PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 29, 2026Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes0 citationsOpen Access

The hidden cost of patient feedback: analysis of a decade of NHS expenditure on orthopaedic PROMs

View Full Paper
PCPatrick CookMAMohammad AlhashashCWChristopher Wakeling

Key Points

  • This research quantifies the financial burden of patient-reported outcome measures in NHS orthopaedic services over the past decade.
  • Retrospective cost analysis of NHS trusts in England using data from the National Joint Registry
  • FOI requests were made to gather PROMs-related expenditure
  • Exclusion of private providers and trusts with incomplete cost data
  • Annual PROMs expenditure rose from £1.144 million in 2015 to £1.39 million in 2024, a 21% increase adjusted for inflation
  • Cumulative NHS-wide expenditure estimated between £29.1 million and £39.1 million over ten years
  • Contractor costs increased from an average of £15,000 per trust in 2015 to £19,921 in 2024

Abstract

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have become integral to assessing care quality, shifting emphasis from surgeon-centric metrics to patient-centred outcomes. Within the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom, routine PROMs collection for hip and knee arthroplasty has been mandated since 2009, but rising costs, falling completion rates, and operational inefficiencies raise concerns over sustainability. With completion rates for hip arthroplasty falling from 67% in 2014 to 27.6% in 2024, the financial cost for PROMs must be assessed. This study aimed to quantify the financial burden of PROMs collection across NHS orthopaedic services in England over the past decade and evaluate implications for policy, resource allocation, and digital transformation planning. A retrospective cost analysis was conducted of all NHS trusts in England listed on the National Joint Registry (NJR), excluding private providers. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests sought annual PROMs-related expenditure from 2015 to 2025, itemising internal staffing and third-party contractor costs. Trusts lacking complete cost breakdowns or exceeding FOI statutory work limits were excluded from total cost calculations but contributed to component-level analyses where possible. National costs were estimated using two extrapolation approaches (per-trust and per-procedure) and presented alongside sensitivity analyses. All trend analyses were performed using costs expressed in 2024 prices after adjustment for inflation with the Consumer Price Index (CPI); nominal costs are also reported to reflect actual NHS cash expenditure. Thirty-four trusts provided full data, representing 40.7% (41,293/101,525) of NHS arthroplasty procedures in England. After adjusting for CPI inflation, annual observed PROMs expenditure among these trusts rose from £1.144 million in 2015 to £1.39 million in 2024 with a real-terms increase of 21%, indicating that the majority of the nominal rise reflects inflationary pressures, though real cost growth persists. Modelled NHS-wide cumulative expenditure over ten years was estimated at between £29.1 million and £39.1 million, depending on extrapolation method. A total of 42 trusts provided third-party contracting costs. Contractor costs increased from a mean of £15,000 per trust in 2015 to £19,921 in 2024. Average trust internal staffing costs remained static averaging £32,068 in 2015 to £33,200 in 2024. PROMs are essential for patient-centred orthopaedic care but are associated with escalating costs, falling completion rates, and fragmented administration. Centralised procurement, NHS digital integration, dedicated staffing, and hybrid collection models are recommended to improve efficiency, data quality, and long-term sustainability. National expenditure estimates should be interpreted cautiously given the 32% response rate and reliance on modelling assumptions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cook et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f154e0879cb923c49451e0https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-026-01052-x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England2012 · 140 citations
  2. 2The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)2007 · 3,184 citations
  3. 3Use of computerised adaptive testing to reduce the number of items in patient-reported hip and knee outcome scores: an analysis of the NHS England National Patient-Reported Outcome Measures programme2022 · 11 citations
  4. 4Patient-reported outcome for 17,648 patients in 5 different Swedish orthopaedic quality registers before and 1 year after surgery: an observational study2023 · 9 citations
  5. 5Evaluating the measures in patient-reported outcomes, values and experiences (EMPROVE study): a collaborative audit of PROMs practice in orthopaedic care in the United Kingdom2022 · 7 citations