Safe working in a 7-day service. Experience of hip fracture care as documented by the UK National Hip Fracture Database.

Objective: to describe differences in care and 30-day mortality of patients admitted with hip fracture on weekends (Saturday-Sunday) compared to weekdays (Monday-Friday), and their relationship to the organisation of care. Methods: data came from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) linked to ONS mortality data on 52,599 patients presenting to 162 units in England between 1 January and 31 December 2014. This was combined with information on geriatrician staffing and major trauma centre (MTC) status. 30-day mortality and care were compared for patients admitted at weekends and weekdays; separately for patients treated in units grouped by the mean level of input by geriatricians, weekend geriatrician clinical cover and MTC status. Differences were adjusted for variation in patients' characteristics. Results: there was no evidence of differences in 30-day mortality between patients admitted at weekends compared to weekdays (7.2 vs 7.5%, P = 0.3) before or after adjusting for patient characteristics in either MTCs or general hospitals. The proportion receiving a preoperative geriatrician assessment was lower at weekends (42.8 vs 60.7%, P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was lower in units with higher levels of geriatrician input, but there was no weekend mortality effect associated with lower levels of input or absence of weekend cover. Conclusion: there was no evidence of a weekend mortality effect among patients treated for hip fracture in the English NHS. It appears that clinical teams provide comparably safe and effective care throughout the week. However, greater geriatrician involvement in teams was associated with overall lower mortality.

Increased orthogeriatrician involvement in hip fracture care and its impact on mortality in England.

Objectives: to describe the increase in orthogeriatrician involvement in hip fracture care in England and its association with improvements in time to surgery and mortality. Study design: analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics for 196,401 patients presenting with hip fracture to 150 hospitals in England between 1 April 2010 and 28 February 2014, combined with data on orthogeriatrician hours from a national organisational survey. Methods: we examined changes in the average number of hours worked by orthogeriatricians in orthopaedic departments per patient with hip fracture, and their potential effect on mortality within 30 days of presentation. The role of prompt surgery (on day of or day after presentation) was explored as a potential confounding factor. Associations were assessed using conditional Poisson regression models with adjustment for patients' sex, age and comorbidity and year, with hospitals treated as fixed effects. Results: between 2010 and 2013, there was an increase of 2.5 hours per patient in the median number of hours worked by orthogeriatricians-from 1.5 to 4.0 hours. An increase of 2.5 hours per patient was associated with a relative reduction in mortality of 3.4% (95% confidence interval 0.9% to 5.9%, P = 0.01). This corresponds to an absolute reduction of approximately 0.3%. Higher numbers of orthogeriatrician hours were associated with higher rates of prompt surgery, but were independently associated with lower mortality. Conclusion: in the context of initiatives to improve hip fracture care, we identified statistically significant and robust associations between increased orthogeriatrician hours per patient and reduced 30-day mortality.

The impact of a national clinician-led audit initiative on care and mortality after hip fracture in England: an external evaluation using time trends in non-audit data.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is the most common serious injury of older people. The UK National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was launched in 2007 as a national collaborative, clinician-led audit initiative to improve the quality of hip fracture care, but has not yet been externally evaluated. METHODS: We used routinely collected data on 471,590 older people (aged 60 years and older) admitted with a hip fracture to National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England between 2003 and 2011. The main variables of interest were the use of early surgery (on day of admission, or day after) and mortality at 30 days from admission. We compared time trends in the periods 2003-2007 and 2007-2011 (before and after the launch of the NHFD), using Poisson regression models to adjust for demographic changes. FINDINGS: The number of hospitals participating in the NHFD increased from 11 in 2007 to 175 in 2011. From 2007 to 2011, the rate of early surgery increased from 54.5% to 71.3%, whereas the rate had remained stable over the period 2003-2007. Thirty-day mortality fell from 10.9% to 8.5%, compared with a small reduction from 11.5% to 10.9% previously. The annual relative reduction in adjusted 30-day mortality was 1.8% per year in the period 2003-2007, compared with 7.6% per year over 2007-2011 (P<0.001 for the difference). INTERPRETATION: The launch of a national clinician-led audit initiative was associated with substantial improvements in care and survival of older people with hip fracture in England.

Hip fracture audit: Creating a 'critical mass of expertise and enthusiasm for hip fracture care'?

The care of frail older people admitted with hip fracture has improved greatly over the last half-century, largely as a result of combined medical care and surgical care and the rise - over the last four decades - of large-scale hip fracture audit. A series of European initiatives evolved. The first national hip fracture audit was the Swedish Rikshöft in the late 1980s, and the largest so far is the UK National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD), launched in 2007. An external evaluation of the NHFD demonstrated statistically significant increases in survival at up to 1 year associated with improved early care: with rising geriatrician involvement and falling delays to surgery, and from which lessons have been learned. Comparable national audits have emerged since in northern Europe and in Australia and New Zealand, and most recently in Spain and Japan. Like the NHFD, these use the synergy of agreed clinical standards and regular - ideally continuous - audit feedback that can prompt and monitor clinical and service developments, often demonstrating both rising quality and improved cost effectiveness. In addition, important benchmarking studies of hip fracture care have been reported from India and China, both of which face huge challenges in providing care of fragility fractures in populations characterised by first-generation mass ageing. The 'halo effect' of the impact of growing expertise in hip fracture care on the care of other fragility fractures is noteworthy and now relevant globally. Although many national audits have now published encouraging reports of progress, the details of context and process determinants of the initiation and development of effective hip fracture audit have received relatively little attention. To address this, an extended discussion section - based on the author's experience of participation in several substantial audits, variously supporting and observing many others, and from his numerous discussions with audit colleagues over the years - may be of value in offering practical advice on some obvious and less obvious practical issues that arise in the setting up of large-scale hip fracture audits in a variety of healthcare contexts.

