Care Of Hip Fracture Patients Research Articles

682 Impact of Regionalisation of Major Trauma Services on Hip Fracture Care in England: A Comparative Study

Abstract Aim Following the establishment of Major Trauma Networks in England in 2012, there were concerns that pressures regarding resource allocation in Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) may negatively impact their care of hip fracture patients. This study aimed to compare outcomes in hip fracture care between MTCs and trauma units (TUs). Method National Hip Fracture Database data was extracted from 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2022 for all hospitals in England. Outcome measures included perioperative medical and physiotherapy assessments, time to surgery, Best Practice Tariff (BPT) compliance, discharge to original residence, and mortality. Data was pooled and weighted for MTCs and remaining hospitals (TUs). Results 487,089 patients were included from 167 hospitals (23 MTCs, 144 TUs). MTCs achieved marginally higher rates of orthogeriatrician assessment within 72 hours of admission (91.1% vs 90.4%, p<0.001) and mobilisation by first postoperative day (81.9% vs 79.7%, p<0.001). Fewer patients underwent surgery by the day after admission in MTCs (65.2% vs 69.7%, p<0.001). There was poorer compliance with BPT criteria in MTCs (57.3% vs 60.4%, p<0.001), and fewer MTC patients were discharged to their original residence (60.4% vs 63.5%, p<0.001). There was no difference between MTCs and TUs in 30-day mortality (6.8% vs 6.8%, p=0.825). Conclusions This study demonstrates that MTCs have greater difficulty in providing prompt surgery to hip fracture patients. However, their marginally superior perioperative care outcomes appear to compensate for this, with similar mortality rates compared to TUs. These findings suggest that the regionalisation of major trauma in England has not significantly compromised the overall care of hip fracture patients.

IMPACT OF REGIONALIZATION OF MAJOR TRAUMA SERVICES ON HIP FRACTURE CARE IN ENGLAND: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Following the establishment of regional Major Trauma Networks in England in 2012, there were concerns that pressures regarding resource allocation in Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) may have a detrimental impact on the care of patients with hip fractures in these hospitals. This study aimed to compare outcomes in hip fracture care between MTCs and trauma units (TUs).National Hip Fracture Database data was extracted from 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2022 for all hospitals in England. Outcome measures included perioperative medical and physiotherapy assessments, time to surgery, consultant supervision in theatre, Best Practice Tariff (BPT) compliance, discharge to original residence, and mortality. Data was pooled and weighted for MTCs and remaining hospitals (TUs).A total of 487,089 patients with hip fractures were included from 167 hospitals (23 MTCs and 144 TUs). MTCs achieved marginally higher rates of orthogeriatrician assessment within 72 hours of admission (91.1% vs 90.4%, p<0.001) and mobilisation out of bed by first postoperative day (81.9% vs 79.7%, p<0.001). A lower proportion of patients underwent surgery by the day after admission in MTCs (65.2% vs 69.7%, p<0.001). However, there was significantly higher consultant surgeon and anaesthetist supervision rates during surgery in MTCs (71.8% vs 61.6%, p<0.001). There was poorer compliance with BPT criteria in MTCs (57.3% vs 60.4%, p<0.001), and proportionately fewer MTC patients were discharged to their original residence (63.5% vs 60.4%, p<0.001). There was no difference between MTCs and TUs in 30-day mortality (6.8% vs 6.8%, p=0.825).This study demonstrates that MTCs have greater difficulty in providing prompt surgery to hip fracture patients. However, their marginally superior perioperative care outcomes appear to compensate for this, as their mortality rates are similar to TUs. These findings suggest that the regionalisation of major trauma in England has not significantly compromised the overall care of hip fracture patients.

