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 Scottish Hip Fracture Audit (. 1. ) was founded on Rikshoft, the Swedish hip fracture register (. 2. ), and since 1993 has documented case-mix, process and outcomes of hip fracture care in Scotland. Evidence-based national guidelines on hip fracture care were updated by a multidisciplinary group in 2002(. 3. ). And hip fracture serves as a tracer condition by the health quality assurance authority for its work on older people, which reported in 2004 (. 4. ). Audit data are used locally to document care and support and monitor service developments. Synergy between the guidelines and the audit provides a means of improving care locally and monitoring care nationally. External review by the quality assurance body shows to what extent guideline-based standards relating to A& E care, pre-operative delay, multidisciplinary care and audit participation are met. Three national-level initiatives on hip fracture care have delivered: reliable and largescale comparative information on case-mix, care and outcomes; evidence-based recommendations on care; and nationally accountable standards inspected and reported by the national health quality assurance authority. These developments are linked and synergistic, and enjoy both clinical and managerial support. They provide an evolving framework for clinical governance and quality assurance, with methods for casemix-adjusted outcome assessment for hip fracture care also now developed

Hip fractures in elderly patients are managed at both major trauma centers (MTC) and trauma units (TU). Previous evidence has demonstrated the importance of early surgery to reduce the morbidity and mortality related to the injury. The aim of this study is to compare the ‘time to theatre' and ‘30 day mortality' in TUs versus MTC in UK. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on NHFD was performed. The average ‘time to theatre' in hours and ‘30 day mortality' of all hospitals were analysed between January and December 2018. Further subgroup analysis was done to check for any regional variations; in each instance a Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check for normal distribution, followed by a one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's post hoc test. Data from 158 hospitals in England (ENG), Wales (WAL) and Northern Ireland (NI) were used; 18 of which were MTC. There were 57,936 operative cases in TUs and 8606 in MTC's. The mean time (hours) to surgery from presentation was 32.51 and 32.64 for TUs and MTC respectively (p=0.513). There was no significant difference in ‘30 day mortality' (p=0.635) between TUs (6%) and 5.7% MTC's (5.7%), MTC's and TUs in ENG, WAL and NI (p=0.555), and MTC and WAL, NI and the different regions of ENG (p=0.209). A significant difference was observed, between the regional practice for TUs versus MTC's in ENG, WAL and NI (p=0.001) and between MTC's and TUs in WAL, NI and the different regions of ENG (p=0.001), with patients waiting significantly longer in NI for their procedure (mean=60.25 hours, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in time to surgery or 30 day mortality between TUs and MTC's, demonstrating comparable hip fracture care, despite MTCs need to prioritise more serious injuries

Aims. Performance indicators are increasingly used to evaluate the quality of healthcare provided to patients with a hip fracture. The aim of this review was to map the variety of performance indicators used around the world and how they are defined. Methods. We present a mixed methods systematic review of literature on the use of performance indicators in hip fracture care. Evidence was searched through 12 electronic databases and other sources. A Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality of studies meeting the inclusion criteria. A protocol for a suite of related systematic reviews was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023417515). Results. A total 24,634 articles were reviewed, of which 171 met the criteria of the review. Included studies were heterogenous in design and came from varied healthcare systems in 34 different countries. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe (n = 118), followed by North America (n = 33), Asia (n = 21), Australia (n = 10), and South America (n = 2). The highest number of studies in one country came from the UK (n = 45). Only seven of the 171 studies (< 2,000 participants) were conducted across ten low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There was variation in the performance indicators reported from different healthcare systems, and indicators were often undefined or ambiguously defined. For example, there were multiple definitions of 'early' in terms of surgery, different or missing definitions of ‘mobilization’, and variety in what was included in an ‘orthogeriatric assessment’ in hip fracture care. However, several performance indicators appeared commonly, including time to surgery (n = 142/171; 83%), orthogeriatric review (n = 30; 17%), early mobilization after surgery (n = 58; 34%), and bone health assessment (n = 41; 24%). Qualitative studies (n = 18), mainly from high-income countries and India, provided evidence on the experiences of 192 patients and 138 healthcare professionals with regard to the use of performance indicators in clinical care and rehabilitation pathways. Themes included the importance of education and training in parallel with the introduction of performance indicators, clarity of roles with the clinical team, and the need for restructuring or integration of care pathways. Conclusion. This review identified a large number of performance indicators related to the delivery of healthcare for patients with a hip fracture. However, their definitions and thresholds varied across studies and countries. Evidence from LMICs is sparse. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence indicates that there remains a pressing need for further research into the use and standardization of performance indicators in hip fracture care and their influence on patient outcomes and economic costs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(3):275–290

