In 2007, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was conceived in the United Kingdom (UK) as a national audit aiming to improve hip fracture care across the country. It now represents the world's largest hip fracture registry. The purpose of the NHFD is to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fracture care, at an institutional level, that reflect the evidence-based clinical guidelines and quality standards developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. No national program currently exists, equivalent to the NHFD, in Canada despite evidence suggesting that national audit programs can significantly improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fractures at our Canadian academic tertiary referral center using the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and benchmarks used by the NHFD. In doing so, we aimed to compare our performance to other hospitals contributing to the NHFD database. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients who presented to our Canadian center for surgical management of a hip fracture between August 2019 to September 2020. Fracture types included intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric, and femoral neck fractures treated with either surgical fixation or arthroplasty. Cases were identified from the affiliate institute's Operatively Repaired Fractures Database (ORFD). The ORFD prospectively collects patient-level data extracted from electronic medical records, operating room information systems, and from patients’ discharge summaries. All applicable data from our database were compared to the established KPI and benchmarks published by the NHFD that apply to the Canadian healthcare system. Six hundred and seven patients’ data (64.5% female) were extracted from the ORFD, mean age 80.4 ± 13.3 years. The NHFD contains data from 63,284 patients across the entire UK. The affiliate institute performed inferiorly compared to the NHFD for two KPIs: prompt surgery (surgery by the day following presentation with hip fracture, 52.8% vs. 69%) and prompt mobilization after surgery (mobilized out of bed by the day after operation, 43.0% vs. 81.0%). However, more patients at the affiliate institute were not delirious when tested postoperatively (89.6% vs. 68.4%). There was no significant difference in the average length of stay (12.23 days versus 13.5 days) or in 30-day mortality rate (8.4% versus 8.3%). More than half of all KPI's and benchmarks for patients receiving a hip fracture surgery at our tertiary referral center in Canada ranked significantly lower than patients receiving a hip fracture surgery in the UK. These findings indicate that perhaps a national audit program should be implemented in Canada to improve aspects of hip fracture care, at an institutional level. Following evidence-based clinical guidelines and using standardized benchmarks would encourage change and foster improvement across Canadian centres when necessary

Objectives. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) publishes hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality rates following hip fracture surgery in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The performance of the risk model used by the NHFD was compared with the widely-used Nottingham Hip Fracture Score. Methods. Data from 94 hospitals on patients aged 60 to 110 who had hip fracture surgery between May 2013 and July 2013 were analysed. Data were linked to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) death register to calculate the 30-day mortality rate. Risk of death was predicted for each patient using the NHFD and Nottingham models in a development dataset using logistic regression to define the models’ coefficients. This was followed by testing the performance of these refined models in a second validation dataset. Results. The 30-day mortality rate was 5.36% in the validation dataset (n = 3861), slightly lower than the 6.40% in the development dataset (n = 4044). The NHFD and Nottingham models showed a slightly lower discrimination in the validation dataset compared with the development dataset, but both still displayed moderate discriminative power (c-statistic for NHFD = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.74; Nottingham model = 0.70, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.75). Both models defined similar ranges of predicted mortality risk (1% to 18%) in assessment of calibration. Conclusions. Both models have limitations in predicting mortality for individual patients after hip fracture surgery, but the NHFD risk adjustment model performed as well as the widely-used Nottingham prognostic tool and is therefore a reasonable alternative for risk adjustment in the United Kingdom hip fracture population. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2017;6:550–556