The process of hip fracture management before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic affected the control of many chronic conditions, including hip fractures, worldwide. This study was to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of hip fractures in a referral orthopedic hospital in Iran. By understanding how the pandemic has influenced the care of hip fracture patients, we can gain valuable insights into the challenges, adaptations, and potential improvements in orthopedic healthcare during such public health crises.MethodsData was collected on hip fracture patients aged 50 and above who were admitted to the hospital before and during the pandemic. The number of admissions and operations, length of hospital stay, and time from admission to surgery were recorded from the hospital information system (HIS) and compared between the two periods.ResultsThe median number of admitted hip fracture patients per month increased slightly during the pandemic (11%), although this increase was not statistically significant (p = 0.124). After adjusting for potential confounders, the mean length of hospital stay was significantly lower during the pandemic period, indicating that patients were discharged sooner (p = 0.019) and the time from admission to surgery was shorter during the pandemic (p = 0.004). Although the increase in the number of hip fracture surgeries per month during the pandemic was not statistically significant (P = 0.132), a higher percentage of patients underwent surgery during the pandemic compared to before (84.8% VS. 79.4%).ConclusionThe study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic did not have a negative impact on hip fracture management in the investigated orthopedic hospital in Iran. further research is needed to explore the effects of the pandemic on other aspects of healthcare services, particularly in general hospitals.

Comparative effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group block versus fascia iliac compartment block on postoperative wound pain management in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hip fracture surgeries are challenging, with postoperative pain management being a critical component of patient care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of Pericapsular nerve group block (PENGB) and fascia iliac compartment block (FICB) in postoperative wound pain management for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. The study followed the PRISMA guidelines and was structured around the PICO framework. Comprehensive searches were conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were limited to RCTs comparing the effectiveness of PENGB and FICB in adult patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Key outcomes included pain control effectiveness, safety, and complication incidence. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics, and meta-analysis effect values were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effect models, depending on the degree of heterogeneity. The search identified 1095 articles, with 5 studies meeting inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that PENGB and FICB were comparable in managing postoperative pain and opioid consumption. However, PENGB significantly reduced the incidence of quadriceps muscle weakness (RR = 0.12, p < 0.05) and did not increase the risk of PONV (RR = 1.36, p = 0.51), suggesting its advantage in maintaining motor function without adding to PONV complications. No significant publication bias was detected. PENGB is comparable to FICB in pain and opioid consumption management after hip fracture surgeries. Its significant benefit lies in reducing the incidence of quadriceps muscle weakness, facilitating better postoperative mobility. Additionally, PENGB does not increase the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, underlining its suitability for comprehensive postoperative care in hip fracture patients.

Factors Influencing Time to Definitive Care in Hip Fracture Patients in a Rural Health System.

Current literature has not adequately addressed factors affecting wait times for hip fracture surgery in the rural setting. This study aims to assess the factors affecting admission, transit, and preoperative wait times that impact the timeliness of hip fracture surgery within a rural health system. A single-center retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a rural community comprising five community hospitals and two receiving hospitals. A trauma registry study included all hip fracture cases from 2019. Mean, standard deviation, median, and interquartile range were calculated for admission wait times, transit times to the receiving hospitals, and preoperative wait times in hours. Metrics based on means or medians were developed for these wait times. A total of 163 patients met the inclusion criteria. The emergency department wait times before and after admission to the community hospitals were 1 hour and 2.5hours, respectively. The transit times from the community hospitals, ranging from shorter to farther distances, to receiving hospitals were 40minutes and 1 hour, respectively. The preoperative wait time for admitted and transferred patients was 12hours. Our study outlines a methodology for establishing wait time metrics that impact surgical timeliness for hip fracture patients within a rural healthcare system. We recommend conducting comparable studies with larger sample sizes across different healthcare systems.

Comparing two different orthogeriatric models of care for hip fracture patients: an observational prospective cross-sectional study

IntroductionPatients with hip fractures are almost always operated with quite extensive surgery and are often frail with a high risk of complications, increased dependency, and death. Orthogeriatric interdisciplinary care has...

