15 questionnaire confirmed all psychometric qualities (internal consistency, reproducibility, responsiveness, acceptability, construct, and convergent validities) in the emergency context. The average minimum clinical difference was 8.0 at H24. There was an association between QoR-15 at H24 and the three-month quality of life (r = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14 to 0.34; P < 0.001), DAH30 (r = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; P < 0.001), and DAH90 (r = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.40; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The QoR-15 score is valid for measuring early postoperative recovery after emergency surgery. The H24 score significantly correlated with both the three-month quality of life and the number of days at home.

Study registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04845763); first submitted 11 April 2021.

Available only for authorised users

Mullen MG, Michaels AD, Mehaffey JH, et al. Risk associated with complications and mortality after urgent surgery vs elective and emergency surgery: implications for defining "quality" and reporting outcomes for urgent surgery. JAMA Surg 2017; 152: 768–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0918CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Morris C, Russell C. Morbidity and mortality after emergency surgery. BMJ 2006; 333: 713–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38922.502361.80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Campfort M, Cayla C, Lasocki S, Rineau E, Léger M. Early quality of recovery according to QoR-15 score is associated with one-month postoperative complications after elective surgery. J Clin Anesth 2022; 78: 110638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110638CrossRefPubMed

Morris ME, Atkinson V, Woods J, et al. patient judgement of change with elective surgery correlates with patient reported outcomes and quality of life. Healthcare (Basel) 2022; 10: 999. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10060999CrossRefPubMed

Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S. Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 11–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013366CrossRefPubMed

Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 1332–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e318289b84bCrossRefPubMed

Myles PS, Boney O, Botti M, et al. Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: patient comfort. Br J Anaesth 2018; 120: 705–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.037CrossRefPubMed

Abola RE, Bennett-Guerrero E, Kent ML, et al. American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative joint consensus statement on patient-reported outcomes in an enhanced recovery pathway: erratum. Anesth Analg 2018; 127: e95. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000003782CrossRef

Oreskov JO, Burcharth J, Nielsen AF, Ekeloef S, Kleif J, Gögenur I. Quality of recovery after major emergency abdominal surgery: a prospective observational cohort study. Minerva Chir 2020; 75: 104–10. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4733.20.08226-7

10.

Kleif J, Gögenur I. Severity classification of the quality of recovery-15 score—an observational study. J Surg Res 2018; 225: 101–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.12.040CrossRefPubMed

11.

Toulouse E, Masseguin C, et al. French legal approach to clinical research. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2018; 37: 607–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2018.10.013CrossRefPubMed

12.

Léger M, Campfort M, Cayla C, Parot-Schinkel E, Lasocki S, Rineau E. Validation of an alternative French version of the quality of recovery-15 score: the FQoR-15. Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: e345–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.05.052CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kluger Y, Ben-Ishay O, Sartelli M, et al. World society of emergency surgery study group initiative on Timing of Acute Care Surgery classification (TACS). World J Emerg Surg 2013; 8: 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-8-17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Protopapa KL, Simpson JC, Smith NC, Moonesinghe SR. Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). Br J Surg 2014; 101: 1774–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9638CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bennett-Guerrero E, Welsby I, Dunn TJ, et al. The use of a postoperative morbidity survey to evaluate patients with prolonged hospitalization after routine, moderate-risk, elective surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 514–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-199908000-00050CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sedaghat AR. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161: 551–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819852604CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, et al. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 285–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rouquette A, Falissard B. Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2011; 20: 235–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Bishara AJ, Hittner JB. Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches. Psychol Methods 2012; 17: 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028087CrossRefPubMed

22.

Nunnally J, Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

23.

Ruscio, J. Constructing confidence intervals for Spearman’s rank correlation with ordinal data: a simulation study comparing analytic and bootstrap methods. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 2008; 7: 7. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1225512360

24.

Borkowf CB. A new nonparametric method for variance estimation and confidence interval construction for Spearman's rank correlation. Comput Stat Data Anal 2000; 34: 219–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(99)00077-8CrossRef

25.

Kleif J, Waage J, Christensen KB, Gögenur I. Systematic review of the QoR-15 score, a patient- reported outcome measure measuring quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2018; 120: 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.013CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bu XS, Zhang J, Zuo YX. Validation of the Chinese version of the quality of recovery-15 score and its comparison with the post-operative quality recovery scale. Patient 2016; 9: 251–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lyckner S, Böregård IL, Zetterlund EL, Chew MS. Validation of the Swedish version of quality of recovery score -15: a multicentre, cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2018; 62: 893–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13086CrossRefPubMed

28.

Myles PS, Myles DB, Galagher W, Chew C, MacDonald N, Dennis A. Minimal clinically important difference for three quality of recovery scales. Anesthesiology 2016; 125: 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000001158CrossRefPubMed

29.

Myles PS, Myles DB. An updated minimal clinically important difference for the QoR-15 scale. Anesthesiology 2021; 135: 934–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000003977CrossRefPubMed

30.

Myles PS, Hunt JO, Fletcher H, Solly R, Woodward D, Kelly S. Relation between quality of recovery in hospital and quality of life at 3 months after cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 862–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200110000-00013CrossRefPubMed

31.

Myles PS, Viira D, Hunt JO. Quality of life at three years after cardiac surgery: relationship with preoperative status and quality of recovery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2006; 34: 176–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057x0603400220CrossRefPubMed

Title: Validation of the postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire after emergency surgery and association with quality of life at three months
Authors: Victoria Le Bescond, MD
Jonathan Petit-Phan, MD
Maëva Campfort, MD
Claire Nicolleau, MD
Mathieu Conté, MD
Guillaume Bouhours, MD
Louis Rony, MD, PhD
Sigismond Lasocki, MD, PhD
Maxime Léger, MD, PhD
Publication date: 19-03-2024
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie / Issue 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0832-610X
Electronic ISSN: 1496-8975
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02722-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Validation of the postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire after emergency surgery and association with quality of life at three months

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Study registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Study registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2024

Measurements of pupillary unrest using infrared pupillometry fail to detect changes in pain intensity in patients after surgery: a prospective observational study

Comparison of tracheal versus esophageal temperatures during laparoscopic surgery

Association of chronic poststernotomy pain and health-related quality of life: a prospective cohort study

The 90% effective dose of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine for Cesarean delivery under combined spinal–epidural anesthesia in parturients with super obesity: an up-down sequential allocation study

The ECMO Book, First Edition

Accidental transection of bronchial blocker during thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer in two cases