Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Hip

DO HIGH-VOLUME HIP FRACTURE UNITS PERFORM BETTER? AN ANALYSIS OF OUTCOME MEASURES FROM THE NATIONAL HIP FRACTURE DATABASE

The British Hip Society (BHS) Annual Scientific Meeting, Newport, Wales, March 2020.



Abstract

Background

In a number of disciplines, positive correlations have been reported between volume and clinical outcome. This has helped drive the evolution of specialist centres to deal with complex or high risk medical conditions. Hip fractures are a common injury associated with high morbidity and mortality.

Aim

To assess whether volume of hip fracture cases attended to by individual hospitals is associated with the quality of care provided and clinical outcomes.

Methods

Utilising 19 quality of care measures espoused by NICE and available on the National Hip Fracture Database website, we examined whether there was a correlation between Volume of hip fractures per institution and each outcome measure for 2016 and 2018. Outcomes were assessed for normality of distribution and correlated using either Spearman rank or Pearson Correlation as appropriate.

Results

Over 170 institutions were available for analysis. The average number of procedures per institution was 371 (sd 154) in 2016 and 378 (sd 158) in 2018. 9 units attended to in excess of 700 cases per annum. There was a positive correlation between volume of cases and a number of quality of care indices; notably survivorship, length of stay, ortho-geriatric consultation, pressure ulcer prevention, post-operative mobilisation, delirium prevention, bone health assessment and the proportion of patients satisfying the Best Practice Tariff (BPT) criteria. 5 of the measures had no correlation. The worst performances were observed for measures that were not financially incentivised.

Discussion

Our analysis of a large synchronous national dataset show weak but favourable correlations with unit volume and important outcomes including mortality and length of stay. Our results do not invariably justify the centralisation of hip fracture services. Hip fracture care may be more convincingly improved by promoting compliance to the guidance that already exists via financial incentivisation or otherwise.


Email: