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 evaluate the suitability, against an accepted international standard, of a linked hip fracture registry and routinely collected administrative dataset in England to embed and deliver randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

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: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1369–1371.

Aims

To determine if patient ethnicity among patients with a hip fracture influences the type of fracture, surgical care, and outcome.

Aims

Current levels of hip fracture morbidity contribute greatly to the overall burden on health and social care services. Given the anticipated ageing of the population over the coming decade, there is potential for this burden to increase further, although the exact scale of impact has not been identified in contemporary literature. We therefore set out to predict the future incidence of hip fracture and help inform appropriate service provision to maintain an adequate standard of 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. 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

Aims

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.

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 aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement.

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome.

Aims

The aim of this study was to examine perioperative blood transfusion practice, and associations with clinical outcomes, in a national cohort of hip fracture patients.

Aims

Patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines.

Aims

Hip fracture commonly affects the frailest patients, of whom many are care-dependent, with a disproportionate risk of contracting COVID-19. We examined the impact of COVID-19 infection on hip fracture mortality in England.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the management and associated outcomes of patients sustaining a femoral hip periprosthetic fracture (PPF) in the UK population.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to determine the weightbearing practice of operatively managed fragility fractures in the setting of publically funded health services in the UK and Ireland.

Aims

This study aimed to identify risk factors (patient, healthcare system, and socioeconomic) for mortality after hip fractures and estimate their relative importance. Further, we aimed to elucidate mortality and survival patterns following fractures and the duration of excess mortality.

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

Research into COVID-19 has been rapid in response to the dynamic global situation, which has resulted in heterogeneity of methodology and the communication of information. Adherence to reporting standards would improve the quality of evidence presented in future studies, and may ensure that findings could be interpreted in the context of the wider literature. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a dynamic situation, requiring continued assessment of the disease incidence and monitoring for the emergence of viral variants and their transmissibility, virulence, and susceptibility to vaccine-induced immunity. More work is needed to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection on patients who sustain a hip fracture. The International Multicentre Project Auditing COVID-19 in Trauma & Orthopaedics (IMPACT) formed the largest multicentre collaborative audit conducted in orthopaedics in order to provide an emergency response to a global pandemic, but this was in the context of many vital established audit services being disrupted at an early stage, and it is crucial that these resources are protected during future health crises. Rapid data-sharing between regions should be developed, with wider adoption of the revised 2022 Fragility Fracture Network Minimum Common Data Set for Hip Fracture Audit, and a pragmatic approach to information governance processes in order to facilitate cooperation and meta-audit. This editorial aims to: 1) identify issues related to COVID-19 that require further research; 2) suggest reporting standards for studies of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; 3) consider the requirement of new risk scores for hip fracture patients; and 4) present the lessons learned from IMPACT in order to inform future collaborative studies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(6):342–345.