Hip Fracture Care Research Articles

Correction to: Access to care for low trauma hip fractures in South Africa

Correction to: Access to care for low trauma hip fractures in South Africa

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.

Implementation of a Geriatrics-Focused Orthopaedic and Hospitalist Fracture Program Decreases Perioperative Complications and Improves Resource Utilization.

To evaluate whether the implementation of a geriatrics-focused orthopaedic and hospitalist comanagement program can improve perioperative outcomes and decrease resource utilization. A retrospective chart review study was conducted before and after the implementation of a geriatrics-focused orthopaedic and hospitalist comanagement program, based on the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) AGS CoCare:Ortho. A large urban, academic tertiary center, located in the greater New York metropolitan area. Patients 65 years and older hospitalized for operative hip fracture. Those with pathologic or periprosthetic fractures and chronic substance use were excluded. Outcome measures included time to operating room (TtOR), length of stay, daily and total morphine milligram equivalents, use of preoperative transthoracic echocardiogram and blood transfusions, perioperative complications (eg, urinary tract infections), and 6-month mortality. Our study included 290 patients hospitalized with hip fracture, before (N = 128) and after (N = 162) implementation. When compared with the preimplementation group, the postimplementation comanagement group had a lower TtOR (36.2 vs. 30.0 hours, P = 0.026) and hospital length of stay, decreased use of indwelling bladder catheters preoperatively and postoperatively (68.0% vs. 46.9%, P < 0.001, and 83.6 vs. 58.0%, P < 0.001, respectively), reduced daily opiate use (16.0 vs. 11.1 morphine milligram equivalents, P = 0.011), and decreased 30-day complications (32.8% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.002). There was no difference in 6-month mortality between the 2 groups. The implementation of an AGS CoCare:Ortho-based comanagement program led to decreased perioperative complications and resource utilization. Comanagement programs are essential to improving and standardizing hip fracture care for older adults. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Improving hip fracture care in Spain: evolution of quality indicators in the Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry.

The Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry (RNFC) arises from the need to know the process and improve the quality of care. Our goal was to analyze the changes in the RNFC's quality indicators after an intervention based on disseminating specific recommendations among the participating hospitals, following available clinical practice guidelines. Study comparing before and after performing an intervention in hospitals participating in the RNFC. Data from the hospitals that registered cases in 2017, and that kept registering cases in 2019. Seven quality indicators were chosen, and a standard to be achieved for each indicator was proposed. The intervention consisted in the dissemination of 25 recommendations with practical measures to improve each quality indicator, based on available clinical practice guidelines, by drafting and publishing a scientific paper and sending it via email and printed cards. Fulfilment of each quality indicator was measured after carrying out the intervention. Forty-three hospitals registered 2674 cases between January and May, 2017, and 8037 during 2019. The quality indicators chosen and the degree of compliance were (all with p<0.05): (1) surgery ≤48 h increased from 38.9 to 45.8%; (2) patients mobilised on the first postoperative day increased from 58.9 to 70.3%; (3) patients with anti-osteoporotic medication at discharge increased from 34.5 to 49.8%; (4) patients with calcium supplements at discharge increased from 48.7 to 62.8%; (5) patients with vitamin D supplements at discharge increased from 71.5 to 84.7%; (6) patients developing a grade >2 pressure ulcer during admission decreased from 6.5 to 5.0%; (7) patients able to move on their own at 1 month fell from 58.8 to 56.4%. More than 48% of hospitals improved the proposed indicators. Establishing quality indicators and standards and intervening through the dissemination of specific recommendations to improve these indicators achieved an improvement in hospital performance results on a national level.

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.

No Differences Between White and Non-White Patients in Terms of Care Quality Metrics, Complications, and Death After Hip Fracture Surgery When Standardized Care Pathways Are Used.

No Differences Between White and Non-White Patients in Terms of Care Quality Metrics, Complications, and Death After Hip Fracture Surgery When Standardized Care Pathways Are Used.

