Usefulness of a national hip fracture registry to evaluate the profile of patients in whom antiosteoporotic treatment is prescribed following hospital discharge.

This study was carried out to describe the profile of prescription of antiosteoporotic treatment at discharge after a hip fracture in the Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry. Prescription rates among hospitals ranged from 0 to 94% of patients discharged. The prescription rate was higher among patients with better cognitive and functional baseline status. PURPOSE: National hip fracture registries are useful for assessing current care processes. The goals of this study were as follows: first, to know the rate of antiosteoporotic prescription at discharge among hip fracture patients in hospitals participating in the Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry (RNFC); second, to compare the differences between treated and non-treated patients; third, to analyze patients' characteristics associated with antiosteoporotic prescription at discharge; and fourth, to evaluate whether there were differences in the profile of patients discharged from hospitals with high and low prescription rates. METHOD: Patients discharged after a fragility hip fracture in 2017 and participating in the RNFC were included. Demographic variables, cognitive and functional status, prefracture osteoporosis treatment, fracture type, anesthetic risk, hospital volume, and antiosteoporotic prescription at discharge were analyzed. Given that patients were clustered within hospitals, intraclass correlation was calculated and generalized estimating equations were fitted. RESULTS: A total of 6701 patients from 54 hospitals were included. Antiosteoporotic prescription at discharge was prescribed to 36.5% (CI95% 35.8-37.2%), with a wide inter-hospital variability (range 0-94%). The intraclass correlation due of clustering of patients within hospitals was 47.9%. Antiosteoporotic prescription was more likely in patients who were younger, lived at home, previously treated for osteoporosis, had better baseline functional and cognitive status, lower anesthetic risk, and were discharged from high-volume hospitals, all with p < 0.001. The general profile of patients discharged from hospitals with high and low rate of prescription was similar. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variability between hospitals regarding antiosteoporotic prescription after hip fracture. This is more likely to be initiated in patients with better clinical, functional, and mental status and in those discharged from hospitals with larger volumes of patients. These results offer insights regarding the selection of patients receiving secondary prevention and raises questions on who and how many should be treated.

Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry (RNFC): analysis of its first annual report and international comparison with other established registries.

Hip fracture registries have helped improve quality of care and reduce variability, and several audits exist worldwide. The results of the Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry are presented and compared with 13 other national registries, highlighting similarities and differences to define areas of improvement, particularly surgical delay and early mobilization. INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture audits have been useful for monitoring current practice and defining areas in need of improvement. Most established registries are from Northern Europe. We present the results from the first annual report of the Spanish Hip Fracture Registry (RNFC) and compare them with other publically available audit reports. METHOD: Comparison of the results from Spain with the most recent reports from another ten established hip fracture registries highlights the differences in audit characteristics, casemix, management, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the patients treated in 54 hospitals, 7.208 were included in the registry between January and October 2017. Compared with other registries, the RNFC included patients ≥ 75 years old; in general, they were older, more likely to be female, had a worse prefracture ambulation status, and were more likely to have extracapsular fractures. A larger proportion was treated with intramedullary nails than in other countries, and spinal anesthesia was most commonly used. With a mean of 75.7 h, Spain had by far the longest surgical delay, and the lowest proportion of patients mobilized on the first postoperative day (58.5%). Consequently, development of pressure ulcers was high, but length of stay, mortality, and discharge to home remained in the range of other audits. CONCLUSIONS: National hip fracture registries have proved effective in changing clinical practice and our understanding of patients with this condition. Such registries tend to be based on an internationally recognized common dataset which would make comparisons between national registries possible, but variations such as age inclusion criteria and follow-up are becoming evident across the world. This variation should be avoided if we are to maximize the comparability of registry results and help different countries learn from each other's practice. The results reported in the Spanish RNFC, compared with those of other countries, highlight the differences between countries and detect areas of improvement, particularly surgical delay and early mobilization.

Hip fracture registries: utility, description, and comparison.

Hip fractures (HF) are prevalent and involve high morbidity and mortality so improving their management is important. HF registries are a good way to improve knowledge about this condition and its quality of care, while at the same time reducing clinical variability, optimizing efficiency, improving outcomes, and reducing costs. INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures (HF) are a prevalent fragility fracture secondary to osteoporosis that involves high morbidity and mortality. They are low-impact fractures, resulting from a fall from a standing or sitting height. Despite numerous Clinical Practice Guidelines that establish uniform recommendations for their care, great variability persists regarding clinical and healthcare outcomes. Fracture registries can help detect deficits and establish measures to improve care. The objective of this work is to analyze the contents that a HF registry should have and to compare the characteristics of some national HF registries. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on several national hip fracture registries, and those that contain relevant information on the variables and their outcomes were selected. RESULTS: The selected HF registries were compared using the parameters they measure as well as the outcomes in the different countries. The variables collected in the majority of the databases and those that give useful information are as follows: sociodemographic variables (age, sex, place of residence), clinical variables (function before and after HF, anesthesia risk as measured by the ASA score, type of fracture, type of surgery and anesthesia, and in-hospital and 1-month mortality), and healthcare variables (pre-operative and overall stay, presence of collaboration with orthogeriatrics or with any clinician in addition to the surgeon, secondary prevention of new fractures by assessing the fall risk, and need for osteoporosis treatment). CONCLUSION: The recording of HF cases in different countries improves knowledge about handling this condition and its quality of care, while at the same time reducing clinical variability, optimizing efficiency, improving outcomes, and reducing costs. The debate on the variables that should be recorded is timely, such as organizing how to collect each measurement, and even trying to unify the national and international registries or using a current proposal such as the one from the Fragility Fracture Network.

Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry (SNHFR): a description of its objectives, methodology and implementation.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the current situation and clinical variability of the provision of care for Hip Fracture (HF) in Spain and the factors related to it by using a National Registry (NHFR) with high patient numbers and territorial representation NHFR, and to compare results on a national and international level and propose standards and criteria to improve healthcare quality. DESIGN: Continuous registry for at least three years of a representative sample of patients admitted to Spanish hospitals due to HF using the Minimum Common Dataset - international Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) MCD, adapted for Spanish. STUDY SCOPE AND SUBJECTS: all patients over the age of 74 years who are hospitalized with a diagnosis of a fragility HF at the participating hospitals distributed throughout the Spanish territory. Initially 48 hospitals are included, and we expect to incorporate the highest number of sites possible. RESULTS: It is expected to ascertain the current situation of provision of care for HF in Spain. Each hospital will be offered information regarding their results and their situation compared to the rest. The results from national hospitals will be compared to others included in the registry and to hospitals abroad, which use the same database. Variability will be studied, care standards will be established, and objectives will be proposed for the continuous improvement of the care process of this condition.

[Results following the implementation of a clinical pathway in the process of care to elderly patients with osteoporotic hip fracture in a second level hospital]. / Resultados tras la aplicación de una vía clínica en el proceso de atención al paciente geriátrico con fractura de cadera osteoporótica en un hospital de segundo nivel.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficiency of a clinical pathway in the management of elderly patients with fragility hip fracture in a second level hospital in terms of length of stay time to surgery, morbidity, hospital mortality, and improved functional outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative and prospective study was carried out between two groups of patients with hip fracture aged 75 and older prior to 2010 (n=216), and after a quality improvement intervention in 2013 (n=196). A clinical pathway based on recent scientific evidence was implemented. The degree of compliance with the implemented measures was quantified. RESULTS: The characteristics of the patients in both groups were similar in age, gender, functional status (Barthel Index) and comorbidity (Charlson Index). Median length of stay was reduced by more than 45% in 2013 (16.61 vs. 9.08 days, p=.000). Also, time to surgery decreased 29.4% in the multidisciplinary intervention group (6.23 vs. 4.4 days, p=.000). Patients assigned to the clinical pathway group showed higher medical complications rate (delirium, malnutrition, anaemia and electrolyte disorders), but a lower hospital mortality (5.10 vs. 2.87%, p>.005). The incidence of surgical wound infection (p=.031) and functional efficiency (p=.001) also improved in 2013. An increased number of patients started treatment for osteoporosis (14.80 vs. 76.09%, p=.001) after implementing the clinical pathway. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a clinical pathway in the care process of elderly patients with hip fracture reduced length of stay and time to surgery, without a negative impact on associated clinical and functional outcomes.

[Inadequate prescription of medications in hospitalised elderly patients according to Beers criteria]. / Prescripción inadecuada de medicamentos en ancianos hospitalizados según criterios de Beers.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of using potentially inadequate drugs in the elderly population admitted to the Nuestra Señora de Sonsoles Hospital in Ávila according to Beers criteria, and to describe the impacts on these prescriptions following an educational seminar for prescribers. METHOD: Before and after observational study, with two periods of 28 days each (P1 in 2008, P2 in 2009), with educational seminars on Beers criteria provided between them. All patients >65 years that were admitted during both time periods in health centres with a single dose drug system were included, taking data on those with inadequate prescriptions. RESULTS: The total number of hospitalised patients was 1276. Of these, 18.5% had at least one inadequate medication at P1 and 20.5% at P2, with no significant differences (χ2=0.56, P=.45). We identified a total of 295 inadequate medications (163 in P1 and 132 in P2) in 249 patients. Iron sulfate, digoxin, meperidine, and doxazosine were present in 70% of inadequate prescriptions. The prevalence of inadequate medication prescriptions did not vary between the two periods. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of using potentially inadequate medications observed in this study was 23%, with no changes produced by the intervention provided.