In the UK, multidisciplinary teamwork for patients with hip fracture has been shown to reduce mortality and improves health-related quality of life for patients, while also reducing hospital bed days and associated healthcare costs. However, despite rapidly increasing numbers of fragility fractures, multidisciplinary shared care is rare in low- and middle-income countries around the world. The HIPCARE trial will test the introduction of multidisciplinary care pathways in five low- and middle-income countries in South and Southeast Asia, with the aim to improve patients’ quality of life and reduce healthcare costs. Cite this article:
The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care. We compared all ten established national hip fracture registries: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland; Australia and New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden; Norway; Denmark; and Spain. We tabulated all questions included in each registry, and cross-referenced them against the 32 questions of the MCD dataset. Having identified those questions consistently used in the majority of national audits, and which additional fields were used less commonly, we then used consensus methods to establish a revised MCD.Aims
Methods
National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine whether national standards of best practice are associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in hip fracture patients. This was a multicentre cohort study conducted in 20 acute UK NHS hospitals treating hip fracture patients. Patients aged ≥ 60 years treated operatively for a hip fracture were eligible for inclusion. Regression models were fitted to each of the “Best Practice Tariff” indicators and overall attainment. The impact of attainment on HRQoL was assessed by quantifying improvement in EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) from estimated regression model coefficients.Aims
Methods
There is a high rate of mortality in elderly
patients who sustain a fracture of the hip. We aimed to determine
the rate of preventable mortality and errors during the management
of these patients. A 12 month prospective study was performed on
patients aged >
65 years who had sustained a fracture of the hip.
This was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma Centre with no orthogeriatric
service. A multidisciplinary review of the medical records by four
specialists was performed to analyse errors of management and elements
of preventable mortality. During 2011, there were 437 patients aged
>
65 years admitted with a fracture of the hip (85 years (66 to
99)) and 20 died while in hospital (86.3 years (67 to 96)). A total
of 152 errors were identified in the 80 individual reviews of the
20 deaths. A total of 99 errors (65%) were thought to have at least
a moderate effect on death; 45 reviews considering death (57%) were thought
to have potentially been preventable. Agreement between the panel
of reviewers on the preventability of death was fair. A larger-scale
assessment of preventable mortality in elderly patients who sustain
a fracture of the hip is required. Multidisciplinary review panels
could be considered as part of the quality assurance process in
the management of these patients. Cite this article
