Abstract
Aims
National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD.
Methods
We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD.
Results
The highest MCD adherence was demonstrated by the most recently established registries. The first-generation registries in Scandinavia collect data for 60% of MCD fields, second-generation registries (UK, other European, and Australia and New Zealand) collect for 75%, and third-generation registries collect data for 85% of MCD fields. Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age; sex; surgery date/time of operation; surgery type; and death during acute admission). Two fields were collected by most (16/17; 94%) registries (date/time of presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), and five more by the majority (15/17; 88%) registries (type, side, and pathological nature of fracture; anaesthetic modality; and discharge destination). Three core fields were each collected by only 11/17 (65%) registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living; cognition on admission; and bone protection medication prescription.
Conclusion
There is moderate but improving compatibility between existing registries and the FFN MCD, and its introduction in 2022 was associated with an improved level of adherence among the most recently established programmes. Greater interoperability could be facilitated by improving consistency of data collection relating to prefracture function, cognition, bone protection, and follow-up duration, and this could improve international collaborative benchmarking, research, and quality improvement.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1013–1019.
Take home message
A total of 20 countries now have national hip fracture registries, and new countries are increasingly using the Fragility Fracture Network minimum common dataset as a framework upon which to build their own.
This study aims to help countries collect data consistently, so it can be used in international comparisons, and we can learn from each other’s experience.
Introduction
National hip fracture registries have been shown to be effective drivers for quality improvement and the design of specialist multidisciplinary services.1-3 They facilitate the delivery of holistic, evidence-based care in accordance with standardized national guidelines, and are associated with better patient outcomes including shorter hospital admissions, lower post-discharge care needs, and reduced mortality.4-6 This practice has expanded since the establishment of the original Rikshöft programme in Sweden, and the publication of the Standardized Audit of Hip Fracture in Europe (SAHFE), and there are now 17 recognized national registries operating in 20 different countries.7-10
The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) is a global multidisciplinary network that was established to improve the management and secondary prevention of fragility fractures, and is ideally placed to promote multidisciplinary collaboration in monitoring and improving the care provided to people with a hip fracture.11 In 2014, the FFN defined a minimum common dataset (MCD) that set out the basic structure of data collection that would be necessary if a national registry wished to audit and improve hip fracture care on a national level.12 This was revised and streamlined by the FFN Hip Fracture Audit (HFA) Special Interest Group (SIG) in 2022 based on contemporary evidence, in addition to pooled experience from administrators of ten established registries, with the aim of improving compatibility between existing registries and encouraging the establishment of new programmes in other countries.13
The 2022 MCD sought to provide a framework for international benchmarking of care quality and outcomes through direct comparison of equivalent data from different countries. This could then provide evidence and incentive for clinicians to advocate for resource allocation and facilitate shared learning across common themes in hip fracture care.7,14 Furthermore, the MCD aimed to increase compatibility across datasets. This would provide opportunites for greater collaborative research through the compilation of larger and more diverse data, allow the introduction of experimental studies across different healthcare settings, and permit responsiveness to supraregional challenges in hip fracture care.15,16
The primary aim of this study was to assess the compatibility of the existing 17 national hip fracture audit programmes with the new FFN 2022 Minimum Common Dataset. The secondary aim was to highlight specific areas where interoperability could be improved.
Methods
Study design
This study was carried out by the authors on behalf of the FFN Hip Fracture Audit Special Interest Group, which is composed of nominated representatives from each of the established national hip fracture programmes, continental FFN representatives, and senior figures from the FFN administration.17 The study assessed compatibility of the included hip fracture programmes by auditing adherence of each to the FFN 2022 MCD.15
A total of 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries were evaluated. These were considered in three discrete groups based on origin and duration since becoming established: 1) first-generation registries (the longest established programmes that originated from Scandinavia, including: Denmark; Norway; and Sweden); 2) second-generation registries (whose structure was based on the first-generation experience, including: Australia and New Zealand; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Ireland; Netherlands; Scotland; and Spain), and 3) third-generation registries (that have been recently established, are in an introductory period, or have not yet reached nationwide coverage, including: Argentina; China; Japan; Mexico; Pakistan; the Philippines; and South Korea).9,18-28
Benchmark dataset
The FFN 2022 MCD includes unit and patient identifiers and 20 core fields that are used to capture demographic details, injury and clinical assessment data, surgical and inpatient management factors, and outcome measures (Supplementary Figure a). An additional 12 optional fields allow audits to adapt data collection to meet the specific needs of the health service. These optional fields include data relating to timing of injury and interventions, broader clinical management variables, and more granular post-discharge outcome measures collected at defined audit follow-up timepoints (Supplementary Figure b).