Staff perspectives of a nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric model of care in a large academic hospital: A mixed methods study

BackgroundResearch has shown that models of care involving geriatric care in orthopedics decrease hospitalizations, mortality, length of stay and post-operative complications. This article presents an example of a nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric model of care in a large academic hospital in Ontario. The overall goal was to explore staff perspectives regarding the nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric model of care. MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods approach consisting of an online questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group with staff. ResultsQuestionnaire of staff showed overall support for functions of the NP within the model. Interviews with healthcare providers, and leadership as well as one focus group with orthopedic surgeons showed that despite the lack of formal awareness of the NP-led orthogeriatric model of care, staff felt that the model provided better care for the geriatric hip fracture population. ConclusionIn the current context of geriatricians’ shortages to provide post-surgical care to geriatric patients, the staff described that geriatric care of hip fracture patients can be well accomplished by a NP. Further improvement efforts to create better awareness of the NP-led orthogeriatric model among the care team is needed.

Associations between presence of diabetes, mortality and fracture type in individuals with a hip fracture

AimsAn overlooked aspect of diabetes is an increased risk of hip fractures, with associated mortality. We investigated whether fracture type and/or burden of comorbidities explains the increased risk of mortality in diabetes after hip fracture. MethodsFor this cohort study, we used a de-identified data set of hip fracture patients registered in a quality-of-care registry (2017/2018) included in Maastricht University Medical Centre. ResultsAmong 594 hip fracture patients, 90 (15.2 %) had diabetes. Median (IQR) age was 82 (71–87) years and 63.8 % were women. Compared to patients without, patients with diabetes had higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index [1 (0–2) vs 0 (0–2), P < 0.001)] and were more likely to sustain intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric fractures [54.4 vs 38.7 %, P = 0.02]. Over a median follow-up of 2.7 (1.6–3.3) years, crude mortality rate was 30.8 % in patients without and 50.0 % in patients with diabetes. This association remained unaltered after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, fracture type or burden of co-morbidities. ConclusionIndividuals with diabetes display a greatly increased absolute mortality risk after hip fracture. This association was not attenuated after adjustment for fracture type or non-diabetes associated co-morbidity. These findings have important implications for diabetes care in hip fracture patients, and underline the importance of fracture prevention.

Higher cost of arthroplasty for hip fractures in patients transferred from outside hospitals vs primary emergency department presentation.

BACKGROUNDIn 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed bundled payments for hip fractures to improve the quality and decrease costs of care. Patients transferred from other facilities may be imposing a financial risk on the hospitals that accept these patients. AIMTo determine the costs associated with patients that either presented to the emergency department or were transferred from another hospital or skilled nursing facility (SNF) with the diagnosis of a hip fracture requiring operative intervention.METHODSA retrospective single institution review was conducted for all arthroplasty patients from 2010 to 2015. Inclusion criteria included a total or partial hip replacement for a hip fracture. Exclusion criteria included pathologic, periprosthetic, and fracture non-union. Data was collected to compare total observed costs for patients from the emergency department, patients from skilled nursing facilities, and patients from an outside hospital.RESULTSA total of 223 patients met the inclusion criteria. 135 (60.54%) of these patients presented primarily to the emergency department, 58 patients (26.01%) were transferred from an outside hospital, and 30 patients (13.43%) were transferred from a SNF. Cost data analysis showed that outside hospital patients demonstrated significantly greater total cost for their hospitalization ($43302) compared to emergency department patients ($28875, P = 0.000) and SNF patients ($28282, P = 0.000).CONCLUSIONPatients transferred from an outside hospital incurred greater costs for their hospitalization than patients presenting from an emergency department or SNF. This is a strong argument for risk-adjustment models when bundling payments for the care of hip fracture patients.

Comorbidity and Quality of In-Hospital Care for Hip Fracture Patients.

