Improving hip fracture care: A five-year review of the early contributors to the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine temporal trends (2016-2020) in hip fracture care in Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) hospitals that started providing patient-level data to the ANZ Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) on/before 1 January 2016 (early contributors). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of early contributor hospitals (n = 24) to the ANZHFR. The study cohort included patients aged ≥50 years admitted with a low trauma hip fracture between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 (n = 26,937). Annual performance against 11 quality indicators and 30- and 365-day mortality were examined. RESULTS: Compared to 2016/2017, year-on-year improvements were demonstrated for preoperative cognitive assessment (2020: OR 3.57, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.29-3.87) and nerve block use prior to surgery (2020: OR 4.62, 95% CI 4.17-5.11). Less consistent improvements over time from 2016/2017 were demonstrated for emergency department (ED) stay of <4 h (2017; 2020), pain assessment ≤30 min of ED presentation (2020), surgery ≤48 h (2020) and bone protection medication prescribed on discharge (2017-2020; 2020 OR 2.22, 95% CI 2.03-2.42). The odds of sustaining a hospital-acquired pressure injury increased in 2019-2020 compared to 2016. The odds of receiving an orthogeriatric model of care and being offered the opportunity to mobilise on Day 1 following surgery fluctuated. There was a reduction in 365-day mortality in 2020 compared to 2016 (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.98), whereas 30-day mortality did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Several quality indicators improved over time in early contributor hospitals. Indicators that did not improve may be targets for future care improvement activities, including considering incentivised hip fracture care, which has previously been shown to improve care/outcomes. COVID-19 and reporting practices may have impacted the study findings.

Identifying older people at high risk of future falls: development and validation of a screening tool for use in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Hospital emergency departments (EDs) treat a high proportion of older people, many as a direct consequence of falling. OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate a fall risk screening tool for use in hospital EDs and to compare the tool's predictive ability to existing screening tools. METHODS: This prospective cohort study involved two hospital EDs in Sydney, Australia. Potential participants were people aged 70+ years who presented to the ED after falling or with a history of 2+ falls in the previous year and were subsequently discharged. 219 people participated in the tool development study and 178 people participated in the external validation study. Study measures included number of fallers during the 6-month follow-up period, and physical status, medical history, fall history and community service use. RESULTS: 31% and 35% of participants fell in the development and external validation samples, respectively. The developed two-item screening tool included: 2+ falls in the past year (OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.61 to 6.68) and taking 6+ medications (OR 1.89, CI 1.18 to 3.04). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.70 (0.64-0.76). This represents significantly better predictive ability than the measure of 2+ previous falls alone (AUC 0.67, 0.62-0.72, p=0.02) and similar predictive ability to the FROP-Com (AUC 0.73, 0.67-0.79, p=0.25) and PROFET screens (AUC 0.70, 0.62-0.78, p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: A simple, two-item screening tool demonstrated good external validity and accurately discriminated between fallers and non-fallers. This tool could identify high risk individuals who may benefit from onward referral or intervention after ED discharge.

Older people presenting to the emergency department after a fall: a population with substantial recurrent healthcare use.

OBJECTIVES: To document patient characteristics, care pathways, healthcare use and costs of fall-related emergency department (ED) presentations by older adults. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: All fallers aged ≥70 years, presenting to the ED of a 450-bed metropolitan university hospital in Sydney, Australia (1 April 2007 through 31 March 2009) were studied. Data were collected from the ED electronic information system, ED clinical records and the hospital electronic information system database. Population estimates for 2008 for the local areas served by the hospital were used to estimate ED presentation rates. RESULTS: Of 18 902 all-cause ED presentations, 3220 (17.0%) were due to a fall. Among fallers, 35.4% had one or more ED presentations and 20.3% had had one or more hospital admissions in the preceding 12 months. Fall-related ED presentation led directly to hospital admission in 42.7% of the cases, the majority of which (78.0%) received acute care only (length of stay-14.4 days for men and 13.7 days for women) and the remaining cases underwent further inpatient rehabilitation (length of stay 35.6 days for men and 30.1 days for women). After hospitalisation, 9.5% of patients became first-time residents of long-term care facilities. All fall-related ED presentations and hospitalisations cost a total of A$11 241 387 over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Older fallers presenting to the ED consume significant healthcare resources and are an easily identifiable high-risk population. They may benefit from systematic fall-risk assessment and tailored fall-prevention interventions.