Data collection
Each national programme data template was reviewed and the compatibility (considering variable type and format) was determined. Where necessary, clarification and verification was sought from audit coordinators from each nation to ensure validity of the findings, as well as to identify: barriers to increasing adherence; specific fields where compatibility could be improved; and the suitability of the recommended MCD data fields for comparison of performance across hospital, regional, and national levels relevant to their own healthcare system.
Statistical analysis
The results are presented using absolute numbers and percentages. No inference statistics were applied.
Results
There were 17 included registries covering 20 nations. The mean age since inception of the first-, second, and third-generation registries was 24 years (17 to 34), nine years (6 to 15), and two years (0 to 6), respectively. The oldest registry was from Sweden (34 years) and four of the most recent registries (Argentina, China, Mexico, and Pakistan) had been established for one year or less.
Established versus developing programmes
The mean compatibility with the MCD fields (combined core and optional elements) among the established registries was 70% (59 to 91). The first-generation registries were collecting 60% (53 to 69) of all the MCD fields, the second generation were collecting 75% (66 to 91), and the third-generation registries were collecting 85% (78 to 94).
Compatibility with MCD core fields
Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age, sex, date and time of operation, type of surgery, and death during acute hospital admission). Two other fields were collected by 16 registries (date and time of presentation with hip fracture and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)29 grade), and five more fields by 15 registries (fracture type, fracture side, pathological nature of fracture, type of anaesthetic, and discharge destination). Only three core variables were each collected by less than two-thirds (11/17) of the registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living (ADLs), cognition on admission, and bone protection medication prescription at discharge. A detailed comparison of each registry with the 2022 MCD is given in Table I and Table II, with a detailed comparison of each registry in Supplementary Figure c.
Table I.
Proportion of national registries collecting each field of the dataset.
| Variable | % |
|---|---|
| Patient consent | 41 |
| Audit number | 100 |
| Hospital code | 100 |
| Core dataset fields | |
| Sex | 100 |
| Age at event | 100 |
| Pre-fracture residence | 82 |
| Date and time presented with hip fracture at operating hospital | 94 |
| Pre-fracture mobility/ADLs | 65 |
| Cognitive status | 65 |
| ASA grade | 94 |
| Side of fracture | 88 |
| Pathological fracture | 88 |
| Fracture type | 88 |
| Operation performed | 100 |
| Date/time of primary surgery | 100 |
| Type of anaesthesia | 88 |
| Pressure ulcer developed during this admission | 82 |
| Physician/geriatrician involvement | 82 |
| Out of bed postoperatively | 82 |
| Death during acute hospital admission | 100 |
| Date/time of discharge from acute care | 82 |
| Acute discharge destination | 88 |
| Bone protection medication at discharge | 65 |
| Optional dataset fields | |
| Date/time of trauma causing hip fracture | 47 |
| Date/time of admission to orthopaedic/orthogeriatric ward | 59 |
| Pre-fracture bone protection medication | 76 |
| Nutritional assessment performed on admission | 47 |
| Date/time of discharge from post-acute care | 29 |
| Post-acute discharge destination | 41 |
| Alive at end of this audit’s follow-up period | 94 |
| Reoperation within this follow-up period | 94 |
| Mobility at end of this follow-up period | 82 |
| Residence at end of this follow-up period | 76 |
| Bone protection medication at end of this follow-up period | 82 |
-
ADLs, activities of daily living; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.
Table II.