We examined whether the comorbidity burden of patients with hip fracture was associated with quality of in-hospital care reflected by fulfillment of process performance measures. Population-based cohort study using prospectively collected data from the Danish Multidisciplinary Hip Fracture Registry (DMHFR). Patients aged 65years or older with an incident hip fracture from 2014 to 2018 registered in the DMHFR (n= 31,443). Comorbidity was measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index based on hospital diagnoses. Quality of in-hospital care was defined as fulfillment of eligible process performance measures, including preoperative optimization, early surgery, early mobilization, pain assessment, basic mobility, nutritional risk, need for anti-osteoporotic medication, fall prevention, and a post-discharge rehabilitation program, reflecting guideline-recommended in-hospital care. The outcomes were (1) an all-or-none composite measure defined as fulfillment of all relevant process performance measures, and (2) fulfillment of the individual process performance measures. Using binary regression, we calculated relative risk (RR) for the association between comorbidity level and outcomes. The overall proportion of patients with hip fracture who fulfilled the all-or-none measure was 31%. Among patients with no comorbidity, 34% fulfilled the all-or-none measure versus 29% among patients with high comorbidity (Charlson ≥ 3). This corresponds to a 15% lower chance (RR= 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.81-0.89). Increasing comorbidity was also associated with lower fulfillment of the individual process performance measures. The largest difference was seen for preoperative optimization, early surgery, and early mobilization, where patients with high comorbidity had 6% to 11% lower chance of fulfillment of these process performance measures compared with patients without comorbidity. Increasing level of comorbidity was associated with lower quality of in-hospital care among patients with hip fracture. Our results highlight the need for tailored clinical initiatives to ensure that comorbid patients also benefit from the positive progress in hip fracture care in recent years.

The impact of first wave of COVID-19 on the nursing-sensitive and rehabilitation outcomes of patients undergoing hip fracture surgery: a single centre retrospective cohort study

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of hip fracture patients remains a clinical priority. To date, there is limited empirical knowledge about the impact of pandemic on the care of patients surgically treated for hip fracture, affected or not by COVID-19.ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nursing-sensitive and rehabilitation outcomes of frail patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted in an Italian Orthopaedic Research Institute. All patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted with fragility hip fractures between 1st March and 30th June in 2019 (group PP: pre-pandemic) and in the same period in 2020 (group P: pandemic), were compared. In the P group, COVID-19 positive patients were excluded due to the presence of a specific treatment pathway. Data on patient demographics and baseline characteristics, and peri-operative care factors were obtained from the Institute’s computer-based patient-record system. The primary outcome was the incidence of any stage hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (PUs). The secondary outcome was time to first static verticalization and to first ambulation.ResultsThree-hundred and sixty patients were included in the study, which comprised 108 patients in PP group and 252 patients in P group. Overall PUs incidence was significantly higher in the P-group (21.8%) than in the PP-group (10.2%) (p = 0.009). Specifically, the incidence of sacral PUs was significantly lower in P-group (38.1%) vs PP-group (91%) (p = 0.004); on the contrary, the incidence of PUs localized to the heels or other body sites were significantly higher in P-group (30.9% and 30.9%, respectively) vs PP-group (0% and 9%, respectively) (p = 0.004).No significant between groups differences were found for all the secondary outcomes.ConclusionIn the pandemic period, nursing and rehabilitation care provided to patients with fragility hip fracture maintained high standards comparable to the pre-pandemic period. The increase in PUs incidence in the pandemic period was probably due to the older age of the patients admitted to hospital. The qualitative evaluation of the care administered and the emotional impact of the pandemic on the patients are very interesting topic which would deserve further investigation.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on hip fracture care: our experience at the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL).