The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) is a clinically led web based audit used to inform national policy guidelines. The aim of this audit was to establish the accuracy of completion of NHFD v13.0 theatre collection sheets, identify common pitfalls and areas of good practice, whilst raising awareness of the importance of accuracy of this data and the manner in which it reflects performance of CAH Trauma & Orthopaedic unit in relation to national guidelines. Our aim was to improve completion up to >80% by the operating surgeon and improve overall accuracy. The methodology within both cycles of the audit were identical. It involved reviewing the NHFD V13.0 completed by the operating surgeon and cross-checking their accuracy against clinical notes, operation notes, imaging, anaesthetic charts and A&E admission assessment. Following completion of cycle 1 these results were presented, and education surrounding V13.0 was provided, at the monthly trust audit meeting. At this point we introduced a sticker onto the pre-operative checklist for Hip fractures. This included time of admission and reason for delay. We then completed a re-audit. Cycle-1 included 25 operations, 56% (n=14) had a completed V13.0 form. Of these 21% (n=3) were deemed to be 100% accurate. Cycle-2 included 31 operations (between April – June 21) 81% (n=25) had a completed intra-operative from and showed an increase in accuracy to 56% (n=14). Through raising awareness, education and our interventions we have seen a significant improvement in the completion and accuracy of v13.0. Although 100% accuracy was not achieved its clear that education and intervention will improve compliance over time. Through the interventions that we have implemented we have shown that it is possible to improve completion and accuracy of the NHFD V13.0 theatre collection sheet locally and feel this could be implemented nationally

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. Methods. This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case. Results. Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation. Conclusion. There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):378–384

The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) started collecting data on peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) in December 2019. We reviewed the data from the first year of data collection to describe the patients being admitted with PPFF and the care they received according to established Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used in hip fracture surgery. We performed a retrospective review of the NHFD between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Analyses consisted of the summary statistics used to generate the NHFD annual report. Of the KPIs used in hip fracture, data were available for PPFF on time to assessment by a geriatrician (KPI 1), time to theatre (if applicable) (KPI 2), and mobilisation the day after surgery (if applicable) (KPI 4). There were 2,411 PPFF fractures around a hip or knee replacement reported out of a total of 2,606 PPFF. Of the 171 hospitals reporting data to the NHFD, 135 reported at least one. The median number of fractures per hospital was 14 (IQR 8, 25, range 1 to 110). The median age of patients was 84 (range 60 to 104) and 1,604 (67%) patients were female. Of the 1,850 occasions a time to geriatrician review was documented, review within 72 hours was achieved on 89.2% of occasions. Of the 1,973 patients who underwent operative interventions, 546 patients went to theatre before the 36-hour target (28.4%). Of patients who had surgery 1,323 (67.4%) were mobilised the following day. In the first year collecting data on PPFF we can give the first idea of the incidence of these life changing injuries. Whilst geriatrician review with 72 hours was achieved in a high proportion of cases nationally, our data suggest fewer patients are mobilised the day after surgery. Notably, only 28.4% of patients who were managed operatively went to theatre within 36 hours of admission. We provide the first insight into the incidence and management of these injuries

Aims. Patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines. Methods. We used the NHFD to identify all operations for fixation of trochanteric fractures in England and Wales between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. A uniform price band from each of three hip fracture implant manufacturers was used to set cost implications alongside variation in implant use. Results. We identified 18,156 A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures in 162 centres. Of these, 13,483 (74.3%) underwent SHS fixation, 2,352 (13.0%) were managed with short IMN, and 2,321 (12.8%) were managed with long IMN. Total cost of IMN added up to £1.89 million in 2021, and the clinical justification for this is unclear since rates of IMN use varied from 0% to 97% in different centres. Conclusion. Most trochanteric hip fractures are managed with SHS, in keeping with national guidelines. There is considerable variance between hospitals for implant choice, despite the lack of evidence for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of more expensive nailing systems. This suggests either a lack of awareness of national guidelines or a choice not to follow them. We encourage provider units to reassess their practice if outwith the national norm. Funding bodies should examine implant use closely in this population to prevent resource waste at a time of considerable health austerity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):741–745