Proportion of Minimum Common Dataset fields and follow-up period used by each registry.
| Registry | Proportion of fields, % | Follow-up period, days after fracture |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 84 | 120 |
| Australia and New Zealand | 72 | 120 |
| China | 91 | 30, 120 |
| Denmark | 59 | 30 |
| England, Wales, and Northern Ireland | 91 | 30, 120 |
| Germany | 75 | 120 |
| Holland | 72 | 70 to 120 |
| Ireland | 66 | None |
| Japan | 84 | 30, 120, 365 |
| Mexico | 78 | 30 |
| Norway | 53 | 120 |
| Pakistan | 78 | 30 |
| Philippines | 94 | 120 |
| Scotland | 66 | 30 |
| South Korea | 88 | 30, 90 |
| Spain | 81 | 30 |
| Sweden | 69 | 120 |
Compatibility with MCD optional fields
Overall, 13/17 (76%) registries collected data relating to the use of bone protection medication pre-fracture. Around half the registries collected time of admission to a definitive orthopaedic/orthogeriatric ward (10/19; 59%), date and time of fracture (8/17; 47%), prefracture nutritional assessment (8/17; 47%), and discharge destination following the subacute/step-down care episode (7/17; 41%). Only 5/17 (29%) audited the date of discharge from following the subacute/step-down care episode. A detailed breakdown is presented in Supplementary Figure c.
Follow-up outcome measurement
Overall, 16/17 (94%) of the registries assessed outcomes in some form after a defined period of follow-up. It should be noted that this refers to the collection of audit data (e.g. to determine survival or performance), rather than clinical follow-up which would involve a medical assessment of the patient by a clinician, either in person or remotely. Follow-up durations ranged from 30 to 365 days following fracture, with the most common timepoints being 120 days (10/17; 59%) and 30 days (8/17; 48%) post-fracture. There were 4 (24%) registries conducting follow-up at multiple timepoints. A detailed breakdown is presented in Supplementary Figure c.
The frequency with which registries collect the five optional fields that relate to follow-up data was high. A total of 16/17 (94%) collect data regarding deaths or reoperations that occurred by their defined follow-up timepoint, while 14/17 (82%) collected mobility status and bone protection medication prescription, and 13/17 (76%) audited patient residence type.
Discussion
This study evaluated the compatibility of all 17 national hip fracture registries using the Fragility Fracture Network 2022 Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) as the internationally agreed benchmark. Overall, 17 of the 20 core fields were collected by the majority of registries, demonstrating high levels of consistency between national programmes. However, there was poorer collection of clinical data pertaining to prefracture mobility and functional status, prefracture cognitive assessment, and bone protection medication use. All but one registry collected data at defined follow-up timepoints, but there was variability in the chosen duration of follow-up.
Overall compatibility with the MCD was highest in the recently established third generation of registries, second highest in the second-generation registries, and lowest among the oldest programmes. The high levels of compatibility between the MCD and the newest registries may reflect the influence of the recent publication of the 2022 MCD.15,30 Most of these newer registries were designed before the updated MCD was published, but the process of generating the new MCD was undertaken in public through established FFN channels, and it is likely that this increased the compatibility of the newest programmes.17 The 2022 iteration of the MCD was designed to reflect the priorities and realities of data collection for patients with hip fractures around the world, as opposed to those in developed healthcare economies such as Europe. It is interesting that, even though the registry leads from the older programmes were involved in the 2022 revision of the MCD, their registries lag behind newer registries in terms of compatibility with the common dataset. This may simply reflect how long it would take to adjust a dataset to adhere to the new MCD, or it may reflect entrenched practice within well-established registries that have evolved to meet the specific priorities of their local health system.
Regarding individual data points, the most marked inconsistency in datasets was apparent for three core MCD fields, including two that related to initial patient assessment. Assessment of prefracture mobility or function, and prefracture cognitive status, are key aspects of initial clinical assessment in the hip fracture population and have significant implications on decisions regarding surgical management, rehabilitation, and discharge planning.31 They are also effective markers of frailty, which is known to affect patient outcomes, and should therefore be included as baseline risk factors in order to make informed comparisons on an inter-patient, inter-hospital, and inter-system level.31-35
There was little consensus on the assessment of mobility pre- or postinjury, and the length of audit follow-up was variable. Five of the established registries assessed prefracture function in terms of the use of mobility aids prior to the injury, while others prioritized the classification of independence with ADLs such as personal care and household chores. Prefracture mobility has been shown to correlate with post-fracture outcomes and standardized assessment has been validated in hip fracture, for example with the New Mobility Score.36,37 Assessment of prefracture mobility status also provides a simple way to evaluate premorbid function as an indicator of quality of life, in lieu of more complicated and resource-dependent patient-reported outcome measures. This information is also useful to guide surgical decision-making (e.g. implant choice for hip arthroplasty), postoperative physiotherapy and occupational therapy interventions, and post-discharge rehabilitation.37,38 Similarly, only nine registries recorded whether patients could mobilize on the first postoperative day, which is thought to be of benefit to facilitate rehabilitation and prevent complications such as respiratory infections, pressure ulcers, venous thromboembolism, inactivity-related sarcopenia, and institutionalization. Return to a premorbid level of function is of huge importance to the patient and their carers, and is a determinant of ongoing health and social care requirements. As such, this might be considered a key performance indicator of a hip fracture services, yet fewer than half of the registries collected data to evaluate successful return to baseline function.
The mode of assessment of baseline cognition varied between the nine registries that collected this information. The most widely used tool at initial assessment was the Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT),39 though some simply recorded any suggested history of dementia. There is growing appreciation that the high prevalence of delirium in the acute hip fracture setting, and its harmful effect on outcomes may justify the inclusion of the 4As Test (4AT) as a baseline assessment. This is the case for all patients admitted in Scotland, and the test is also used as a postoperative tool throughout the UK.40-42 The impact of cognition (including prefracture cognitive impairment and perioperative delirium) on hip fracture outcomes is an area that requires major investigation, and this could be facilitated with increased consistency of definitions and assessment methods across hip fracture audits.43
Increasing emphasis on the use of pharmacological bone protection in osteoporosis is reflected in the finding that 11 registries collected data pertaining to pre-fracture medication use, although only nine recorded post-fracture medication prescriptions, and approaches to data recording also varied.44 Regular and consistent collection of this information within hip fracture audits is essential if effective national strategies for the prevention of future fractures are to be established for this high-risk patient population.
Of the 17 registries, 16 collect data at a defined non-clinical follow-up point, with the most common durations of follow-up being 30 or 120 days postinjury. Four collected data at multiple timepoints, which can increase the resolution of data that can otherwise be restricted by binary coding of outcome variables. The choice of follow-up duration reflects the practicalities of the respective programmes and their mechanisms for data collection, as well as the differential prioritization of early outcome data such as early death, readmission, or reoperation (which are often considered within 30 days of admission), or late outcome data such as the recovery of mobility, independence, and health-related quality of life (which are usually considered to plateau at around 120 days after admission).45 Data collection at 120 days is more challenging but can provide valuable patient-centred information, as well as vital metrics to help guide broader health and social care service design.
The three items where compatibility was found for less than two-thirds of registries are ones that are crucial to the delivery of effective hip fracture services. It appears that individual regions are addressing these areas in a bespoke manner, appropriate to the health systems that they serve. However, greater compatibility of datasets, aligned to a global standard, would increase interoperability of registries and enhance their functionality in terms of international benchmarking, research, responses to supraregional issues, and improvements in the diversity and generalizability of lessons learned in hip fracture care.15,46,47 The process of continuous healthcare audit, where multiple aspects of a health system are monitored and improved, is associated with higher-quality care and improved patient outcomes.1,3,4,48 The ability to make intelligible comparisons of service performance indicators and patient outcome measures between health systems could help different countries to learn from each other’s experience and quality improvement initiatives, as well as from variations in clinical practice and governance strategies.2,7
The impact of hip fracture research could be increased through the compilation of larger datasets containing greater diversity and granularity. These could be examined to produce higher-quality observational studies, or integrated with medical informatics and health data science techniques to examine complex interactions using the meta-audit process.16 This is already being realized for hip fracture through the digital assimilation of registries by the European Health Data Evidence Network (EHDEN).49 The core fields of the 2022 MCD are being mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model following a successful grant from the EHDEN initiative.50,51 This will assist registry data partners to compare temporal and geographical trends in hip fracture care, undertaking large-scale federated network analyses on a global scale.