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the current pathways of care for patients with a fracture of the hip in five low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in South Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka) and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines). Methods. The World Health Organization Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool was used to collect data on the care of hip fractures in Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Respondents were asked to provide details about the current pathway of care for patients with hip fracture, including pre-hospital transport, time to admission, time to surgery, and time to weightbearing, along with healthcare professionals involved at different stages of care, information on discharge, and patient follow-up. Results. Responses were received from 98 representative hospitals across the five countries. Most hospitals were publicly funded. There was consistency in clinical pathways of care within country, but considerable variation between countries. Patients mostly travel to hospital via ambulance (both publicly- and privately-funded) or private transport, with only half arriving at hospital within 12 hours of their injury. Access to surgery was variable and time to surgery ranged between one day and more than five days. The majority of hospitals mobilized patients on the first or second day after surgery, but there was notable variation in postoperative weightbearing protocols. Senior medical input was variable and specialist orthogeriatric expertise was unavailable in most hospitals. Conclusion. This study provides the first step in mapping care pathways for patients with hip fracture in LMIC in South Asia. The previous lack of data in these countries hampers efforts to identify quality standards (key performance indicators) that are relevant to each different healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):676–681

Fragility fractures are an emerging healthcare problem in Sub-Saharan Africa and hip fractures (HFs) are associated with high levels of morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare resources utilization, and mortality. The worldwide average healthcare cost in the first-year post HF was US$43,669 per patient in a 2017 systematic review, however there are no studies quantifying fracture-associated costs within SSA. We estimated direct healthcare costs of HF management in the South African public healthcare system.

We conducted a prospective ingredients-based costing study in 200 consecutive consenting HF patients to estimate costs per patient across five regional public sector hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). Resource use including staff time, consumables, laboratory investigations, radiographs, operating theatre time, surgical implants, medicines, and inpatient days were collected from presentation to discharge. Counts of resources used were multiplied by relevant unit costs, estimated from KZN Department of Health hospital fees manual 2019/20, in local currency (South African Rand, ZAR). Generalised linear models were used to estimate total covariate adjusted costs and cost predictors.

The mean unadjusted cost for HF management was ZAR114,179 (95% CI; ZAR105,468–125,335). The major cost driver was orthopaedics/surgical ward costs ZAR 106.68, contributing to 85% of total cost. The covariate adjusted cost for HF management was ZAR114,696 (95% CI; ZAR111,745–117,931). After covariate adjustment, total costs were higher in patients operated under general anaesthesia compared to surgery under spinal anaesthesia and no surgery.

Direct healthcare costs following a HF are substantial: 58% of the gross domestic per capita (US$12,096 in 2020), and six-times greater than per capita spending on health (US$1,187 in 2019) in SA. As the population ages, this significant economic burden to the health system will increase. Further research is required to evaluate direct non-medical, and the indirect costs incurred post HF.

With Lord Darzi’s vision of the future of the NHS, it has become clear that quality of care will be the next focus and the hospitals providing acute orthopaedics and trauma services will have to deliver best and most efficient care for the patients being admitted with fractured neck of femur. This study is aimed at recognizing the changes and organization required at a district general hospital and their initial effect on the quality of services being provided locally.