Strength of Improvement Recommendations From Injurious Fall Investigations: A Retrospective Multi-Incident Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the strength of improvement recommendations proposed after investigation of fall incidents in health care facilities that result in major injuries. METHODS: This study was conducted using a retrospective multi-incident analysis design. The study setting was 4 tertiary teaching hospitals, 1 subacute rehabilitation facility, and a residential aged care facility in a metropolitan health district in New South Wales, Australia. Ninety-eight injurious fall incidents during a 2-year period (2015-2016) were investigated. Recommendations were grouped into 3 categories: strong (including environmental modifications, equipment, workflow or process redesign), medium (including changes in communication or documentation processes, staffing numbers and/or skill mix, education to address identified knowledge deficits), and weak (including alerts/warning/labels or expected practice without any associated policy or procedure). RESULTS: The majority of the incidents (34.7%; n = 34) occurred between 1300 and 1859 hours, 65.3% (n = 64) occurred in the patient's room, and 79.4% (n = 81) of the injuries were fractures. There were 224 recommendations made for 79 incidents, and 19 incidents did not have any recommendations. The average number of improvement recommendations proposed per incident investigation was 2.3 (SD, 2.1; range, 0-9). Nineteen (8.5%), 80 (35.7%), and 125 (55.8%) recommendations were classified as strong, medium, and weak, respectively. Half of the investigative teams included representatives from more than one professional group. There were a significantly greater number of medium recommendations made by multi-disciplinary teams compared with single-disciplinary teams (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.21). There was no significant difference in the number of strong and weak recommendations made between the 2 teams. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that only 8.5% of recommendations were classified as strong. This suggests that a major challenge lies in formulating robust recommendations; hence, efforts should focus on enhancing the strength of improvement recommendations.

Two-country comparison of the prescription of bone protection medication before and early after hip fracture.

Pharmacological management of bone health warrants investigation into factors influencing initiation of bone protection medication (BPM) at discharge after a hip fracture. This sprint audit identified reasons attributed to low BPM treatment levels at hospital discharge which can guide improvement in the prevention of future fractures. PURPOSE: To compare patient characteristics and Australian and New Zealand approaches to prescribing bone protection medication (BPM) pre- or post-hip fracture, determine reasons why BPM was not prescribed earlier post-fracture, and assess the generalisability of sprint audit and the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) patient cohorts. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of hip fracture patients from the ANZHFR aged ≥ 50 years (2016-2020) and consecutive patients from the 2021 BPM sprint audit. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with not prescribing BPM. RESULTS: Of 55,618 patients admitted with a hip fracture in the ANZHFR, less than 10% of patients in Australia and New Zealand were taking BPM on admission, increasing to 22.4% in Australia and 27.8% in New Zealand on discharge. Registry patients who were younger (50-69 years), healthy (ASA grade 1), lived in a residential aged care facility, had impaired cognition, delirium identified, or were awaiting a specialist falls assessment were less likely to take BPM. Within the audit, 46.2% of patients in Australia and 39.2% in New Zealand did not have BPM in their discharge prescription. The most common reason for not prescribing BPM in Australia was low level of vitamin D (13.3%), and in New Zealand, renal impairment (14.8%). Sprint and registry patient characteristics were comparable in terms of patient age, sex, usual place of residence, and ASA grade. CONCLUSIONS: BPM prescription early after hip fracture is low. Opportunities exist to increase the rate of prescription of medications known to prevent future fractures in this high-risk population.

Experience of a systematic approach to care and prevention of fragility fractures in New Zealand.

This narrative review describes efforts to improve the care and prevention of fragility fractures in New Zealand from 2012 to 2022. This includes development of clinical standards and registries to benchmark provision of care, and public awareness campaigns to promote a life-course approach to bone health. PURPOSE: This review describes the development and implementation of a systematic approach to care and prevention for New Zealanders with fragility fractures, and those at high risk of first fracture. Progression of existing initiatives and introduction of new initiatives are proposed for the period 2022 to 2030. METHODS: In 2012, Osteoporosis New Zealand developed and published a strategy with objectives relating to people who sustain hip and other fragility fractures, those at high risk of first fragility fracture or falls and all older people. The strategy also advocated formation of a national fragility fracture alliance to expedite change. RESULTS: In 2017, a previously informal national alliance was formalised under the Live Stronger for Longer programme, which includes stakeholder organisations from relevant sectors, including government, healthcare professionals, charities and the health system. Outputs of this alliance include development of Australian and New Zealand clinical guidelines, clinical standards and quality indicators and a bi-national registry that underpins efforts to improve hip fracture care. All 22 hospitals in New Zealand that operate on hip fracture patients currently submit data to the registry. An analogous approach is ongoing to improve secondary fracture prevention for people who sustain fragility fractures at other sites through nationwide access to Fracture Liaison Services. CONCLUSION: Widespread participation in national registries is enabling benchmarking against clinical standards as a means to improve the care of hip and other fragility fractures in New Zealand. An ongoing quality improvement programme is focused on eliminating unwarranted variation in delivery of secondary fracture prevention.

Talking about walking: lack of shared understanding of common mobility terms among different healthcare professional groups.

Australian studies suggest a lack of consensus in interpreting mobility recommendations, particularly affecting the terms "supervision" and "stand by assistance", was common and a contributing factor in patient falls. In a web-based survey, where responses were obtained from 102/150 (68%) therapists, 79/152 (52%) nurses and 97/132 (73%) doctors, we asked participants about their understanding of what requiring "supervision" or "stand-by assistance" when walking means. Responses to all questions differed significantly between the groups and the magnitude of the differences was greatest for the "supervision" questions. Asked if stand by assistance means the same as supervision, 71% of doctors, 35% of nurses and 14% of therapists said yes (p < 0.0001). There were also substantial within-group differences even among therapists. The widespread confusion regarding the interpretation of mobility terminology among and between different healthcare groups may impact on patient safety, and standardisation of mobility terminology is required.