Embedding experimental studies in routinely collected health datasets was established in hip fracture with the WHiTE collaboration, and the generalizability of such studies could be increased with larger cohorts covering a broader clinical and geopolitical context.38,52-54 Lastly, greater interoperability of existing registries was identified as a key area to improve during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a bespoke international research collaborative was required to examine important questions on a supraregional scale.55,56 The use of established registries with in-built compatibility would reduce project lead time and harness the power of existing data collection and processing mechanisms to facilitate a more comprehensive global response to urgent threats.
There are several strengths to this study. A number of national hip fracture registries have been established recently, and this is the first published analysis of the approaches adopted by these programmes. The findings of the study provide information relating to the impact of the recent 2022 MCD introduction as an international standard dataset. The main limitation of the current study is that it was beyond the investigative scope to examine and compare the data elements collected by the national programmes that do not relate to a core or optional field on the 2022 MCD. The extent of such additional information is huge; 260 potential aspects of case-mix, care, and outcome measures were being collected by the eight national registries that were in existence in 2017, and this figure will have increased with the significant expansion in registries since then.
The complexity of this field is such that further work examining the collection of hip fracture data should focus on individual components of the care process which are linked to improved longer-term outcomes. For example, the recording of: comprehensive assessment of frailty, comorbidity, and prefracture function; pre-existing and inpatient cognitive assessment (including routine screening for delirium); surgical, anaesthetic, and perioperative factors; postoperative rehabilitation and recovery; and outcome measures that are patient-centred and useful for service delivery and planning.57
Further work is also needed to examine how each registry addresses the healthcare system it serves, and how the practicalities in different regions influence the mode and format of data collection. Finally, the dynamic nature of this field is self-evident, with two new pilot registries set up during the data collection for this study, and another since its completion. The pace of this change emphasizes the importance of this work, but provides challenges in keeping the picture we describe up to date, as new audits are set up and existing registries are modified to address changes in health services around the world.
The number of national clinical registry programmes is increasing to meet the demands of the rapidly growing global challenge of hip fracture. There was reasonable compatibility between the ten established registries and the recently published FFN 2022 MCD. There was greater compatibility among the more recently established programmes, which is possibly a reflection of their ability to deliver bespoke data collection mechanisms in line with current trends in hip fracture audit. However, there is scope to improve the interoperability of national hip fracture registries in line with this global standard. This would enhance their functionality in terms of international benchmarking, research, responses to supraregional issues, and improving the diversity and generalizability of lessons learned through innovation and experience.
References
1. Griffin XL , Achten J , Parsons N , Costa ML , WHiTE collaborators . Does performance-based remuneration improve outcomes in the treatment of hip fracture? Results from the WHiTE multicentre hip fracture cohort Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 5 ): 881 – 887 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
2. Neuburger J , Currie C , Wakeman R , et al. 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 . Med Care . 2015 ; 53 ( 8 ): 686 – 691 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
3. Ferguson KB , Halai M , Winter A , et al. National audits of hip fractures: Are yearly audits required? Injury . 2016 ; 47 ( 2 ): 439 – 443 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Metcalfe D , Zogg CK , Judge A , et al. Pay for performance and hip fracture outcomes: an interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis in England and Scotland . Bone Joint J . 2019 ; 101-B ( 8 ): 1015 – 1023 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
5. Farrow L , Hall A , Wood AD , et al. Quality of care in hip fracture patients: the relationship between adherence to national standards and improved outcomes . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2018 ; 100-A ( 9 ): 751 – 757 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
