Hip Fracture Audit Research Articles

Hip fracture audit: Creating a ‘critical mass of expertise and enthusiasm for hip fracture care’?

The care of frail older people admitted with hip fracture has improved greatly over the last half-century, largely as a result of combined medical care and surgical care and the rise – over the last four decades – of large-scale hip fracture audit.A series of European initiatives evolved. The first national hip fracture audit was the Swedish Rikshöft in the late 1980s, and the largest so far is the UK National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD), launched in 2007. An external evaluation of the NHFD demonstrated statistically significant increases in survival at up to 1 year associated with improved early care: with rising geriatrician involvement and falling delays to surgery, and from which lessons have been learned.Comparable national audits have emerged since in northern Europe and in Australia and New Zealand, and most recently in Spain and Japan. Like the NHFD, these use the synergy of agreed clinical standards and regular – ideally continuous – audit feedback that can prompt and monitor clinical and service developments, often demonstrating both rising quality and improved cost effectiveness.In addition, important benchmarking studies of hip fracture care have been reported from India and China, both of which face huge challenges in providing care of fragility fractures in populations characterised by first-generation mass ageing. The ‘halo effect’ of the impact of growing expertise in hip fracture care on the care of other fragility fractures is noteworthy and now relevant globally.Although many national audits have now published encouraging reports of progress, the details of context and process determinants of the initiation and development of effective hip fracture audit have received relatively little attention.To address this, an extended discussion section – based on the author’s experience of participation in several substantial audits, variously supporting and observing many others, and from his numerous discussions with audit colleagues over the years – may be of value in offering practical advice on some obvious and less obvious practical issues that arise in the setting up of large-scale hip fracture audits in a variety of healthcare contexts.

Quality of Care in Hip Fracture Patients: The Relationship Between Adherence to National Standards and Improved Outcomes.

Optimizing the perioperative care of patients with a hip fracture is a key health-care priority. We aimed to determine whether adherence to the Scottish Standards of Care for Hip Fracture Patients (SSCHFP) was associated with improved patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data from the Scottish National Hip Fracture Audit, we assessed adherence to the SSCHFP in 21 Scottish hospitals over a 9-month period in 2014 and examined the effect of the guidelines on 30 and 120-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and discharge destination. A total of 1,162 patients who were ≥50 years old and admitted with a hip fracture were included. There was a significant association between low adherence to the SSCHFP and increased mortality at 30 and 120 days (odds ratio [OR], 3.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.75 to 7.32; p < 0.001] and 2.01 [95% CI, 1.28 to 3.12; p = 0.003], respectively). Low adherence was associated with a reduced likelihood of a short length of stay (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.78; p < 0.0001), but increased odds of discharge to a high-care setting (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.36; p = 0.01). Early physiotherapy input and occupational therapy input were associated with a reduced likelihood of discharge to a high-care setting (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.98; p = 0.04] and 0.34 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.48; p <0.001], respectively). Adherence to the SSCHFP is associated with better patient outcomes. These findings confirm the clinical utility of the SSCHFP and support their use as a benchmarking tool to improve quality of care for hip fractures. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The changing case-mix of hip fractures in Scotland - evidence from the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit.

Until discontinued in 2008, the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit collected and reported on data relating to the quality of care of hip fracture patients in Scotland. In 2013, the audit was recommenced under the umbrella of the MSK Audit group, which audits high volume orthopaedic pathways across Scotland. Our aim is to report on the changes in the demographics of hip fracture patients in Scotland between 2003 and 2013. There was an increase in the proportion of male patients from 2003 to 2013 (22.4% to 29.5%; p < 0.0001). An increased percentage of hip fracture patients were admitted from their own home (63.9% to 73.1%; p < 0.0001). Both these factors have deleterious effects on the outcome, and use of necessary resources, following hip fracture. There was also an increase in the percentage of patients who were American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade 3 (52.9% to 56.4%). Over the last decade, there has been a shift in the demographics of Scotland's hip fracture patients. If hip fracture incidence increases as predicted, this potentially more-challenging case-mix will likely impact on multiple health resources.