Management of patient with hip fracture involves several specialties within the hospital as well as primary care setup. An audit of A& E waiting time showed significant variation in the delay before transferring the patients to the ward which was addressed by Fast-Track system. In the ward, preoperative assessment was standardized by agreement between orthopaedics and anaesthetics department. Three daytime lists were initiated specifically for hip fracture patients, resulting in increase in the number of patients going to theatre within 48 hours of admission, from 75% to 86%. A protocol was agreed between orthopaedic surgeons and rheumatologists for starting anti-resorptive therapy for these patients in order to decrease the chances of future fragility fractures. Impact of this measure will be assessed in due course. One senior middle grade surgeon was given the charge of managing NOF lists and to coordinate the medical management of these patients. Hospital has also started taking part in National Hip Fracture Database and a HCA has been assigned the duty of uploading the data to NHFD database. A acre pathway is being developed to streamline the whole peri-operative and after discharge management of these patients.

With just about a year left before the implementation of healthcare commissioning, it is vital that trusts start working on best and most efficient care for all patients. Hospital will have to publish their quality accounts from next year and their tariffs will be linked to patient reported outcome measures. This study highlights the main issues and the potentially vital role of orthopaedic specialists in developing the required services.

In Alberta there are over 2,700 hip fractures per year costing the health system over $24 million in acute care costs alone. 50% of hip fracture patients have had a prior fragility fracture as a result of underlying osteoporosis (OP) that has never been assessed or appropriately treated. The Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) in Alberta aims to improve appropriate osteoporosis care, highlight and address gaps within seniors care through OP management, and provide a geriatric syndrome triage service.

The FLS has developed a linkage with the Emergency Department (ED) geriatric team whereby hip fracture patients are identified in ED using a screening tool for geriatric syndromes prior to their surgery, allowing the FLS to follow through on comorbidities likely contributing to falls. An inpatient orthopaedic unit with a dedicated Registered Nurse (RN) and a Care of the Elderly Physician see and assess hip fracture patients after surgery for appropriate osteoporosis management and treatment. Screening tools have been developed to quickly detect underlying dementia and to quantify frailty to determine life expectancy and appropriate osteoporosis therapy. Patients are also referred to Geriatric Assessment Units and fall prevention programs. Patients are then contacted in the community at 3, 6,9,12 months by the FLS RN to follow up on osteoporosis therapy, and arrange other needed tests (i.e. bone mineral density, vitamin D) as needed. Information is sent to their family physician with all results. Prior to the patient's discharge from the FLS at one year, a final hand-over letter from the program will be provided outlining the plan of care for the patient.

The FLS launched in June 2015 at the Misericordia hospital in Edmonton, Alberta (with plans to expand provincially). Currently 3 out of 4 hip fracture patients per week are being identified in the ED. Ninety-eight hip fracture patients have been identified post-surgery, with 71 patients eligible for enrollment in the program (five deceased patients). Sixty-six (50%) of those enrolled were discharged on osteoporosis medication compared to 8% prior to the program initiation. Seventeen (26%) of those were new medication starts. Of those not started, 7(11%) was patient choice. 11(31%) will be reassessed at 3 months for appropriate therapy. Nineteen (27%) of patients were referred to other inpatient or outpatient programs (i.e. falls, memory). Three month follow up calls have begun with patients for further data collection and a full 1 year qualitative and quantitative evaluation will be done.

The implementation of an FLS with dedicated personnel to proactively manage and treat patients with appropriate investigations and interventions can close the care gap that exists in OP care. It also addresses gaps in senior care and provides appropriate referral to community geriatric programs, to improve quality of life and prevent future fractures.