A comparative study of hip fracture care and outcomes in major trauma centres versus trauma units

IntroductionThere is good evidence to support that major trauma networks significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in severely injured patients. However, following the introduction of major trauma centres (MTCs) in England in 2012, early concerns were raised regarding the effect on hip fracture patients. The aim of our study was to review data from the National Hip Fracture Database for fractured neck of femur (FNOF) patients, comparing patient outcomes between MTCs and trauma units (TUs), and the national regions of the UK. MethodsNHFD data from 2018 for all hospitals in England, Wales and NI was collected using the charts and dashboards available online. We recorded data for the following outcomes: time to surgery, acute hospital length of stay, overall hospital length of stay, discharge to original residence within 120 days, crude 30-day mortality and adjusted 30-day mortality. We conducted a one-way ANOVA test to calculate statistical differences for each outcome measure by MTC vs TU and then separately for the regions of the UK divided into England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NI). ResultsData for 175 hospitals are included in this study; 22 of which were MTCs. The total number of operative cases were 65,848. 9668 of these occurred in MTC compared to 56,180 in TUs. This equates to an annual average of 439 per MTC and 367 per TU. Despite this, there was no statistically significant difference observed in all outcomes for MTC vs TU. Patients in NI waited longer for their surgery (60.3 h, p < 0.001), whilst patients in Wales had the longest overall hospital length of stay (31.6 days, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in patients’ crude 30-day mortality (p = 0.480) or adjusted 30-day mortality (p = 0.191). ConclusionThese findings are reassuring for MTCs in England. We found no evidence to suggest that FNOF patients are treated inferiorly, or have worse outcomes, at MTCs vs TUs. FNOF patients in NI waited longer for their surgery but this did not have any significant difference on 30-day mortality rates. The care of FNOF patients in NI may warrant further study.

Impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture care in Ireland: findings from the Irish Hip Fracture Database.

To describe the impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture care during the first 6 months of the pandemic. A secondary analysis of 4385 cases in the Irish Hip Fracture Database from 1st June 2019 to 31st August 2020 was conducted. Hip fracture admissions decreased by 15% during the study period (p < 0.001). Patient characteristics were largely unchanged as the majority of cases occurred in females over 80years admitted from home. Adherence to many of the Irish Hip Fracture Standards (IHFS) changed following the COVID-19 pandemic. There was an increase in patients admitted to an orthopaedic ward from Emergency Department (ED) within 4h from 27 to 36% (p < 0.001). However, the proportion of patients reviewed by a geriatrician reduced from 85% pre-COVID to 80% (p < 0.001). Fewer patients received a bone health assessment [90% from 95% (p < 0.001)] and specialist falls assessment [(82% from 88% (p < 0.001)]. No change was seen in time to surgery or incidence of pressure injuries. There was a significant decrease in length of stay from 18 to 14days (p < 0.001). There was an increase in patients discharged home during the COVID-19 period and a decrease in patients discharged to rehabilitation, convalescence or nursing home care. There was no statistically significant change in mortality. Healthcare services were widely restructured during the pandemic, which had implications for hip fracture patients. There was a notable change in compliance with the IHFS. Multidisciplinary teams involved in hip fracture care should be preserved throughout any subsequent waves of the pandemic.

Access to care for low trauma hip fractures in South Africa.

Early surgery is recommended for hip fractures. In this study only one-third of subjects with hip fractures were admitted within 24 h of the fracture, and surgery was delayed beyond 48 h in the majority. These findings highlight the need to improve access to care for hip fracture subjects. There is limited data on the timing of admission and surgery following a low trauma hip fracture (HF) in South Africa (SA). A prospective, observational study was conducted at public and private hospitals in three provinces, Gauteng (GP), KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and the Western Cape (WC), in SA to determine time from fracture to admission and from admission to surgery in patients presenting with low trauma HF. Associations with delayed admission and surgery were explored using logistic regression. The median age of the 1996 subjects was 73 years (IQR 63-81 years), the majority were women (1346, 67%) and 1347 (67%) were admitted to the public hospitals. In one-third of subjects (661, 33%), admission was delayed to beyond 24 h after the fracture. There was a significantly longer time to admission in public compared to private hospitals (21 h [IQR 10.0-48.5] versus 6 h [IQR 3.3-14.1], p < 0.001), in subjects < 65 years, the WC and when admission occurred on a weekday. Surgery was delayed beyond 48 h in the majority (1272, 69%) of subjects and was significantly longer in public compared to private hospitals (130 h [IQR 62.6-212.4] versus 45.4 h [IQR 24.0-75.5], p < 0.001), in KZN, and when admission occurred after hours. The burden of HFs is higher at public hospitals in SA, where there is a significant delay in admission after a fracture and surgery after admission. This highlights the need for a review of HF care pathways, resources and policies.

Effect of institution volume on mortality and outcomes in osteoporotic hip fracture care.

An inveterate link has been found between institution case volume and a wide range of clinical outcomes; for a host of medical and surgical conditions. Hip fracture patients, notwithstanding the significance of this injury, have largely been overlooked with regard to this important evaluation. We used the UK National Hip Fracture database to determine the effect of institution hip fracture case volume on hip fracture healthcare outcomes in 2019. Using logistic regression for each healthcare outcome, we compared the best performing 50 units with the poorest performing 50 institutions to determine if the unit volume was associated with performance in each particular outcome. There were 175 institutions with included 67,673 patients involved. The number of hip fractures between units ranged from 86 to 952. Larger units tendered to perform health assessments more consistently and mobilise patients more expeditiously post-operatively. However, patients treated at large institutions did not have any shorter lengths of stay. With regard to most other outcomes there was no association between the unit number of cases and performance; notably mortality, compliance with best practice tariff, time to surgery, the proportion of eligible patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, length of stay delirium risk and pressure sore risk. There is no relationship between unit volume and the majority of health care outcomes. It would seem that larger institutions tend to perform better at parameters that are dependent upon personnel numbers. However, where the outcome is contingent, even partially, on physical infrastructure capacity, there was no difference between larger and smaller units.

Level II trauma centers have highest charges for hip fractures

Objectives: To evaluate the charges for pertrochanteric hip fracture care in Texas. Design: Database review. Setting: Texas Hospital Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF) Intervention: Charges reported by hospitals to the Texas Department of State Health Services for pertrochanteric hip fractures. Main outcome measurement: Charges associated with pertrochanteric hip fracture stratified by implant type and according to facility trauma level designation, urban versus rural, teaching versus non-teaching, and border versus inland status. Results and conclusions: There were a total of 44,853 pertrochanteric hip fracture surgeries performed over the three-year period in the state of Texas. The vast majority were treated at urban (93.4%), inland (non-border) (92.3%), non-teaching (74.2%) facilities with intramedullary fixation (56.9%). A significant increase in charges was associated with treatment at an urban ($32,412), border ($44,919), or teaching ($10,501) facility. Mean inpatient charges at Level II facilities was $113,700. Further study is warranted to determine what drives the differences in charges associated with hip fracture treatment. Level of Evidence: IV; Economic Database Analysis Keywords: hip fracture, access to care, charge analysis, value-based care, Texas. (J Ortho Business 2022; 1:4-6)

High variability in patient reported outcome utilization following hip fracture: a potential barrier to value-based care.

Osteoporotic hip fractures are associated with high levels of morbidity, mortality, and cost, while gains in mortality over the past 30years have been modest. To improve care beyond simple mortality metrics requires identifying and then consistently measuring outcomes that are meaningful to patients and families. The purpose of this study was to review the top-tier hip fracture literature published in the past 30years to determine if there are consensus outcome measures being routinely used and if the rate of reporting clinically meaningful patient-rated outcome measures is improving over time. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis on outcome measures reported in osteoporotic hip fractures. Articles were included if they had been published over the last 30years and were from high impact factor journals. Inclusion criteria were elderly hip fractures, therapeutic or prognostic study, unique and identifiable patients, and included follow-up beyond initial hospitalization. We analyzed study type, inclusion criteria, outcomes reported, and journal specialty orientation. Three hundred eighty-four articles were included in the final analysis. Sixty-seven percent of the articles were therapeutic studies; 33% were prognostic studies. The average number of patients in each study was 435; the average age was 78years. The most commonly reported outcome was mortality, and was present in 79% of studies. There was a high degree of heterogeneity in patient-reported outcome measures, with the most popular score (Harris Hip Score) reported only 14% of the time. Only 6% of articles had all components of essential core outcome sets previously defined in the literature. Despite the apparent advances that have been made in our ability to care for hip fractures, the overall rate of reporting outcomes beyond mortality rate remains low. This lack of consensus represents a major barrier to implementation of value-based care in this patient population.

Patient-related healthcare disparities in the quality of acute hip fracture care: a 10-year nationwide population-based cohort study

ObjectivesTo characterise and quantify possible patient-related disparities in hip fracture care including temporal changes.DesignPopulation-based cohort study.SettingAll Danish hospitals treating patients with hip fracture.Participants60 275 hip fracture patients from 2007 to...

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.