Using national hip fracture registries and audit databases to develop an international perspective

Hip fracture is the commonest reason for older people to need emergency anaesthesia and surgery, and leads to prolonged dependence for many of those who survive. People with this injury are usually identified very early in their hospital care, so hip fracture is an ideal marker condition with which to audit the care offered to older people by health services around the world.We have reviewed the reports of eight national audit programmes, to examine the approach used in each, and highlight differences in case mix, management and outcomes in different countries.The national audits provide a consistent picture of typical patients − an average age of 80 years, with less than a third being men, and a third of all patients having cognitive impairment − but there was surprising variation in the type of fracture, of operation and of anaesthesia and hospital length of stay in different countries.These national audits provide a unique opportunity to compare how health care systems of different countries are responding to the same clinical challenge. This review will encourage the development and reporting of a standardised dataset to support international collaboration in healthcare audit.

Audit of geriatric hip fracture care - aSlovenian trauma center analysis.

The aim was to describe an audit of hip fracture patient care and outcomes in aSlovenian healthcare setting prior to the implementation of the Geriatric Fracture Center (GFC) model of care. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) hip fracture audit database was used to collect data on hip fracture care in elderly patients. Epidemiological data were submitted as well as fracture type, prefracture residence and mobility prior to the fracture. The timeline of events and acute care data were also collected. Follow-up after 30days included hip-related readmission, mobility, residence and life status. Included were 495 patients with amean age of 81years of which 20% were preoperatively seen by a physician or geriatrician, 93.1% had surgical repair, 58.5% of them within 48h of admission. The mortality rate in hospital was 5.4% and 10.1% at follow-up, 61.8% patients were able to return to prefracture residency and 23% could walk with minor assistance. This comprehensive and detailed audit report provides baseline data on case-mix, care and outcomes following hip fractures in Slovenia, in advance of planned quality improvement work in geriatric fracture care and provides astrong basis for the assessment of the impact of the GFC model of care.

National audits of hip fractures: Are yearly audits required?

IntroductionHip fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality to the increasing elderly population. The Scottish Hip Fracture Audit started in 1993 with national audits from 2002. It was a national prospective audit reporting on clinical standards in hip fracture care and produced an annual report. Due to national funding changes the continual audit was discontinued in 2008. In 2013, the MSK Audit Group published a “snapshot” into a 4 month period of hip fracture care in Scotland. Our purpose was to identify whether there had been an initial improvement in hip fracture care and whether this improvement was sustained with the discontinuation of the annual audit. MethodsThe reported outcomes from the annual Scottish Hip Fracture Audit from 2003 to 2008 were compared to the latest MSK Hip Fracture Audit published in 2013. Some data is available from the 2014 MSK Hip Fracture Audit and this was also used for comparison purposes. Local audit co-ordinators at each participating site collected a data-set for all patients admitted with a hip fracture. The case mix variables and management variables were compared for the reported years. ResultsThe continual audit demonstrated an improvement in the percentage of patients discharged from accident and emergency in 4h (80.5% 2003 vs. 96% 2008) which was not maintained 5 years later. An improvement in the percentage of patients having surgery within 48h of admission (89.9–98.4%) was also not maintained after 5 years (91.8%). 30 day mortality improved with continual audit, a trend which continued in 2013. The re-introduction of continuous audit in 2014 demonstrated an improvement in accident and emergency waiting times and time to theatre. DiscussionThe Scottish Hip Fracture Audit demonstrated improved standards of care until it was discontinued in 2008. The improvement was not sustained throughout all variables with the 2013 audit. With the re-introduction of regular audit, standards once again improved. We would recommend a more regular audit in an effort to not only improve standards of care for patients with a hip fracture but to maintain them.

