Operational strategies to manage non-elective orthopaedic surgical flows: a simulation modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the value of simulation modelling in evaluating the effects of strategies to plan and schedule operating room (OR) resources aimed at reducing time to surgery for non-elective orthopaedic inpatients at a Swedish hospital. METHODS: We applied discrete-event simulation modelling. The model was populated with real world data from a university hospital with a strong focus on reducing waiting time to surgery for patients with hip fracture. The system modelled concerned two patient groups that share the same OR resources: hip-fracture and other non-elective orthopaedic patients in need of surgical treatment. We simulated three scenarios based on the literature and interaction with staff and managers: (1) baseline; (2) reduced turnover time between surgeries by 20 min and (3) one extra OR during the day, Monday to Friday. The outcome variables were waiting time to surgery and the percentage of patients who waited longer than 24 hours for surgery. RESULTS: The mean waiting time in hours was significantly reduced from 16.2 hours in scenario 1 (baseline) to 13.3 hours in scenario 2 and 13.6 hours in scenario 3 for hip-fracture surgery and from 26.0 hours in baseline to 18.9 hours in scenario 2 and 18.5 hours in scenario 3 for other non-elective patients. The percentage of patients who were treated within 24 hours significantly increased from 86.4% (baseline) to 96.1% (scenario 2) and 95.1% (scenario 3) for hip-fracture patients and from 60.2% (baseline) to 79.8% (scenario 2) and 79.8% (scenario 3) for patients with other non-elective patients. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare managers who strive to improve the timelines of non-elective orthopaedic surgeries may benefit from using simulation modelling to analyse different strategies to support their decisions. In this specific case, the simulation results showed that the reduction of surgery turnover times could yield the same results as an extra OR.

Unpacking the key components of a programme to improve the timeliness of hip-fracture care: a mixed-methods case study.

BACKGROUND: Delay to surgery for patients with hip fracture is associated with higher incidence of post-operative complications, prolonged recovery and length of stay, and increased mortality. Therefore, many health care organisations launch improvement programmes to reduce the wait for surgery. The heterogeneous application of similar methods, and the multifaceted nature of the interventions, constrain the understanding of which method works, when, and how. In complex acute care settings, another concern is how changes for one patient group influence the care for other groups. We therefore set out to analyse how multiple components of hip-fracture improvement efforts aimed to reduce the time to surgery influenced that time both for hip-fracture patients and for other acute surgical orthopaedic inpatients. METHODS: This study is an observational mixed-methods single case study of improvement efforts at a Swedish acute care hospital, which triangulates control chart analysis of process performance data over a five year period with interview, document, and non-participant observation data. RESULTS: The improvement efforts led to an increase in the monthly percentage of hip-fracture patients operated within 24 h of admission from an average of 47% to 83%, with performance predictably ranging between 67% and 98% if the process continues unchanged. Meanwhile, no significant changes in lead time to surgery for other acute surgical orthopaedic inpatients were observed. Interview data indicated that multiple intervention components contributed to making the process more reliable. The triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data, however, indicated that key changes that improved performance were the creation of a process improvement team and having an experienced clinician coordinate demand and supply of surgical services daily and enhance pre-operative patient preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Timeliness of surgery for patients with hip fracture in a complex hospital setting can be substantially improved without displacing other patient groups, by involving staff in improvement efforts and actively managing acute surgical procedures.

Total hip replacement versus open reduction and internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials with short and intermediate-term follow-up have demonstrated superior results for total hip replacement as compared with internal fixation with regard to hip function and the need for secondary surgery in elderly patients with a displaced intracapsular femoral neck fracture. The aim of the present study was to compare the results of total hip replacement with those of internal fixation over a long-term follow-up period of seventeen years. METHODS: We enrolled 100 patients who had sustained a femoral neck fracture in a single-center, randomized controlled trial;all patients had had a healthy hip before the injury. The study group included seventy-nine women and twenty-one men with a mean age of seventy-eight years (range, sixty-five to ninety years). The subjects were randomly assigned to either total hip replacement (the arthroplasty group) (n = 43) or internal fixation (the control group) (n = 57). The primary end point was hip function, evaluated with use of the Harris hip score. Secondary end points included mortality, reoperations, gait speed, and activities of daily life. Follow-up evaluations were performed at three months and at one, two, four, eleven, and seventeen years. RESULTS: The Harris hip score was higher in the total hip arthroplasty group, with a mean difference of 14.7 points (95%confidence interval, 9.2 to 20.1 points; p < 0.001 [analysis of covariance]) during the study period. We found no difference in mortality between the two groups. Four patients (9%) in the total hip replacement group and twenty-two patients (39%) in the internal fixation group had undergone a major reoperation (relative risk, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.64).The overall reoperation rate was 23% (ten of forty-three) in the total hip replacement group and 53% (thirty of fifty-seven) in the internal fixation group (relative risk, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.80). The results related to gait speed and activities of daily living favored the arthroplasty group during the first year. CONCLUSIONS: Over a period of seventeen years in a group of healthy, elderly patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture, total hip replacement provided better hip function and significantly fewer reoperations compared with internal fixation without increasing mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I.

The effect of weekly risedronate on periprosthetic bone resorption following total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bone loss leading to late-occurring periprosthetic femoral fracture is a mode of failure in cementless total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effect of a bisphosphonate, risedronate, on femoral periprosthetic bone resorption following total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. METHODS: We enrolled seventy-three patients between the ages of forty and seventy years who were scheduled to undergo total hip arthroplasty in a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 35 mg of risedronate (n = 36) or a placebo (n = 37) orally once weekly for six months. The primary end point was the change in bone mineral density in Gruen femoral zones 1 and 7. Bone mineral density scans were made preoperatively and at two days and three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months postoperatively. Secondary end points included migration of the femoral stem and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Seventy of the seventy-three patients (thirty-three in the risedronate group and thirty-seven in the placebo group) were analyzed for the primary end point. The mean bone mineral density in zone 1 was 9.2% higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2% to 14.1%) in the risedronate group than in the placebo group at six months postoperatively and 7.2% higher (95% CI, 1.0% to 13.3%) at one year. The mean bone mineral density in zone 7 was 8.0% higher (95% CI, 2.7% to 13.4%) in the risedronate group than in the placebo group at six months postoperatively and 4.3% higher (95% CI, -1.5% to 10.1%) at one year. Migration of the femoral stem, the clinical outcome, and the frequency of adverse events did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Risedronate taken once weekly for six months following total hip arthroplasty was effective in reducing periprosthetic bone resorption around an uncemented femoral stem up to one year after surgery but had no discernible effect on implant migration or clinical outcome. Future studies of bisphosphonate treatment following total hip arthroplasty should focus on clinically relevant end points such as the risks of fracture and revision arthroplasty.