Variation in treatment of hip fractures and guideline adherence amongst surgeons with different training backgrounds in the Netherlands

Background and Purpose: Two medical specialties, general surgery and orthopaedic surgery, with different training programs but matching trauma certification requirements, provide hip fracture surgery in the Netherlands. This study analyses treatment preferences and guideline adherence of Dutch surgeons with different surgical backgrounds.Patients and Methods: All hip fracture patients registered in the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit in 2018 and 2019 were included in this retrospective study. Four types of surgeons were distinguished: trauma-certified general surgeons (ST+), non-trauma certified general surgeons (ST-), trauma-certified orthopaedic surgeons (OT+) and non-trauma certified orthopaedic surgeons (OT-). Differences in patient characteristics, and practice variation in treatment choices and guideline adherence per fracture type were analysed using descriptive statistics.Results: 28,656 patients were included; 16,367 (57.1%) treated by ST+, 1,371 (4.8%) by ST-, 4,692 (16.4%) by OT+ and 6,226 (21.7%) by OT-. Few clinically relevant differences in patient characteristics and hospital processes were found between all surgeon groups. Displaced FNF were the most commonly treated fracture type for all types of surgeons. Both OT+ and OT- operated mostly (displaced) FNFs, while the fracture types treated by ST+ and ST- were more heterogeneous. For all fracture types, the orthopaedic surgeons performed THA and HA more often than general surgeons, while general surgeons more often placed SHS and IMN for specific fracture types. Guideline adherence was on average 68.4% and differed significantly per surgeon type (68.7% by ST+, 65.2% by ST-, 74.4% by OT+ and 63.6% by OT- (p<0.01)), as well as per fracture type: >90% treatment according to the guideline for trochanteric AO-31A2 and A3 fractures, 18.8% for AO-31A1 fractures and 51.7% guideline adherence for undisplaced FNF. Guideline adherence for displaced FNF varied depending on patient characteristics.Discussion: In the Netherlands, different surgical specialists treat different types of hip fractures and have different preferences concerning implants for hip fracture surgery in comparable patients. Guideline adherence of trauma- and non-trauma certified orthopaedics and general surgeons differs significantly. Reduction of practice variation should be strived for in order to improve hip fracture care.

"Context, content, and system" supporting digital health hub (DHH)-enabled models of care (MoCs) for fragility hip fractures: perspectives of diverse multidisciplinary stakeholders in South Australia from qualitative in-depth interviews.

SummaryCombining thematic analysis and a human–computer persuasive systems framework suggests that hip fracture recovery among older people can be enhanced through person-centered digital health hub models of care focused on behavior change education and integrated care. The findings intend to guide settings involving comorbid conditions and low- and middle-income countries in developing innovative digital health solutions.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to understand stakeholders’ perspectives on the development of a digital health-enabled model of care for fragility hip fractures and to map out factors that could influence the design and implementation of such a model.MethodsQualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholders from various clinical disciplines, allied health, and computer science. A hybrid process involving thematic analysis of the raw data using inductive coding was the first step. In the second step, the tenets of a theoretical framework (health behavior change supporting systems) were deductively applied to the thematic constructs generated as part of the first step of the analysis.ResultsIn total, 24 in-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholders. We identified 18 thematic constructs presented under the categories of context, content, and system. Context covered patient characteristics such as frailty, digital literacy, and patient or carer participation, whereas healthcare delivery aspects included the structure and culture of existing practice and the need for innovative holistic models of care. Content outlines the active ingredients and approach in developing a digital health hub, and it highlights the importance of targeted education and behavior change. The system is a complicated matrix crossing different aspects of healthcare and offering a value proposition design through personalization across modes of content delivery. This must foster trust, ensure adequate financing, and support ownership and privacy by establishing appropriate mechanisms for embedding change.ConclusionThe findings from this study provide insights around potential factors related to patients, community support, and healthcare delivery influencing the design and next-stage implementation of a digital health hub model of care for fragility hip fractures.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11657-021-01031-3.

Identifying Opportunities, and Motivation to Enhance Capabilities, Influencing the Development of a Personalized Digital Health Hub Model of Care for Hip Fractures: Mixed Methods Exploratory Study.