Risk scoring models for predicting peri-operative morbidity and mortality in people with fragility hip fractures: Qualitative systematic review

Accurate peri-operative risk prediction is an essential element of clinical practice. Various risk stratification tools for assessing patients' risk of mortality or morbidity have been developed and applied in clinical practice over the years. This review aims to outline essential characteristics (predictive accuracy, objectivity, clinical utility) of currently available risk scoring tools for hip fracture patients. We searched eight databases; AMED, CINHAL, Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane, DARE, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science for all relevant studies published until April 2015. We included published English language observational studies that considered the predictive accuracy of risk stratification tools for patients with fragility hip fracture. After removal of duplicates, 15,620 studies were screened. Twenty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 25 risk stratification tools. Risk stratification tools considered in more than two studies were; ASA, CCI, E-PASS, NHFS and O-POSSUM. All tools were moderately accurate and validated in multiple studies; however there are some limitations to consider. The E-PASS and O-POSSUM are comprehensive but complex, and require intraoperative data making them a challenge for use on patient bedside. The ASA, CCI and NHFS are simple, easy and inexpensive using routinely available preoperative data. Contrary to the ASA and CCI which has subjective variables in addition to other limitations, the NHFS variables are all objective. In the search for a simple and inexpensive, easy to calculate, objective and accurate tool, the NHFS may be the most appropriate of the currently available scores for hip fracture patients. However more studies need to be undertaken before it becomes a national hip fracture risk stratification or audit tool of choice.

Sex effects on short-term complications after hip fracture: a prospective cohort study

ObjectivesTo evaluate potential sex differences and other factors associated with complications within 4 months after a hip fracture.MethodsA total of 1,915 patients ≥65 years (480 men) with hip fracture were consecutively included in a prospective multicenter cohort study. A review of medical records and patient interviews according to a study protocol based on the Standardized Audit of Hip Fractures in Europe (SAHFE, RIKSHÖFT) was performed. Sex differences in comorbidity according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists score and complications 4 months after a hip fracture were registered. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors related to complications.ResultsMale sex was associated with worse general health according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P=0.005) and with more comorbidities (P<0.001). Male sex emerged as a risk factor for developing pneumonia (P<0.001), and additionally, 18% of the men suffered from cardiac complications compared with 13% of the females (P=0.018). Female sex was predisposed for urinary tract infections, 30% vs 23% in males (P=0.001). Mortality was higher in the male vs female group, both within 30 days (15% vs 10%, P=0.001) and at 4 months (24% vs 14%, P=0.001). Conditions associated with pneumonia were male sex, pulmonary disease, and cognitive impairment. Cardiac complications were associated with delayed surgery and cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.ConclusionBefore surgery, men with hip fracture already have a poorer health status and higher comorbidity rate than women, thus resulting in a twofold increased risk of pneumonia. Cognitive dysfunction and pulmonary disease contributed to pneumonia in men. Delayed surgery seems to increase the risk for cardiac complications. It is important to consider the sex perspective early on together with cardiopulmonary comorbidity and cognitive dysfunction to be able to counteract serious complications that may lead to death.

Omitting pre-operative coagulation screening tests in hip fracture patients: Stopping the financial cascade?