The United Kingdom (UK) Covid-19 pandemic has led to unique changes in the operation of the National Health Service (NHS) including within trauma and orthopaedics. This has led to a significant impact on the NHS ability to provide hip fracture care and sustain emergency surgery. This has led to local hip fracture services changing operations to provide more sustainable care and significant impacts on best practice tariffs. Data was collected using the National Hip Fracture Database data submitted by UHL and split into two cohorts - Pre Covid-19 and Post Covid-19. Data has been collected for 67 consecutive patients in April 2019 (Pre Covid-19) and 87 consecutive patients in April 2020 (Post Covid-19) as of 4th May after the introduction of the Covid-19 measures locally. Data has been collected on demographics- age and sex, ASA, admission time, time of operation, 30 day mortality and length of stay. The average time to theatre in the pre Covid-19 cohort was 27.3 hours and in the post Covid-19 cohort was 45.1 hours. This is an increase of 65.2%. All patients in the pre Covid-19 cohort were operated on and 4 in the post Covid-19 were conservatively managed. However, there were no significant effects on 30 day mortality or length of stay. In conclusion, the measures taken due to the Covid-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the care of hip fracture patients with significant delays in time to theatre. As a result, it is clear that the measures influenced practice at UHL and the best practice tariffs were not met.

Hip fracture care during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort and literature review.

Objectives:The goal of this study was to investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected hip fracture care at a Level I Trauma hospital. The secondary goal was to summarize the published hip fracture reports during the pandemic.Design:A retrospective cohort study.Setting:Level I Trauma Center.Patients/Participants:Eighty-six operatively treated hip fracture patients age ≥65 years, occurring from January 17 to July 2, 2020.Intervention (if any):N/A.Main Outcome Measurements:We defined 3 phases of healthcare system response: pre-COVID-19 (period A), acute phase (period B), and subacute phase (period C). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Clinical outcomes including time to surgery (TTS) and length of stay (LOS) were extracted from the electronic medical record.Results:Twenty-seven patients from Period A, 27 patients from Period B, and 32 patients from Period C were included. The 30-day mortality was not statistically different. The mean TTS was 20.0 +/− 14.3 hours and was the longest in Period C (22.1 +/− 9.8 hours), but the difference was not statistically significant. The mean LOS was 113.0 +/− 66.2 hours and was longest in Period B (120.9 +/− 100.6 hours). However, the difference was not statistically significant.Conclusions:The 30-day mortality, TTS, and LOS were not statistically different across multiple phases of pandemic at a level 1 trauma center. Our results suggest that we successfully adapted new protocol changes and continued to provide evidence-based care for hip fracture patients. Our results were comparable with that of other authors around the world.

Physicians' perspectives of prognosis and goals of care discussions after hip fracture.

Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence. We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy. Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting. Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values.

Safety climate, leadership and patient views associated with hip fracture care quality and clinician perceptions of hip fracture care performance.

Hip fracture is a major public health concern for older adults, requiring surgical treatment for patients presenting at hospitals across Australia. Although guidelines have been developed to drive appropriate care of hip fracture patients in hospitals, data on health outcomes suggest these are not well-followed. This study aims to examine whether clinician measures of safety, teamwork and leadership, and patient perceptions of care are associated with key indicators of hip fracture care and the extent to which there is agreement between clinician perceptions of hip fracture care performance and actual hospital performance of hip fracture care. Retrospective analysis was performed on a series of questionnaires used to assess hospital department- and patient-level measures from the Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia study. Data were analysed from 32 public hospitals that encompassed 23 leading hip fracture clinicians, 716 patient medical records and 857 patients from orthopaedic public hospital wards. Aggregated across all hospitals, only 5 of 12 of the key hip fracture indicators had ≥50% adherence. Adherence to indicators requiring actions to be performed within a recommended time period was poor (7.2-25.6%). No Patient Measure of Safety or clinician-based measures of teamwork, safety climate or leadership were associated with adherence to key indicators of hip fracture care. Simple proportionate agreement between clinician perceptions and actual hospital performance was generally strong, but few agreement coefficients were compelling. The development of strong quality management processes requires ongoing effort. The findings of this study provide important insights into the relationship between hospital care and outcomes for hip fracture patients and could drive the design of targeted interventions for improved quality assurance of hip fracture care.