A hip fracture represents the extreme end of osteoporosis, placing a significant burden on secondary care, society, and the individual patient. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) reports each hospital's attainment of the BPT with other measures, along with reporting outcomes. There is clearly wide variability in provision of orthogerriatrician (OG) services across the dataset. Unfortunately, despite overwhelming evidence that provision of an OG service is of benefit, it is presently challenging to recruit to this important specialty within the UK. Publicly available reports from the NHFD were obtained for each of the 177 participating hospitals for 2017. This was matched with information held within the annual NHFD Facilities Audit for the same period, which include hours of OG support for each hospital. This information was combined with a Freedom of Information request made by email to each hospital for further details concerning OG support. The outcome measures used were Length of Stay (LoS), mortality, and return to usual residence. Comparison was made with provision of OG services by use of Pearson's correlation coefficient. In addition, differences in services were compared between the 25% (44) hospitals delivering outcomes at the extremes for each measure. Attainment of BPT correlated fairly with LoS (−0.48) and to less of a degree with mortality (−0.1) and return home (0.05). Perioperative medical assessment contributed very strongly with BPT attainment (0.75). In turn perioperative medical assessment correlated fairly with LoS (−0.40) and mortality (−0.23) but not return home (0.02). Provision of perioperative medical assessment attainment was correlated fairly with total OG minutes available per new patient (0.22), total OG minutes available per patient per day (0.29) and number of days per week of OG cover (0.34); with no link for number of patients per orthogeriatrician (0.01). Mortality for the best units were associated with 30% more consultant OG time available per patient per day, and 51% more OG time available per patient. Units returning the most patients to their usual residence had little association with OG time, although had 59% fewer patients per OG, the best units had a 19% longer LoS. For all three measures results for the best had on average 0.5 days per week better routine OG access. There is no doubt that good quality care gives better results for this challenging group of patients. However, the interaction of BPT, other care metrics, level of OG support and patient factors with outcomes is complex. We have found OG time available per patient per day appears to influence particularly LoS and mortality. Options to increase OG time per patient include reducing patient numbers (ensuring community osteoporosis/falls prevention in place, including reducing in-patient falls); increasing OG time across the week (employing greater numbers/spreading availability over 7 days per week); and reducing LoS. A reduction in LoS has the largest effect of increasing OG time, and although it is dependent on OG support, it is only fairly correlated with this and many other factors play a part, which could be addressed in units under pressure

Background. Since it's establishment in 2007, the National Hip Fracture Database [NHFD] has been the key driving force in improving care for hip fracture patients across the UK. It has facilitated the setting of standards to which all musculoskeletal units are held, and guides service development to optimise outcomes in this group of patients. As with any audit, the ability to draw conclusions and make recommendations for changes in practise relies on the accuracy of data collection. This project aimed to scrutinise the data submitted to the NHFD from a Major Trauma Centre [MTC], focusing on procedure coding, and discuss the implications of any inaccuracies. Method. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of all procedure coding data entered into the NHFD from July 2009 to July 2014 at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. We examined 1978 cases for discrepancies, comparing procedure codes entered into the NHFD with post-procedure imaging and operative notes. Results. The procedure coding data submitted to the NHFD was highly inaccurate, with incorrect procedure codes in 24% of the 1978 cases reviewed. In particular, coding of cemented total arthroplasty and cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty, with coding errors in registry data of 42% and 39% respectively. Of the 67 THRs performed only 52% were correctly coded for, and only 626 of the 915 hemiarthroplasties (68%). 16% of cannulated hip screws actually underwent primary arthroplasty. Conclusions. This study highlights the inaccuracy of coding data entered into the NHFD from a Major Trauma Centre, with data on arthroplasty being particularly inadequate. The unreliability of procedure data leaves us unable to evaluate surgical treatment strategies using the NHFD. This has worrying implications for standard setting, service development and, consequently, patient care. Level of evidence. 2c

Introduction. Reoperation within thirty days after hip fracture surgery is associated with increased mortality, length of stay and cost of care. The United Kingdom National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) reported a significant increase in the 30-day reoperation rate for patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures in our unit from 2012 to 2014. We audited our data in order to validate this and identify any reversible trends. Methods. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 1757 consecutive procedures for hip fracture were performed in our unit. Patients who had a reoperation within 30 days and those recorded as ‘unknown’ under the reoperation category were identified. Patients with hip dislocations were included. Patient demographics, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes were recorded. This was compared with reoperation for all causes after 30 days over a 12-month period. Results. Nineteen patients (1.1%) underwent a reoperation within 30-days. There was no significant change in the annual incidence over the period studied. Infection was the leading cause for reoperation (47%). The NHFD also reported a 10-fold increase in the incidence of periprosthetic fractures during the study period (0.18% to 1.78%). This did not correlate with our findings (0% to 0.36%). Our NHFD data entry system was unchanged over the 3-year period. We identified a change in NHFD data entry form in April 2014 which corresponded to the increase in the incidence of periprosthetic fractures and overall reoperation rates. Discussion. These results suggest there is a need for local validation of NHFD data. The current design may contribute to imprecise data recording. We suggest the introduction of an automatic notification system informing the local NHFD lead of any reoperation within 30 days would assist in real-time monitoring. This study led us to identify infection as the leading cause of reoperation at our institution and initiate improvement measures

The Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) was developed in 2007 as a predictor of 30-day mortality after hip fracture surgery following a neck of femur fracture. The National Hip Fracture Database is the standard used which calculated their own score using national data. The NHF score for 30-day mortality was calculated for 50 patients presenting with a fractured neck femur injury between January 2020 to March 2020. A score <5 was classified as low risk and >/=5 as high risk. Aim was to assess the accuracy in calculating the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score against the National Hip Fracture Database. To explore whether it should it be routinely included during initial assessment to aid clinical management?. There was an increase in the number of mortalities observed in patients who belonged to the high-risk group (>=5) compared to the low risk group. COVID-19 positive patients had worse outcomes with average 30-day mortality of 6.78 compared to the average of 6.06. GEH NHF score per month showed significant accuracy against the NHFD scores. The identification of high-risk groups from their NHF score can allow for targeted optimisations and elucidation of risk factors easily gathered at the point of hospitalisation. The NHFS is a valuable tool and useful predictor to stratify the risk of 30-day mortality and 1-year mortality after hip fracture surgery. Inclusion of the score should be considered as mandatory Trust policy for neck of femur fracture patients to aid clinical management and improve patient safety overall

There has been extensive research into neck of femur fractures in the elderly. Fragility non-hip femoral fractures share many of the same challenges [1]. Surgical management is complex, patients are frail and mortality rates have been reported as high as 38% [2]. Despite this, relatively little data is available evaluating the level of MDT care provided to non-hip femoral fractures. This audit aimed to evaluate the standard of MDT care provided for patients with non-hip femoral fractures according to the NHFD key performance indicators. The following fractures were included in the dataset: distal femoral, femoral shaft and peri-prosthetic femoral. Patients under 65 were excluded. Data was retrospectively collected using post-operative and medical documentation. Performance was assessed according to five key performance indicators:. Did orthogeriatrics review the patient within 72-hours?. Was surgery performed within 36-hours?. Was the patient weight bearing post-operatively?. Was a confusion assessment completed?. Was the patient discharged home?. 38 patients met the inclusion criteria. 84% of patients were seen by orthogeriatrics within 72 hours of admission. 32% of patients were operated on within 36-hours of admission, with time to theatre exceeding 36-hours in 92% of peri-prosthetic fractures. 37% of patients were not advised to full weight bear post operatively. 84% of patients received a confusion assessment whilst 61% of patients were discharged to their prior place of living. Our results suggest that non-hip femoral fractures do not receive the same standard of MDT care as neck of femur fractures. Greater prioritisation of resources should be given to this patient subset so that care is equivalent to hip-fracture patients. Time to surgery is a particular area for improvement, particularly in peri-prosthetic fractures, a trend that is mirrored nationally. Greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging full-weight bearing post-operatively to prevent post-surgical complications