In 2007, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was conceived in the United Kingdom (UK) as a national audit aiming to improve hip fracture care across the country. It now represents the world's largest hip fracture registry. The purpose of the NHFD is to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fracture care, at an institutional level, that reflect the evidence-based clinical guidelines and quality standards developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. No national program currently exists, equivalent to the NHFD, in Canada despite evidence suggesting that national audit programs can significantly improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fractures at our Canadian academic tertiary referral center using the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and benchmarks used by the NHFD. In doing so, we aimed to compare our performance to other hospitals contributing to the NHFD database. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients who presented to our Canadian center for surgical management of a hip fracture between August 2019 to September 2020. Fracture types included intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric, and femoral neck fractures treated with either surgical fixation or arthroplasty. Cases were identified from the affiliate institute's Operatively Repaired Fractures Database (ORFD). The ORFD prospectively collects patient-level data extracted from electronic medical records, operating room information systems, and from patients’ discharge summaries. All applicable data from our database were compared to the established KPI and benchmarks published by the NHFD that apply to the Canadian healthcare system. Six hundred and seven patients’ data (64.5% female) were extracted from the ORFD, mean age 80.4 ± 13.3 years. The NHFD contains data from 63,284 patients across the entire UK. The affiliate institute performed inferiorly compared to the NHFD for two KPIs: prompt surgery (surgery by the day following presentation with hip fracture, 52.8% vs. 69%) and prompt mobilization after surgery (mobilized out of bed by the day after operation, 43.0% vs. 81.0%). However, more patients at the affiliate institute were not delirious when tested postoperatively (89.6% vs. 68.4%). There was no significant difference in the average length of stay (12.23 days versus 13.5 days) or in 30-day mortality rate (8.4% versus 8.3%). More than half of all KPI's and benchmarks for patients receiving a hip fracture surgery at our tertiary referral center in Canada ranked significantly lower than patients receiving a hip fracture surgery in the UK. These findings indicate that perhaps a national audit program should be implemented in Canada to improve aspects of hip fracture care, at an institutional level. Following evidence-based clinical guidelines and using standardized benchmarks would encourage change and foster improvement across Canadian centres when necessary

One of the most important sequelae to ageing is osteoporosis and subsequently hip fractures. Hip fractures are associated with major morbidity, mortality and costs. Most patients require surgery to restore mobility. Provision of surgery and its complications is poorly understood in South Africa. Our aim was to collect and report current hip fracture care at four centres in South Africa, as well as reporting surgical and general patient outcomes. A three year retrospective cohort at four centres will be described, focussing on provision of surgical care, mortality, types of surgery and complications. We identified 562 patients who had surgical intervention for fragility fractures, 66% were females. Forty nine percent had open reduction and internal fixation, 28% had hemi-arthroplasty replacement whilst 23% had total hip replacements. Twenty percent of patients had operative intervention within 36 hours of presentation to the emergency department. Mortality was 9% at 30 days. The most common complications were lower respiratory infections (29%), urinary tract infections (21%) and surgical site infections (9%). This is the largest cohort of surgically treated hip fracture from South Africa. Proportions of patients receiving different surgical interventions such as THR are comparable to the broader literature. However a number of key performance indicators such as surgery within 36 hours are challenging to meet. Given the changing demographics of South Africa, this study provides an early insight to contemporary care and may help provide direction for broader national strategies for reporting and improving hip fracture care

Aims. To identify factors influencing clinicians’ decisions to undertake a nonoperative hip fracture management approach among older people, and to determine whether there is global heterogeneity regarding these factors between clinicians from high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Methods. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was electronically distributed to clinicians around the world through the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN)’s Perioperative Special Interest Group and clinicians’ personal networks between 24 May and 25 July 2021. Analyses were performed using Excel and STATA v16.0. Between-group differences were determined using independent-samples t-tests and chi-squared tests. Results. A total of 406 respondents from 51 countries answered the questionnaire, of whom 225 came from HIC and 180 from LMIC. Clinicians from HIC reported a greater median and mean estimated proportion of admitted patients with hip fracture undergoing surgery (median 96% (interquartile range (IQR) 95% to 99%); mean 94% (SD 8%)) than those from LMIC (median 85% (IQR 75% to 95%); mean 81% (SD 16%); p < 0.001). Global heterogeneity seems to exist regarding factors such as anticipated life expectancy, insufficient resources, ability to pay, treatment costs, and perception of risk in hip fracture management decision-making. Conclusion. This study represents the first international sampling of clinician perspectives regarding nonoperative hip fracture management. Several factors seemed to influence the clinician decision-making process. Further research is needed to inform the development of best practice guidelines to improve decision-making and the quality of hip fracture care among older people. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):766–775