Admitting Geriatric Hip Fracture Patients to the Orthopaedic Service Decreases Cost of Care

Introduction Hip fractures are common and costly, costing $12 billion annually in the US. A large portion of the cost of care is related to inpatient care, which is highly variable. There is a lack of strong evidence regarding whether medicine or orthopaedics should serve as the primary admitting and managing service in the care of hip fracture patients with neither having improved outcomes. The purpose of this study is to compare the cost of care between patients who were admitted to orthopaedic vs. non-orthopaedic services after geriatric hip fractures. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients over the age of 55 with hip fractures undergoing operative treatment at a Level 1 trauma center between 2010-2013. We examined demographic information, admitting service (orthopaedic vs. non-orthopaedic), length of stay, ASA score as well as reimbursement and cost information. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate what factors most influence cost of care. Results A total of 326 patients with hip fractures were included in the analysis. After controlling for age, sex, BMI, and ASA score, admission to the orthopaedic service was associated with $3,172 lower total costs than admission to a non-orthopaedic service (p=0.0001). Patients admitted to the orthopaedic service were discharged an average of 2.6 days earlier than patients on the non-orthopaedic service (p&lt;0.0001). There was no difference in 30-day readmission or 90-day mortality between the two groups. Discussion Hip fracture patients admitted to the orthopaedic service are discharged sooner than patients admitted to a non-orthopaedic service, even when controlling for ASA score. Nationally, this implies substantial potential cost savings from admitting patients to orthopaedic rather than non-orthopaedic services. Systems should develop clear guidelines on when it is appropriate to admit hip fracture patients to non-orthopaedic services, and the orthopaedic service should be the default admitting service.

Instant messaging apps and data protection: combining to improve hip fracture care?

IntroductionThe General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) continues to have implications for how healthcare information is managed and shared. This presents challenges as telemedicine plays a more central role in service healthcare service provision, particularly since the beginning of 2020. We aim to measure how improved communication through a GDPR-compliant messaging app can influence time-dependent key performance indicators for hip fracture management in a tertiary-referral trauma hospital.Methods Using an instant messaging service, a hip fracture group was created and access was provided to all stakeholders in hip fracture care—trainee and consultant emergency physicians and orthopaedic surgeons, as well as advanced nurse practitioners, bed managers, ward managers and theatre managers. Irish Hip Fracture Database (IHFD) standard compliance was compared from April to December 2017 and April to December 2018.ResultsTwo periods in 2017 and 2018 saw 121 and 122 hip fracture patients admitted, respectively. Mean time to admission to an orthopaedic ward in 2017 was 47 ± 42.9 h and 33.3 ± 42 h in 2018 (P = 0.5). Mean time to surgery in 2017 was 83.66 ± 53.46 h and 39.11 ± 10.84 h in 2018 (p = 0.026).ConclusionsIrish Hip Fracture Database Standards present a challenge to orthopaedic departments competing with other hospital specialties for access to beds and theatre space. The introduction of a GDPR-compliant social media messaging service has contributed to significantly reducing the time to surgery for these patients. Streamlining communication through messaging services has and continues to be vital to improving care for hip fracture patients, both in the healthcare environment and beyond.

Hip fracture care during the 2020 COVID-19 first-wave: a review of the outcomes of hip fracture patients at a Scottish Major Trauma Centre

Background and Purpose of the StudyThis study reviewed whether the response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic affected the care for hip fracture patients at a major trauma centre in Scotland during the first-wave lock-down period. MethodsAll patients referred to Orthopaedics with a hip fracture in a major trauma centre in Scotland were captured between 14 th March and 28 th May (11 weeks) in 2020 and 2019. Patients were identified using electronic patient records. The primary outcomes are time to theatre, length of admission and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are COVID-19 prevalence, duration of surgery, proportion of patients to theatre within 36 hours and COVID-19 positive 30-day mortality from time of surgery. 225 patients were included: 108 from 2019 and 117 from 2020. The main findings30-day mortality was 3.7% (n=4) in 2019 and 8.5% (n=10) in 2020 (p=0.142). There was no statistical difference with time to theatre (p=0.150) nor duration of theatre (p=0.450). Duration of admission was reduced from 12 days to 6.5 days (p=<0.005). 4 patients tested positive for COVID-19 during admission, one 5 days after discharge, all underwent surgical management. 30-day mortality for COVID-19 positive patients during admission was 40%. COVID-19 prevalence of patients that were tested (n=89) was 5.62%. ConclusionsThis study has shown the care of hip fracture patients has been maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no statistically significant change in mortality, time to theatre, and duration of surgery, however, the patient’s admission duration was significantly less than the 2019 cohort.

Effect of Covid-19 on best practice care of hip fracture patients: An analysis from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD)

BackgroundBest practice tariff (BPT) has brought significant improvements in hip fracture care; the 2019 report showing a 30-day mortality of 6.1%. Data relating to more than 65,000 patients who sustain a fractured neck of femur (FNOF) are recorded each year in the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). The aim of our study was to review the impact of COVID-19 on BPT. MethodsData was extracted from the NHFD for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The months of March to June 2020 (lockdown period related to COVID-19) were compared to the same period in 2019. Data used in this study was collated and analysed between 14th and 17th October 2020. ResultsData for more than 40,000 patients was reviewed. BPT dropped −4.3% in March, −12.6% in April, −12.9% in May 2020, and −7.2% in June. Prompt surgery remained stable (four-month average + 0.1%). The most significant changes were noted for timely orthogeriatric review (−7.6%, p < 0.001), bone health assessment (−7.3%, p < 0.001) and post-operative delirium assessment (−6.6%, p < 0.001).30-day mortality increased to 13.7% in March 2020 and remained high in April 2020 (11.3%) and May (7.3%). Acute hospital length of stay was lowest in May 2020 (11.7 days). ConclusionPatients sustaining FNOF in March 2020 had an associated 30-day mortality of 13.7%. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant reduction in BPT. The most significant changes were observed in timely orthogeriatric review.Maintaining a high standard of multidisciplinary care for this vulnerable group of patients is crucial during future spikes of COVID-19.

Increased Comorbidity Burden Among Hip Fracture Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic had a devastating effect on New York City in the spring of 2020. Several global reports suggested worse early outcomes among COVID-positive patients with hip fractures. However, there is limited data comparing baseline comorbidities among patients treated during the pandemic relative to those treated in non-pandemic conditions.Materials and MethodsA multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed at two Level 1 Trauma centers and one orthopedic specialty hospital to assess demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 67 hip fracture patients treated (OTA/AO 31, 32.1) during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (March 20, 2020 to April 24, 2020), including 9 who were diagnosed with COVID-19. These patients were compared to a cohort of 76 hip fracture patients treated 1 year prior (March 20, 2019 to April 24, 2019). Baseline demographics, comorbidities, treatment characteristics, and respiratory symptomatology were evaluated. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality.ResultsRelative to patients treated in 2019, patients with hip fractures during the pandemic had worse Charlson Comorbidity Indices (median 5.0 vs 6.0, P = .03) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (mean 2.4 vs 2.7, P = .04). Patients during the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to have decreased ambulatory status (P<.01) and a smoking history (P = .04). Patients in 2020 had longer inpatient stays (median 5 vs 7 days, P = .01), and were more likely to be discharged home (61% vs 9%, P<.01). Inpatient mortality was significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (12% vs 0%, P = .002).ConclusionsPatients with hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic had worse comorbidity profiles and decreased functional status compared to patients treated the year prior. This information may be relevant in negotiations regarding reimbursement for cost of care of hip fracture patients with COVID-19, as these patients may require more expensive care.