Healthcare provision, functional ability and quality of life after proximal femoral fracture - 'ProFem': Study protocol of a population-based, prospective study based on individually linked survey and statutory health insurance data.

INTRODUCTION: Proximal femoral fractures (PFF) are among the most frequent fractures in older people. However, the situation of people with a PFF after hospital discharge is poorly understood. Our aim is to (1) analyse healthcare provision, (2) examine clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), (3) describe clinical and sociodemographic predictors of these and (4) develop an algorithm to identify subgroups with poor outcomes and a potential need for more intensive healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a population-based prospective study based on individually linked survey and statutory health insurance (SHI) data. All people aged minimum 60 years who have been continuously insured with the AOK Rheinland/Hamburg and experience a PFF within 1 year will be consecutively included (SHI data analysis). Additionally, 700 people selected randomly from the study population will be consecutively invited to participate in the survey. Questionnaire data will be collected in the participants' private surroundings at 3, 6 and 12 months after hospital discharge. If the insured person considers themselves to be only partially or not at all able to take part in the survey, a proxy person will be interviewed where possible. SHI variables include healthcare provision, healthcare costs and clinical outcomes. Questionnaire variables include information on PROs, lifestyle characteristics and socioeconomic status. We will use multiple regression models to estimate healthcare processes and outcomes including mortality and cost, investigate predictors, perform non-responder analysis and develop an algorithm to identify vulnerable subgroups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf (approval reference 6128R). All participants including proxies providing written and informed consent can withdraw from the study at any time. The study findings will be disseminated through scientific journals and public information. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00012554.

Comparison of five automated hematology analyzers in a university hospital setting: Abbott Cell-Dyn Sapphire, Beckman Coulter DxH 800, Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XE-5000, and Sysmex XN-2000.

BACKGROUND: Various types of automated hematology analyzers are used in clinical laboratories. Here, we performed a side-by-side comparison of five current top of the range routine hematology analyzers in the setting of a university hospital central laboratory. METHODS: Complete blood counts (CBC), differentials, reticulocyte and nucleated red blood cell (NRBC) counts of 349 patient samples, randomly taken out of routine diagnostics, were analyzed with Cell-Dyn Sapphire (Abbott), DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter), Advia 2120i (Siemens), XE-5000 and XN-2000 (Sysmex). Inter-instrument comparison of CBCs including reticulocyte and NRBC counts and investigation of flagging quality in relation to microscopy were performed with the complete set of samples. Inter-instrument comparison of five-part differential was performed using samples without atypical cells in blood smear (n=292). Automated five-part differentials and NRBCs were additionally compared with microscopy. RESULTS: The five analyzers showed a good concordance for basic blood count parameters. Correlations between instruments were less well for reticulocyte counts, NRBCs, and differentials. The poorest concordance for NRBCs with microscopy was observed for Advia 2120i (Kendall's τb=0.37). The highest flagging sensitivity for blasts was observed for XN-2000 (97% compared to 65%-76% for other analyzers), whereas overall specificity was comparable between different instruments. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive side-by-side comparison of five current top of the range routine hematology analyzers. Variable analyzer quality and parameter specific limitations must be considered in defining laboratory algorithms in clinical practice.