Aims. Delirium is associated with adverse outcomes following hip fracture, but the prevalence and significance of delirium for the prognosis and ongoing rehabilitation needs of patients admitted from home is less well studied. Here, we analyzed relationships between delirium in patients admitted from home with 1) mortality; 2) total length of hospital stay; 3) need for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation; and 4) hospital readmission within 180 days. Methods. This observational study used routine clinical data in a consecutive sample of hip fracture patients aged ≥ 50 years admitted to a single large trauma centre during the COVID-19 pandemic between 1 March 2020 and 30 November 2021. Delirium was prospectively assessed as part of routine care by the 4 A’s Test (4AT), with most assessments performed in the emergency department. Associations were determined using logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile, COVID-19 infection within 30 days, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Results. A total of 1,821 patients were admitted, with 1,383 (mean age 79.5 years; 72.1% female) directly from home. Overall, 87 patients (4.8%) were excluded due to missing 4AT scores. Delirium prevalence in the whole cohort was 26.5% (460/1,734): 14.1% (189/1,340) in the subgroup of patients admitted from home, and 68.8% (271/394) in the remaining patients (comprising care home residents and inpatients when fracture occurred). In patients admitted from home, delirium was associated with a 20-day longer total length of stay (p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, delirium was associated with higher mortality at 180 days (odds ratio (OR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.54); p = 0.013), requirement for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation (OR 2.80 (95% CI 1.97 to 3.96); p < 0.001), and readmission to hospital within 180 days (OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.15); p = 0.041). Conclusion. Delirium affects one in seven patients with a hip fracture admitted directly from home, and is associated with adverse outcomes in these patients. Delirium assessment and effective management should be a mandatory part of standard hip fracture care. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(6):447–456

Aims. The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic forced an unprecedented period of challenge to the NHS in the UK where hip fractures in the elderly population are a major public health concern. There are approximately 76,000 hip fractures in the UK each year which make up a substantial proportion of the trauma workload of an average orthopaedic unit. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hip fracture care service and the emerging lessons to withstand any future outbreaks. Methods. Data were collected retrospectively on 157 hip fractures admitted from March to May 2019 and 2020. The 2020 group was further subdivided into COVID-positive and COVID-negative. Data including the four-hour target, timing to imaging, hours to operation, anaesthetic and operative details, intraoperative complications, postoperative reviews, COVID status, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), length of stay, postoperative complications, and the 30-day mortality were compiled from computer records and our local National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) export data. Results. Hip fractures and inpatient falls significantly increased by 61.7% and 7.2% respectively in the 2020 group. A significant difference was found among the three groups regarding anaesthetic preparation time, anaesthetic time, and recovery time. The mortality rate in the 2020 COVID-positive group (36.8%) was significantly higher than both the 2020 COVID-negative and 2019 groups (11.5% and 11.7% respectively). The hospital stay was significantly higher in the COVID-positive group (mean of 24.21 days (SD 19.29)). Conclusion. COVID-19 has had notable effects on the hip fracture care service: hip fracture rates increased significantly. There were inefficiencies in theatre processes for which we have recommended the use of alternate theatres. COVID-19 infection increased the 30-day mortality and hospital stay in hip fractures. More research needs to be done to reduce this risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:530–540

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. A total of 215 unique questions were used across the ten registries. Only 72 (34%) were used in more than one national audit, and only 32 (15%) by more than half of audits. Only one registry used all 32 questions from the 2014 MCD, and five questions were only collected by a single registry. Only 21 of the 32 questions in the MCD were used in the majority of national audits. Only three fields (anaesthetic grade, operation, and date/time of surgery) were used by all ten established audits. We presented these findings at the Asia-Pacific FFN meeting, and used an online questionnaire to capture feedback from expert clinicians from different countries. A draft revision of the MCD was then presented to all 95 nations represented at the Global FFN conference in September 2021, with online feedback again used to finalize the revised MCD. Conclusion. The revised MCD will help aspirant nations establish new registry programmes, facilitate the integration of novel analytic techniques and greater multinational collaboration, and serve as an internationally-accepted standard for monitoring and improving hip fracture services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):721–728

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. A total of 6,532 patients provided both baseline and four-month EQ-5D-5L, of whom 1,060 participants had died at follow-up. Best practice was achieved in the care of 57% of participants; there was no difference in age, cognitive ability, and mobility at baseline for the overall attainment and non-attainment groups. Attaining at least ‘joint care by surgeon and orthogeriatrician’, ‘delirium assessment’, and ‘falls assessment’ was associated with a large, clinically relevant increase in four months EQ-5D-5L of 0.094 (bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.046 to 0.146). Conclusion. National standards with enhanced remuneration in hip fracture care results in improvement in individual patients’ HRQoL. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):881–887