6. Farrow L , Hall A , Aucott L , Holt G , Myint PK . Does quality of care in hip fracture vary by day of admission? Arch Osteoporos . 2020 ; 15 ( 1 ): 52 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
7. Johansen A , Golding D , Brent L , et al. Using national hip fracture registries and audit databases to develop an international perspective . Injury . 2017 ; 48 ( 10 ): 2174 – 2179 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Parker MJ , Currie CT , Mountain JA , Thorngren K-G . Standardised Audit of Hip Fracture in Europe (SAHFE) . HIP International . 1998 ; 8 ( 1 ): 10 – 15 . Crossref Google Scholar
9. Hommel A , Hedström M . The Swedish National Hip Fracture Registry (RIKSHÖFT) . 2020 . https://www.xn--rikshft-e1a.se/english ( date last accessed June 2023 ). Google Scholar
10. Sáez-López P , Brañas F , Sánchez-Hernández N , Alonso-García N , González-Montalvo JI . Hip fracture registries: utility, description, and comparison . Osteoporos Int . 2017 ; 28 ( 4 ): 1157 – 1166 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
11. White SM , Altermatt F , Barry J , et al. International Fragility Fracture Network Delphi consensus statement on the principles of anaesthesia for patients with hip fracture . Anaesthesia . 2018 ; 73 ( 7 ): 863 – 874 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Bunning T , Currie c . Final report of the hip fracture audit database (HFAD) pilot phase . Fragility Fracture Network . 2017 . https://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/hfad_final_report_2017.pdf ( date last accessed 14 June 2023 ). Google Scholar
13. Johansen A , Ojeda-Thies C , Poacher AT , et al. Developing a minimum common dataset for hip fracture audit to help countries set up national audits that can support international comparisons . Bone Joint J . 2022 ; 104-B ( 6 ): 721 – 728 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. Werner M , Macke C , Gogol M , Krettek C , Liodakis E . Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries . Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg . 2022 ; 48 ( 3 ): 1625 – 1638 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
15. Johansen A , Ojeda-Thies C , Poacher AT , et al. Developing a minimum common dataset for hip fracture audit to help countries set up national audits that can support international comparisons . Bone Joint J . 2022 ; 104-B ( 6 ): 721 – 728 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
16. Hall AJ , Duckworth AD , MacLullich AMJ , Farrow L , White TO , Clement ND . Meta-audit: a novel approach to healthcare improvement through the integration of clinical audit and health data science techniques . Bone & Joint 360 . 2021 ; 10 ( 6 ): 3 – 5 . Crossref Google Scholar
17. No authors listed . Hip fracture audit . Fragility Fracture Network . https://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/hip-fracture-audit/ ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
18. Kristensen PK , Röck ND , Christensen HC , Pedersen AB . The Danish Multidisciplinary Hip Fracture Registry 13-year results from a population-based cohort of hip fracture patients . Clin Epidemiol . 2020 ; 12 : 9 – 21 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
19. Monteverde E , Diehl M , Saieg M , et al. Alliance for the development of the Argentinian Hip Fracture Registry . Arch Osteoporos . 2022 ; 17 ( 1 ): 122 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
20. Voeten SC , Arends AJ , Wouters MWJM , et al. The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit: evaluation of the quality of multidisciplinary hip fracture care in the Netherlands . Arch Osteoporos . 2019 ; 14 ( 1 ): 28 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
21. No authors listed . Alterstraumaregister DGU . Akademie der Unfallchirugie . 2020 . https://www.alterstraumaregister-dgu.de/ ( date last accessed 14 June 2023 ). Google Scholar
22. No authors listed . Norwegian Hip Fracture Register . NHFR . https://helsedata.no/en/forvaltere/bergen-hospital-trust/norwegian-hip-fracture-register/ ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
23. No authors listed . Australia & New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry . Australian & New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry . https://anzhfr.org ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
24. No authors listed . Facing new challenges - The National Hip Fracture Database report on 2020 (NHFD 2021 annual report) . The National Hip Fracture Database . https://www.nhfd.co.uk/20/hipfractureR.nsf/docs/2021Report ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
25. No authors listed . Irish Hip Fracture Database . National Office of Clinical Audit . https://www.noca.ie/audits/irish-hip-fracture-database ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