Abstract. Introduction. Several studies have shown that patients over 65 years have a higher mortality with covid. Combine with inherently increased morbidity and mortality in neck of femur (NoFF) fractures, it is logical to think that this subset would be most at risk. Aims. Investigate whether there is actual increase in direct mortality from Covid infection in NoFF patients, also investigate other contributing factors to mortality with covid positivity and compare the findings with current available literature. Methods. 1-year cross sectional, retrospective study from 1st March 2020 at two DGHs, one in Wales and one in England. Surgically treated NoFF patients with isolated intra/extracapsular fracture included. Mortality analysis done by creating a matched comparison group for each risk factor and combinations known to confer highest mortality. Chi square test for independence used to compare COVID status with 1 year mortality. Results. 610 patients, 62 patients had COVID-19RTPCR+ive test during hospital stay/in the community. 21(34%) deaths in COVID positive and 95 (17.33%) deaths in COVID negative patients. There was no mortality in ASA 1 or 2 patients. Analysis of asa matching with 10-year age ranges from 65years revealed a nearly double mortality rate in covid+ group as opposed to covid negative for both ASA 3 and 4 groups. Parameters such as preinjury mobility, residential status, AMTS score, time to surgery, did not seem to play a significant role in mortality. Conclusion. First of its kind study with a large subset of patients and unique parameters to identify causes leading to mortality in the vulnerable population of NoFF. Higher morality in Covid positive NoFF patients, but increase may not be as significant as identified by most current studies in the literature and still within the confines of NHFD stats(2019). Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Abstract. Introduction. Inter-prosthetic femoral fractures (IPFF) are fractures occurring between ipsilateral hip and knee implants or fixation devices. In 2020, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was extended to capture data from patients with peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF), including those specifically with IPFF. This study aims to describe the epidemiology and treatment of IPFF in England and Wales. Methodology. This population-based observational cohort study utilised open-access data available from the NHFD. Patients aged over 60, admitted to an acute hospital in England or Wales with an IPFF, within the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 were included. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of IPFF in England and Wales. The secondary outcome was the treatment received. Results. Of 2606 patients admitted with PPFF, a total of 133 fractures occurred between ipsilateral hip and knee implants. Internal fixation was performed most frequently, in 87 cases. Revision arthroplasty was performed in 15 cases (hip n=10, knee n=5). A total of 20 patients were managed non-operatively, and three underwent primary arthroplasty (hip n=2, knee n=1). Conclusion. As the proportion of patients living with hip and knee implants continues to increase, it is expected that so too will the incidence of IPFF. This study is the first to estimate the incidence of IPFF in England and Wales. This is likely an underestimate of the true incidence and so we support calls for the prioritisation of further research into the epidemiology, prevention, and management of IPFF

Abstract. Objectives. The need to accurately forecast the injury burden has never been higher. With an aging, ever expanding trauma population and less than half of the beds available compared to 1990, the National Health Service (NHS) is stretched to breaking point1,2. Resultantly, we aimed to determine whether it is possible to predict the proportionality of injuries treated operatively within orthopaedic departments based on their number of Neck of Femur fracture (NOF) patients reported both in our study and the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). Methods. We utilised the ORthopaedic trauma hospital outcomes - Patient operative delays (ORTHOPOD) dataset of 22,585 trauma patients across the four countries of the United Kingdom (UK) admitted to 83 hospitals between 22/08/22 – 16/10/22. This dataset had two arms: arm one was assessing the caseload and theatre capacity, arm two assessed the patient, injury and management demographics. Results. Our results complied with the data reported to the NHFD in over 80% of cases for both the 2022 and five-year average reported numbers. More operations were performed for elderly hip fractures alone than for the combined totals of the next four most common fractures: ankle, distal radius, tibial shaft and forearm (6387 vs 5922). Conversely, 10 out of the 13 fracture types were not encountered by at least one hospital and 93% of hospitals encountered less than 2 fractures of a certain type.60% of trauma is treated within Trauma Units (TUs) however, per unit, Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) treat approximately 43% more patients. Similarly, 11 out of the 14 fracture types examined presented more frequently to a MTC however 3 of the most common fractures had a preponderance for TUs (elderly hip, distal radius and forearm fractures). After excluding NOF, lower limb fractures accounted for approximately 57% of fractures in all countries and ankle and distal radius fracture combined comprised more than 50% in 74% of regions. There were few outliers across the study regarding number of fractures treated by a hospital with tibial shaft fractures demonstrating the highest number of outliers with 4. Conclusions. The number of hip fractures seen on average by an individual unit remains relatively consistent as does the regional variation of any given fracture; resultantly, it is possible to predict injury proportionality based off a unit's hip fracture numbers. This powerful tool could transform both resource allocation and recruitment. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Abstract. Introduction. In 2020, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was extended to capture data from patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) with plans to include these patients in Best Practice Tarif. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of PPFF in England and Wales, with a particular focus on fractures occurring around the femoral component of knee prostheses. Methodology. This population-based observational cohort study utilised open-access data available from the NHFD. Patients aged over 60, admitted to an acute hospital in England or Wales with a PPFF, within the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPFF in England and Wales. The secondary outcome was the treatment received. Results. We identified 2606 patients with PPFF from 135 hospitals. Of these, a total of 578 fractures occurred around the femoral component of a knee implant. These were classified as Vancouver A (epicondylar, n=77), B (involving implant/cement, n=166) and C (proximal to implant/cement, n=335). Internal fixation was the most employed treatment, used in 352 cases. Revision arthroplasty was performed in 80 cases, and 100 were managed non-operatively. Only 28% of operated PPFF went to theatre within 36 hours but nearly 90% had orthogeriatrician review within 72 hours. Conclusion. Eighty six percent of patients with PPFF were treated with non-revision surgery and would not be recorded in the National Joint Registry. In response, we support calls for the prioritisation of further research into the prevention and management of PPFF around the knee