BackgroundMost older people after a hip fracture injury never return to their prefracture status, and some are admitted to residential aged care facilities. Advancement of digital technology has helped in optimizing health care including self-management and telerehabilitation.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the perspectives of older patients with hip fracture and their family members and residential aged caregivers on the feasibility of developing a model of care using a personalized digital health hub.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods study in South Australia involving patients aged 50 years and older, their family members, and residential aged caregivers. Quantitative data analysis included basic demographic characteristics, and access to digital devices was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to examine correlations between the perceived role of a personalized digital health hub in improving health and the likelihood of subsequent use. Findings from qualitative analysis were interpreted using constructs of capability, opportunity, and motivation to help understand the factors influencing the likelihood of potential personalized digital health hub use.ResultsThis study recruited 100 participants—55 patients, 13 family members, and 32 residential aged caregivers. The mean age of the patients was 76.4 (SD 8.4, range 54-88) years, and 60% (33/55) of the patients were female. Approximately 50% (34/68) of the patients and their family members had access to digital devices, despite less than one-third using computers as part of their occupation. Approximately 72% (72/100) of the respondents thought that personalized digital health hub could improve health outcomes in patients. However, a moderate negative correlation existed with increasing age and likelihood of personalized digital health hub use (Spearman ρ=–0.50; P<.001), and the perceived role of the personalized digital health hub in improving health had a strong positive correlation with the likelihood of personalized digital health hub use by self (Spearman ρ=0.71; P<.001) and by society, including friends and family members (Spearman ρ=0.75; P<.001). Most patients (54/55, 98%) believed they had a family member, friend, or caregiver who would be able to help them use a personalized digital health hub. Qualitative analysis explored capability by understanding aspects of existing knowledge, including willingness to advance digital navigation skills. Access could be improved through supporting opportunities, and factors influencing intrinsic motivation were considered crucial for designing a personalized digital health hub–enabled model of care.ConclusionsThis study emphasized the complex relationship between capabilities, motivation, and opportunities for patients, their family members, and formal caregivers as a patient networked unit. The next stage of research will continue to involve a cocreation approach followed by iterative processes and understand the factors influencing the development and successful integration of complex digital health care interventions in real-world scenarios.

Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus.

Even though hip fracture care pathways have evolved, mortality rates have not improved during the last 20years. This finding together with the increased frailty of hip fracture patients turned hip fractures into a major public health concern. The corresponding development of an indicator labyrinth for hip fractures and the ongoing practice variance in Europe call for a list of benchmarking indicators that allow for quality improvement initiatives for the rapid recovery of fragile hip fractures (RR-FHF). The purpose of this study was to identify quality indicators that assess the quality of in-hospital care for rapid recovery of fragile hip fracture (RR-FHF). A literature search and guideline selection was conducted to identify recommendations for RR-FHF. Recommendations were categorized as potential structure, process, and outcome QIs and subdivided in-hospital care treatment topics. A list of structure and process recommendations that belongs to care treatment topics relevant for RR-FHF was used to facilitate extraction of recommendations during a 2-day consensus meeting with experts (n = 15) in hip fracture care across Europe. Participants were instructed to select 5 key recommendations relevant for RR-FHF for each part of the in-hospital care pathway: pre-, intra-, and postoperative care. In total, 37 potential QIs for RR-FHF were selected based on a methodology using the combination of high levels of evidence and expert opinion. The set consists of 14 process, 13 structure, and 10 outcome indicators that cover the whole perioperative process of fragile hip fracture care. We suggest the QIs for RR-FHF to be practice tested and adapted to allow for intra-hospital longitudinal follow-up of the quality of care and for inter-hospital and cross-country benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.

Development of an Early Activation Hip Fracture Care Bundle and Implementation Strategy to Improve Adherence to the National Hip Fracture Clinical Care Standard.

ObjectiveTo develop and implement a multidisciplinary early activation mechanism and bundle of care (eHIP) to improve adherence to ACSQHC standards in a regional trauma centre.MethodsBarriers to implementation were categorised using the Theoretical Domains Framework, then linked to specific strategies guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTT). The resulting implementation strategies were assessed using Affordable, Practical, Effective, Acceptable, had Side-effects (APEASE) criteria.ResultsEighty-three barriers to implementation of the hip fracture care bundle were identified. The behaviour change wheel process resulted in the identification of 41 techniques to address these barriers. The predominant mechanisms to achieve this were development and implementation of 1) formal policy that outlines eHIP roles; 2) video promotion; 3) pager group; 4) fascia iliaca block enabling; 5) eMR modifications; 6) face-to-face reinforcement and modelling; 7) communication and prompts; 8) environmental restructuring.ConclusionWe applied behaviour change theory through a pragmatic evidence-based process. This resulted in a codesigned strategy to overcome staff and organisational barriers to the implementation of a multidisciplinary early activation mechanism and bundle of care (eHIP). Future work will include evaluation of the uptake and clinical impact of the care bundle.