BackgroundCoagulation screening continues as a standard of care in many hip fracture pathways despite the 2011 guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) which recommend that such screening be performed only if clinically indicated. This study aims to evaluate the use of pre-operative coagulation screening and explore its financial impact. MethodsProspective data was collected in accordance with the “Standardised Audit of Hip Fractures in Europe” (SAHFE) protocol. All patients admitted to our hospital with hip fractures during a 12-month period from November 2011 to November 2012 were analysed. Data including coagulation results and the use of vitamin K or blood products were collected retrospectively from the hospital computer system. Patient subgroup analysis was performed for intraoperative blood loss, post-operative blood units transfused, haematoma formation and gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Results814 hip fractures were analysed. 91.4% (n=744) had coagulation tests performed and 22.0% (n=164) had an abnormal result. Of these, 55 patients were taking warfarin leaving 109 patients who had abnormal results and were not taking warfarin. When this group (n=109) was compared to those who had normal test results (n=580) and to all other patients (n=705) there was no difference in intraoperative blood loss (p=0.79, 0.78), postoperative transfusion (p=0.38, 0.30), postoperative haematoma formation (p=0.79, 1.00), or gastrointestinal haemorrhage (p=0.45, 1.00), respectively. In those who were not taking warfarin, but had abnormal results, none had treatment to reverse their coagulopathy with either vitamin K or blood products. By omitting pre-operative coagulation tests in patients who are not taking warfarin, we estimate a financial saving of between £66,500 and £432,250 per annum. ConclusionsThis study supports the hypothesis that routine pre-operative coagulation screening is unnecessary in hip fracture patients unless they take warfarin or have a known coagulopathy. Moreover, its omission represents significant cost-saving potential.

137. Audit of Osteoporotic Hip Fractures and Compliance with Anti-Resorptive Medications

137. Audit of Osteoporotic Hip Fractures and Compliance with Anti-Resorptive Medications

Evolution of the hip fracture population: time to consider the future? A retrospective observational analysis

ObjectiveTo examine how the population with fractured neck of femur has changed over the last decade and determine whether they have evolved to become a more physically and socially dependent...

Audit of atypical hip fractures at the Royal Berkshire Hospital

Audit of atypical hip fractures at the Royal Berkshire Hospital Shilpa Selvan,1 Tom Mills,2 Jeremy McNally1 1Rheumatology Department, 2Radiology Department, The Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK Background: There is increasing evidence suggesting an association between bisphosphonate use and the occurrence of atypical femoral fractures, which account for less than 1% of hip and femoral fractures overall. The aim of this audit was to assess the prevalence of atypical, bisphosphonate-related femoral fractures and adherence to regional (Fracture Reduction in South Central England [FRiSC]) guidelines in our departmental cohort. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,803 patients from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) with femoral fractures admitted to a district general hospital during a 49-month period. We studied all subtrochanteric fractures in patients admitted on bisphosphonates. Corresponding hip radiographs were examined for features of atypical fractures according to the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research diagnostic criteria. Results: The mean age of the patients included was 63 &plusmn; 8.08 years. One hundred and sixty-one femoral fractures were identified in patients on bisphosphonates; 73 intertrochanteric, 68 intracapsular, and 20 subtrochanteric. Ninety-three percent of these fractures were in women. Radiographs of the 20 subtrochanteric fractures were reviewed and five were classified as atypical, bisphosphonate-related fractures according to American Society for Bone and Mineral Research diagnostic criteria. Adherence with FRiSC guidelines was inconsistent. A repeat dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan was performed in only two cases. The bisphosphonate was stopped in only two of the five patients following fracture. No clinical assessment of the contralateral femur or radiological assessment was done in any of the five cases. Conclusion: Overall, five atypical femoral fractures were found in a cohort of 1,803 patients at our district general hospital. This is 0.3% of the population studied, consistent with the incidence reported in the literature. Improvements in adherence with local guidelines for the management of atypical femoral fractures, along with increasing awareness of the nature of these fractures is necessary amongst rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and geriatricians. Keywords: fracture, bisphosphonate, atypical

THU0401 Audit of Atypical Hip Fractures at the Royal Berkshire Hospital

BackgroundThere is increasing evidence suggesting an association between bisphosphonate use and the occurrence of atypical femoral fractures1,2. The incidence of atypical femoral fractures accounts for less than 1% of hip...