26. No authors listed . The Scottish Hip Fracture Audit . The Scottish Hip Fracture Audit . https://www.shfa.scot.nhs.uk/ ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
27. Sáez-López P , González-Montalvo JI , Ojeda-Thies C , et al. Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry (SNHFR): a description of its objectives, methodology and implementation . Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol . 2018 ; 53 ( 4 ): 188 – 195 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. García JC V , Almaguer E R , Junghanns RE A , et al. Mexican Hip Fracture Audit (ReMexFC): objectives and methodology . MOJOR . 2019 ; 11 ( 3 ): 115 – 118 . Crossref Google Scholar
29. Saklad M . Grading of patients for surgical procedures . Anesthesiology . 1941 ; 2 ( 3 ): 281 – 284 . Crossref Google Scholar
30. No authors listed . The Hip Fracture Registry (HFR) Toolbox . Asia Pacific Fragility Fracture Alliance . 2020 . https://apfracturealliance.org/hfr-toolbox/ ( date last accessed 16 June 2023 ). Google Scholar
31. Sang WA , Durrani H , Liu H , et al. Frailty score as a predictor of outcomes in geriatric patients with isolated hip fractures . Am Surg . 2021 ; 31348211058629 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
32. Rockwood K , Song X , MacKnight C , et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people . CMAJ . 2005 ; 173 ( 5 ): 489 – 495 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
33. Romero-Ortuno R , Wallis S , Biram R , Keevil V . Clinical frailty adds to acute illness severity in predicting mortality in hospitalized older adults: an observational study . Eur J Intern Med . 2016 ; 35 : 24 – 34 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
34. Kay RS , Hughes M , Williamson TR , Hall AJ , Duckworth AD , Clement ND . The Clinical Frailty Scale can be used retrospectively to assess the frailty of patients with hip fracture: a validation study . Eur Geriatr Med . 2022 ; 13 ( 5 ): 1101 – 1107 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
35. Hall AJ , Clement ND , Kay RS , et al. COVID-19 is associated with increased care needs and a decreased likelihood of returning home following a hip fracture: The IMPACT frailty study . Musculoskeletal Care . 2023 ; Epub ahead of print . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
36. Kristensen MT , Bandholm T , Foss NB , Ekdahl C , Kehlet H . High inter-tester reliability of the new mobility score in patients with hip fracture . J Rehabil Med . 2008 ; 40 ( 7 ): 589 – 591 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
37. Kristensen MT , Foss NB , Ekdahl C , Kehlet H . Prefracture functional level evaluated by the New Mobility Score predicts in-hospital outcome after hip fracture surgery . Acta Orthop . 2010 ; 81 ( 3 ): 296 – 302 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
38. Costa ML , Fernandez MA , Griffin XL , WHiTE 5 Investigators . Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. reply . N Engl J Med . 2022 ; 386 ( 22 ): e59 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
39. Hodkinson HM . Evaluation of a mental test score for assessment of mental impairment in the elderly . Age Ageing . 1972 ; 1 ( 4 ): 233 – 238 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
40. No authors listed . 4AT - Rapid Clinical Test for Delirium Detection . https://www.the4at.com/ ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
41. Peters KA , Howe TJ , Rossiter D , Hutchinson KJ , Rosell PA . The Abbreviated Mental Test Score; is there a need for a contemporaneous update? Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil . 2021 ; 12 ( 4 ): 21514593211001050 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
42. Penfold RS , Hall AJ , Anand A , Clement ND , Duckworth AD , MacLullich AMJ . Delirium in hip fracture patients admitted from home during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with higher mortality, longer total length of stay, need for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation, and readmission to acute services . Bone Jt Open . 2023 ; 4 ( 6 ): 447 – 456 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
43. Mosk CA , Mus M , Vroemen JP , et al. Dementia and delirium, the outcomes in elderly hip fracture patients . Clin Interv Aging . 2017 ; 12 : 421 – 430 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
44. Walters S , Khan T , Ong T , Sahota O . Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis . Clin Interv Aging . 2017 ; 12 : 117 – 127 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
45. Griffin XL , Parsons N , Achten J , Fernandez M , Costa ML . Recovery of health-related quality of life in a United Kingdom hip fracture population. The Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation--a prospective cohort study . Bone Joint J . 2015 ; 97-B ( 3 ): 372 – 382 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