The ‘Best Practice Tariff‘ (BPT) was developed to improve hip fracture care by incentivising hospitals to provide timely multidisciplinary care to patients sustaining these injuries. The current literature examining the association between BPT and patient outcomes is conflicting and underpowered. We aimed to determine if achieving BPT has an impact on 30-day mortality and postoperative length of stay. A retrospective analysis for patients admitted to a major trauma centre (MTC) was performed between 01/01/2013 to 31/12/2020. Data were extracted from the National Hip Fracture Database. The study population was divided into two groups: those who achieved all BPT criteria (BPT-passed) and those who did not (BPT-failed). The primary outcomes of interest included the 30-day mortality rate and postoperative length of stay (LOS). As a secondary objective, we aimed to assess factors that predict perioperative mortality by utilising a logistic regression model. 4397 cases were included for analysis. 3422 (78%) met the BPT criteria, whereas 973 (22%) did not. The mean LOS in the BPT-achieving group was 17.2 days compared with 18.6 in the BPT-failed group, p<0.001. 30-day mortality was significantly lower in the BPT-achieving group i.e., 4.3% in BPT-achieved vs. 12.1% in BPT-failed, p<0.001. Logistic regression modelling demonstrated that attainment of BPT was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality (OR: 0.32; 95% CI:0.24–0.41; p<0.001). To our knowledge, this is the largest study to investigate the association between BPT attainment and 30-day mortality as well as the length of stay. The present study demonstrates that achieving BPT in hip fracture patients is associated with a significant reduction in the average length of stay and 30-day mortality rates. Our crude calculations revealed that achieving BPT for 3422 patients earned our hospital trust >£4 million over 8 years. Findings from this study suggest that achieving BPT not only improves 30-day survival in patients with hip fractures but also aids cost-effectiveness by reducing LOS and helps generate NHS Trusts a significant amount of financial reward

Aims. This study aimed to describe preoperative waiting times for surgery in hip fracture patients in Norway, and analyze factors affecting waiting time and potential negative consequences of prolonged waiting time. Methods. Overall, 37,708 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked with data in the Norwegian Patient Registry. Hospitals treating hip fractures were characterized according to their hip fracture care. Waiting time (hours from admission to start of surgery), surgery within regular working hours, and surgery on the day of or on the day after admission, i.e. ‘expedited surgery’ were estimated. Results. Mean waiting time was 22.6 hours (SD 20.7); 36,652 patients (97.2%) waited less than three days (< 72 hours), and 27,527 of the patients (73%) were operated within regular working hours (08:00 to 16:00). Expedited surgery was given to 31,675 of patients (84%), and of these, 19,985 (53%) were treated during regular working hours. Patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes 4 and 5 were more likely to have surgery within regular working hours (odds ratio (OR) 1.59; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive expedited surgery than ASA 1 patients (OR 0.29; p < 0.001). Low-volume hospitals treated a larger proportion of patients during regular working hours than high volume hospitals (OR 1.26; p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had less expedited surgery and significantly longer waiting times than low and intermediate-low volume hospitals. Higher ASA classes and Charlson Comorbidity Index increased waiting time. Patients not receiving expedited surgery had higher 30-day and one-year mortality rates (OR 1.19; p < 0.001) and OR 1.13; p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion. There is inequality in waiting time for hip fracture treatment in Norway. Variations in waiting time from admission to hip fracture surgery depended on both patient and hospital factors. Not receiving expedited surgery was associated with increased 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):710–720