Audit of geriatric hip fracture care - a Slovenian trauma center analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe an audit of hip fracture patient care and outcomes in a Slovenian healthcare setting prior to the implementation of the Geriatric Fracture Center (GFC) model of care. METHODS: The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) hip fracture audit database was used to collect data on hip fracture care in elderly patients. Epidemiological data were submitted as well as fracture type, prefracture residence and mobility prior to the fracture. The timeline of events and acute care data were also collected. Follow-up after 30 days included hip-related readmission, mobility, residence and life status. RESULTS: Included were 495 patients with a mean age of 81 years of which 20% were preoperatively seen by a physician or geriatrician, 93.1% had surgical repair, 58.5% of them within 48 h of admission. The mortality rate in hospital was 5.4% and 10.1% at follow-up, 61.8% patients were able to return to prefracture residency and 23% could walk with minor assistance. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive and detailed audit report provides baseline data on case-mix, care and outcomes following hip fractures in Slovenia, in advance of planned quality improvement work in geriatric fracture care and provides a strong basis for the assessment of the impact of the GFC model of care.

Developing person-centred practice in hip fracture care for older people.

AIM: To facilitate a multidisciplinary collaborative approach to developing person-centred practice in hip fracture care for older people. METHOD: Collaborative inquiry, a form of action research, was used to collect data for this study. It involved exploration of dilemmas, questions and problems that are part of human experience. Clinical leaders from different disciplines (n=16), who work with older people with hip fractures at different stages of the care pathway, participated in a series of facilitated action meetings. The practice development techniques used in this study included: identifying the strengths and limitations of the current service, values clarification, creating a shared vision, sharing clinical stories, reviewing case records, and reflecting on the experiences of three older people and two caregivers. FINDINGS: Hip fracture care was based on meeting service targets, national guidelines and audits. Care was fragmented across different service delivery units, with professional groups working independently. This resulted in suboptimal communication between members of the multidisciplinary group of clinical leaders and care that was process-driven rather than person-centred. Spending time away from clinical practice enabled the multidisciplinary group to collaborate to understand care from the patients' and caregivers' perspectives, and to reflect critically on the care experience as a whole. CONCLUSION: To develop a person-centred workplace culture, the multidisciplinary team requires facilitated time for reflection. Ongoing facilitative leadership would enable the multidisciplinary team to collaborate effectively to deliver safe, effective person-centred practice in hip fracture care for older people.

Audit, guidelines and standards: clinical governance for hip fracture care in Scotland.

PURPOSE: To report on experience of national-level audit, guidelines and standards for hip fracture care in Scotland. METHODS: Scottish Hip Fracture Audit (from 1993) documents case-mix, process and outcomes of hip fracture care in Scotland. Evidence-based national guidelines on hip fracture care are available (1997, updated 2002). Hip fracture serves as a tracer condition by the health quality assurance authority for its work on older people, which reported in 2004. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: Three national-level initiatives on hip fracture care have delivered: Reliable and large-scale 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, with casemix-adjusted outcome assessment for hip fracture care as a next step.

Improving the experience of hip fracture care: A multidisciplinary collaborative approach to implementing evidence-based, person-centred practice.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture care is well supported by national guidelines and audit that provide evidence of safe interventions and an improved process. In the drive for organisational efficiency, complications have been reduced and length of stay shortened. Prioritising targets and performance alone can lead to poor multidisciplinary communication that potentially omits the psychosocial needs of older people recovering from hip fracture. AIM: To explore a multidisciplinary collaborative approach to implementing evidence-based, person-centred hip fracture care. DESIGN: Collaborative inquiry. METHODS: Sixteen clinical leaders (n = 16) from different disciplines, working with older people with hip fracture at different stages of the care pathway participated in eight two-hourly facilitated action meetings. Data collection included strengths and limitations of the present service, values clarification, clinical stories, review of case records and reflections on the stories of three older people and two carers. RESULTS: Hip fracture care was driven by service pressures, guidelines and audits. The care journey was divided into service delivery units. Professional groups worked independently resulting in poor communication. Time away from practice enabled collaboration and the sharing of different perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Working together improved communication and enhanced understanding of the whole care experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Enabling teams to find evidence of safe, effective person-centred cultures requires facilitated time for reflective practice.

Hip fracture rehabilitation -- a comparison of two centres.

The outcomes for 2005 consecutive patients aged 50 years or over admitted to two orthopaedic centres with a hip fracture were prospectively studied. All the patients were followed up to 1 year from injury. The mean orthopaedic ward stay was shorter in Edinburgh in comparison to Peterborough (20 versus 10 days), but the total hospital stay was shorter in Peterborough (34 versus 22 days). In Peterborough twice as many patients were discharged directly back from the orthopaedic ward to their place or origin (82 versus 41%). At 1 year from injury 34% of the patients had died. Factors associated with an increased mortality were increased age, male sex, pre-fracture place of residence and impaired mobility. For the survivors, the patients from Edinburgh had an increased mortality but were older, more likely to have impaired mobility and to come from more dependent residential accommodation. The different mortality between centres (30 versus 36%) was not statistically significant when adjusted for the possible confounding factors.