The 2011 National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) Report has shown our institute has the fewest number of patients meeting the 36-hour target to theatre in the UK (9%) but well above the national average for review by geriatrician (42.5%) at 76%. We believe our timely medical input means patients' are more physiologically normalised prior to surgery. We aimed to review our postoperative results to see if our patients had significantly different morbidity and mortality compared to the rest of the UK. We reviewed 152 patients between the period September 2009 and September 2010. All of the patients were prospectively identified and their information was added to our hip fracture database. Using the auditing software we reviewed the patients' outcomes and compared them to national averages using figures from the NHFD. Of the 152 patients identified 13% met the 36-hour target. The average time to theatre for the study group was 89 hours. 83% of the group had a pre-operative assessment by a geriatrician. The primary reason for surgical delay was a lack of space on a theatre list (61.2%) followed by being medical unfit (16.4%). The average length of acute hospital stay was 16.4 days matching the national average while 30 Day mortality at 7.9% was (0.5%) lower than NHFD figures. We continue to try and improve our time to surgery for hip fracture patients and accept this is mostly related to limited theatre access. Deficient resources due to Northern Ireland's exclusion from the best practice tariff means we are unable to compete with the top performing units in the NHFD. While it makes humanitarian sense to expedite surgery, evidence used to determine the 36-hour target is quoted as “low quality” or “very low quality”. Our data shows no significant difference in outcomes compared to national figures

Hip fractures in elderly patients are managed at both major trauma centers (MTC) and trauma units (TU). Previous evidence has demonstrated the importance of early surgery to reduce the morbidity and mortality related to the injury. The aim of this study is to compare the ‘time to theatre' and ‘30 day mortality' in TUs versus MTC in UK. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on NHFD was performed. The average ‘time to theatre' in hours and ‘30 day mortality' of all hospitals were analysed between January and December 2018. Further subgroup analysis was done to check for any regional variations; in each instance a Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check for normal distribution, followed by a one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's post hoc test. Data from 158 hospitals in England (ENG), Wales (WAL) and Northern Ireland (NI) were used; 18 of which were MTC. There were 57,936 operative cases in TUs and 8606 in MTC's. The mean time (hours) to surgery from presentation was 32.51 and 32.64 for TUs and MTC respectively (p=0.513). There was no significant difference in ‘30 day mortality' (p=0.635) between TUs (6%) and 5.7% MTC's (5.7%), MTC's and TUs in ENG, WAL and NI (p=0.555), and MTC and WAL, NI and the different regions of ENG (p=0.209). A significant difference was observed, between the regional practice for TUs versus MTC's in ENG, WAL and NI (p=0.001) and between MTC's and TUs in WAL, NI and the different regions of ENG (p=0.001), with patients waiting significantly longer in NI for their procedure (mean=60.25 hours, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in time to surgery or 30 day mortality between TUs and MTC's, demonstrating comparable hip fracture care, despite MTCs need to prioritise more serious injuries