Hip fracture care is complex multi-disciplinary. We hypothesise that quality of care is affected by variance in resources between ‘in-hours’ (Monday-Friday, 0800–1700) and ‘out-of-hours’ services. This prospective multicentre national cohort study assessed quality of care by evaluating adherence to the evidence-based Scottish Standards of Care for Hip Fracture Patients. Data was collected by the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit for 15174 patients admitted to any of 22 Scottish hospitals from January 2014-April 2018. 11197/15174 (73.8%) patients were admitted out-of-hours. They were significantly less likely to meet the following Standards: ED Big-6-Bundle (OR 0.85, p= 0.002); Time in ED <4 hours (OR 0.76, p< 0.001); avoidance of repeated fasting (OR 0.80, p< 0.001), and avoidance of prolonged fluid fasting (OR 0.83, p< 0.001). Out-of-hours admissions were more likely to receive: geriatric assessment <3 days (OR 1.16, p< 0.001); OT input <3 days (OR 1.10, p= 0.013), and PT input <2 days (OR 1.44, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences for: Time to Theatre <36 hours; Inpatient Care Bundle <24 hours, and Post-op Day 1 Mobilisation. Quality of hip fracture care is affected by time of admission. ED care is poorer out-of-hours, which may reflect limited resources, and out-of-hours admissions are more likely to be excessive fasted excessively. Weekday in-hours admissions are less likely to receive geriatric and allied health professional input in the days following admission, which may reflect the reduced weekend services. Examination of out-of-hours service organisation is required for the pursuit of consistent, equitable care for hip fracture patients

Aims. Our rural orthopaedic service has undergone service restructure during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to sustain hip fracture care. All adult trauma care has been centralised to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for assessment and medical input, before transferring those requiring operative intervention to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital. We aim to review the impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture workload and service changes upon management of hip fractures. Methods. We reviewed our prospectively maintained trust database and National Hip Fracture Database records for the months of March and April between the years 2016 and 2020. Our assessment included fracture pattern (intrascapular vs extracapsular hip fracture), treatment intervention, length of stay and mortality. Results. We treated 288 patients during March and April between 2016 and 2020, with a breakdown of 55, 58, 53, 68, and 54 from 2016 to 2020 respectively. Fracture pattern distribution in the pre-COVID-19 years of 2016 to 2019 was 58% intracapsular and 42% extracapsular. In 2020 (COVID-19 period) the fracture patterns were 65% intracapsular and 35% extracapsular. Our mean length of stay was 13.1 days (SD 8.2) between 2016 to 2019, and 5.0 days (6.3) days in 2020 (p < 0.001). Between 2016 and 2019 we had three deaths in hip fracture patients, and one death in 2020. Hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw fixation have been the mainstay of operative intervention across the five years and this has continued in the COVID-19 period. We have experienced a rise in conservatively managed patients; ten in 2020 compared to 14 over the previous four years. Conclusion. There has not been a reduction in the number of hip fractures during COVID-19 period compared to the same time period over previous years. In our experience, there has been an increase in conservative treatment and decreased length of stay during the COVID -19 period. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:500–507

Background. National hip fracture programmes are becoming widespread, but this practice is nascent and varied. The Scottish Hip Fracture Audit (SHFA) was an early adopter of this strategy and is credited with substantial systemic improvements in quality and outcomes. Objectives. To provide evidence and incentive to clinicians and administrators to adopt successful improvement strategies, and to facilitate data-driven change hip fracture care. Study Design and Methods. We reviewed the practice of seven national hip fracture improvement programmes in: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Scotland, and Ireland. We report our experience from the SHFA and describe: the results of our programme; challenges and learning points encountered, and successful strategies for implementing change. Results. There is variance in approach to data collection and reporting, for example: standalone programmes versus combined trauma and arthroplasty registries; annual trend reporting versus ‘snapshot’ or real-time information; population-level versus patient-level data, and the emphasis placed on service-level characteristics. The governance model also varies – some act as a passive data registry whereas others act as active agents of change and regulation. There is consensus on the key performance makers: prompt admission; early surgery and mobilisation, and a multidisciplinary approach. There have been significant challenges encountered by the SHFA with respect to funding, logistical, and political issues. Analysis of the effects of our programme have demonstrated its clinical efficacy, and has identified successful strategies for improvement. We describe this experience. Conclusions. The establishment of national audit programmes has resulted in significant improvements in quality, efficiency, and outcomes. This study of major national programmes provides evidence, incentive, and instruction to clinicians and administrators who seek to improve healthcare systems