Prospective Audit of Hip Fractures- South Wales, United Kingdom

Prospective Audit of Hip Fractures- South Wales, United Kingdom

The Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation – an abridged protocol for the WHiTE Study

Fractures of the proximal femur are one of the greatest challenges facing the medical community, constituting a heavy socioeconomic burden worldwide. The National Hip Fracture Audit currently provides a framework for service evaluation. This evaluation is based upon the assessment of process rather than assessment of patient-centred outcome and therefore it fails to provide meaningful data regarding the clinical effectiveness of treatments. This study aims to capture data from the cohort of patients who present with a fracture of the proximal femur at a single United Kingdom Major Trauma Centre. Patient-centred outcomes will be recorded and provide a baseline cohort within which to test the clinical effectiveness of experimental interventions.

The Northwest Hip Fracture Audit—A multicentre prospective 4th cycle re-audit of hip fracture care in the Northwest of England

The Northwest Hip Fracture Audit—A multicentre prospective 4th cycle re-audit of hip fracture care in the Northwest of England

CLINICAL AUDIT, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS: A PRODUCTIVE RELATION FOR MANAGING CLINICAL PRACTICES

This paper contributes to the knowledge about the process of standardisation within the domain of medicine. Standardisation has become an important form of governance and co-ordination, and there is limited empirical knowledge about its nature and consequences (Brunsson et al., 2000). This paper aims to explore the development, circulation and standardisation process of a specific clinical audit programme: the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit. This audit started as a local initiative and now has developed into a sophisticated arena (Sahlin-Andersson, 2000) which provides Scottish hospitals with monthly ‘real-time reports’ outlining their performance against Scottish government targets. The paper argues that the interrelation between clinical audit and evidence-based medicine (EBM) can become a ‘productive relation’ (Mykhalovskiy, 2003), that opens up spaces of intervention, in which the clinical communities engage with processes of change of clinical procedures, and in these spaces, clinicians and managers are in a position to refine clinical practice and service organisation, to reflect upon their own actions and to allow insight into the rationalities of their work (Berg, 1997).

Hip fracture audit: the Nottingham experience

The hip fracture audit in Nottingham started in May 1999. Using our data, we have developed the Nottingham Hip Fracture score and are able to predict long-term survival. High quality data collection is best achieved by trained staff dedicated to data collection and analysis. We have found it very cost-effective to train audit clerks in basic data analysis and statistical techniques, allowing for rapid analysis of data. We have developed a pre-operative scoring system to predict 30-day mortality for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery and the score is calculated for all patients over 65years. In 2008, our audit data were used to assess mortality associated with hip fractures in the geriatric population at 5years, and to identify the influence of pre-operative age, cognitive state, mobility and residential status on long-term survival. This study allows us to identify patients with a higher chance of long-term survival and consider surgical management that may provide a better long-term outcome. The prevalence of hip fracture in our population has steadily increased over the past decade and we are able to report a fall in the 30-day mortality and the 1-year mortality with time. Using the Nottingham Hip Fracture score which identifies patients pre-operatively that are at high risk of mortality has proved extremely useful in clinical practise. The United Kingdom National Hip Fracture Database was established in 2007 to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of care for hip fracture patients. Variation in quality of care should be reduced between units and best practise adopted throughout the health service.

Acute renal dysfunction following hip fracture

Introduction: We investigated the incidence, risk factors and outcome of acute renal dysfunction (ARD) in patients with a fractured neck of femur. Methods: 170 consecutive patients were prospectively included in the Scottish hip fracture audit database and retrospectively analysed. Historically, lack of consensus definition hindered accurate reporting of ARD. We defined ARD using the ‘RIFLE’ criteria recently described by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Results: 27 patients (16%) developed ARD. Risk factors were male sex, vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease and pre-morbid use of nephro-toxic medications (p Discussion: Acute renal dysfunction is an important adverse event in this population. Awareness of risk factors and serial measurements of renal function will enable early identification and focused monitoring of these patients.

Audit shows better treatment for patients with hip fracture.

A REPORT on the world's largest hip fracture audit, published last month, reveals that more NHS patients with hip fracture receive appropriate specialist care.