Background. Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes. Design. This study design is a multi-centre, multi-surgeon, parallel, two arm, standard-of-care pragmatic randomised controlled trial. It will be embedded within the WHiTE Comprehensive Cohort Study (ISRCTN63982700). The main analysis is a two-way equivalence comparison between Hemi-Thompson and Hemi-Exeter polished taper with Unitrax head. Secondary outcomes will include radiological leg length discrepancy measured as per Bidwai and Willett, mortality, re-operation rate and indication for re-operation, length of index hospital stay and revision at four months. This study will be supplemented by the NHFD (National Hip Fracture Database) dataset. Discussion. Evidence on the optimum choice of prosthesis for hemiarthroplasty of the hip is lacking. National guidance is currently based on expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. The incidence of hip fracture is likely to continue to increase and providing high quality evidence on the optimum treatment will improve patient outcomes and have important health economic implications. Cite this article: A. L. Sims. The World Hip Trauma Evaluation Study 3: Hemiarthroplasty Evaluation by Multicentre Investigation – WH. I. TE 3: HEMI – An Abridged Protocol. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:18–25. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.51.2000473

Introduction. Dislocated hip hemiarthroplasties (HA) are associated with a 45% revision rate and 40% mortality rate. Implant selection for HA operations vary with no universally accepted implant choice. The WHiTE3 trial suggested older designs such as the Thompson has equitable outcomes to more modern and expensive implants such as the Exeter V40+Unitrax. Our multi-centre consecutive series of NOFs patients treated with HA assesses the impact of surgical and patient factors on dislocation risk. Methods. Medical and radiographic records for patients treated between 1. st. January 2009 and 30. th. September 2017 with a HA at three acute hospitals were reviewed. Implant and dislocation data were recorded. Patient demographics, comorbidities and operation details were extracted from the medical records and NHFD. Patients were excluded if there were no postoperative radiographs or when HA had been performed as a revision procedure. Results. We identified 4305 consecutive patients with 189 excluded. There was no difference in patient characteristics between the hospitals or implant types (p>0.05). Four HA implants were used during the study period; Thompson, Austin-Moore, Furlong and Exeter V40+Unitrax. 63 dislocations were identified (1.5%), median time to dislocation was 24 days. Dislocation rates for Thompson HAs were significantly higher (p=0.004) at 3.7%. No association was demonstrated with cemented versus uncemented, bipolar versus monopolar, fixed versus variable offsets, operating surgeon grade and dislocation rates (p>0.05). Patient factors (preoperative AMTS, postoperative AMTS, preoperative mobility and ASA grade) had no effect on dislocation (p>0.05). Discussion. Our study which is reflective current implant choices, demonstrates that Thompson implants for HA after NOFs have a significantly higher dislocation rates than other common prostheses, and their continued use should be reconsidered. This effect has not been demonstrated in previous studies. Patient, implant construct and surgeon factors had little bearing on the subsequent dislocation rate

Background. Hip Hemiarthroplasty is one of the commonest orthopaedic operation done in UK with recent NHFD data from 2017 report showing that 43% of the 77000 patients who presented to hospital had hemiarthroplasty. Literature suggests dislocation rate of 0.8% – 6.1% for Hip Hemiarthroplasty. Dislocation of hemiarthroplasty may lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Aim. To investigate if acetabular dysplasia has a significant association with hemiarthroplasty dislocation. Methodology. Retrospective multicentre review. Review of radiographs of patients receiving a hip hemiarthroplasty for a hip fracture measuring Acetabular index (sharp angle) and Lateral Centre edge angle(CEA). A large acetabular index and lower value for the center-edge angle suggest acetabular dysplasia. Measurements were made for 20 patients with dislocation and 20 patients without dislocation. Statistical assessment of the results with unpaired t test was performed. Results. Mean acetabular angle for those with dislocation was 42.65 degrees versus 37.8 for those without dislocation giving a p value of 0.000861. Mean Center-edge angle of those with dislocation was 26.1 degrees versus 37 for those without dislocation giving a p value of 0.000019. Conclusion. This study showed that the hemiarthroplasty dislocation group had higher acetabular index and Lower Center-edge angle compared to the hemiarthroplasty group without dislocation clearly demonstrating that acetabular dysplasia is implicated in the aetiology of hip hemiarthroplasty dislocation. Hence careful review of the pre-op X-rays for dysplastic features would benefit in making a sound management plan