46. Hall AJ , Clement ND , MacLullich AMJ , Simpson A , White TO , Duckworth AD . The IMPACT of COVID-19 on trauma & orthopaedic surgery provides lessons for future communicable disease outbreaks: minimum reporting standards, risk scores, fragility trauma services, and global collaboration . Bone Joint Res . 2022 ; 11 ( 6 ): 342 – 345 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
47. Hall AJ , Clement ND , MacLullich AMJ , et al. The delivery of an emergency audit response to a communicable disease outbreak can inform future orthopaedic investigations and clinical practice: lessons from IMPACT Hip Fracture Global Audits . Bone Joint Res . 2022 ; 11 ( 6 ): 346 – 348 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
48. Todd OM , Burton JK , Dodds RM , et al. New Horizons in the use of routine data for ageing research . Age Ageing . 2020 ; 49 ( 5 ): 716 – 722 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
49. No authors listed . European Health Data & Evidence Network . European Health Data & Evidence Network . https://ehden.eu/ ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
50. No authors listed . Mapping the FFN international collaboration of hip fracture registries to the OMOP data model . Barts Bone & Joint Health . https://www.bonejointhealth.ac.uk/fragility-fracture-network-international-collaboration-of-hip-fracture-registries-data-mapping-project-with-the-european-health-data-evidence-network-ehden/ ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
51. OHDSI CDM Working Group . OMOP common data model . 2023 . https://ohdsi.github.io/CommonDataModel/ ( date last accessed 26 May 2023 ). Google Scholar
52. Sims AL , Parsons N , Achten J , et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing the Thompson hemiarthroplasty with the Exeter polished tapered stem and Unitrax modular head in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip: the WHiTE 3: HEMI Trial . Bone Joint J . 2018 ; 100-B ( 3 ): 352 – 360 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
53. Png ME , Petrou S , Fernandez MA , et al. Cost-utility analysis of cemented hemiarthroplasty versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures: the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) trial . Bone Joint J . 2022 ; 104-B ( 8 ): 922 – 928 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
54. Griffin XL , Achten J , O’Connor HM , Cook JA , Costa ML , WHiTE Four Investigators . Effect on health-related quality of life of the X-Bolt dynamic plating system versus the sliding hip screw for the fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip in adults: the WHiTE Four randomized clinical trial . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 2 ): 256 – 263 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
55. Hall AJ , Clement ND , et al. , IMPACT-Global Group IMPACT-Global Hip Fracture Audit: Nosocomial infection, risk prediction and prognostication, minimum reporting standards and global collaborative audit: Lessons from an international multicentre study of 7,090 patients conducted in 14 nations during the COVID-19 pandemic . Surgeon . 2022 ; 20 ( 6 ): e429 – e446 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
56. Hall AJ , Clement ND , MacLullich AMJ , et al. IMPACT of COVID-19 on hip fracture services: a global survey by the international multicentre project auditing COVID-19 in trauma & orthopaedics . Surgeon . 2022 ; 20 ( 4 ): 237 – 240 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
57. Farrow L , Hall AJ , Ablett AD , Johansen A , Myint PK . The influence of hospital-level variables on hip fracture outcomes . Bone Joint J . 2021 ; 103-B ( 10 ): 1627 – 1632 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
Author contributions
A. Johansen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
A. J. Hall: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
C. Ojeda-Thies: Writing – review & editing.
A. T. Poacher: Data curation, Writing – review & editing.
M. L. Costa: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this work.
Data sharing
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the published article and/or in the supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
This work was produced by the authors on behalf of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Hip Fracture Audit Special Interest Group (https://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/hip-fracture-audit/).
Open access funding
The open access publication fee was self-paid by the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN).
Open access statement
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Follow A. J. Hall @andrewhallortho
Follow C. Ojeda-Thies @ojedathies
Follow A. T. Poacher @ArwelPoacher
Follow the Fragility Fracture Network @FF_Network
Follow NDORMS @ndorms
Follow Oxford Trauma and Emergency Care @Oxford_Trauma
Supplementary material
Figures showing the core and optional fields of the Fragility Fracture Network 2022 Minimum Common Dataset, as well as a detailed comparison of each registry.
This article was primary edited by J. Hutt.
