Aims. We assessed the value of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in the prediction of adverse outcome after hip fracture. Methods. Of 1,577 consecutive patients aged > 65 years with a fragility hip fracture admitted to one institution, for whom there were complete data, 1,255 (72%) were studied. Clinicians assigned CFS scores on admission. Audit personnel routinely prospectively completed the Standardised Audit of Hip Fracture in Europe form, including the following outcomes: 30-day survival; in-hospital complications; length of acute hospital stay; and new institutionalization. The relationship between the CFS scores and outcomes was examined graphically and the visual interpretations were tested statistically. The predictive values of the CFS and Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) to predict 30-day mortality were compared using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Results. Significant non-linear associations between CFS and outcomes were observed. Risk of death within 30 days rose linearly for CFS 1 to 5, but plateaued for CFS > 5. The incidence of complications and length of stay rose linearly for CFS 1 to 4, but plateaued for CFS > 4. In contrast, the risk of new institutionalization rose linearly for CFS 1 to 8. The AUCs for 30-day mortality for the CFS and NHFS were very similar: CFS AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.69) and NHFS AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.69). Conclusion. Use of the CFS may provide useful information on outcomes for fitter patients presenting with hip fracture, but completion of the CFS by the admitting orthopaedic team does not appear successful in distinguishing between higher CFS categories, which define patients with frailty. This makes a strong case for the role of the orthogeriatrician in the early assessment of these patients. Further work is needed to understand why patients assessed as being of mild, moderate, and severe frailty do not result in different outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):980–986

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care.

Aims

Hip fractures are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and costs. One strategy for improving outcomes is to incentivize hospitals to provide better quality of care. We aimed to determine whether a pay-for-performance initiative affected hip fracture outcomes in England by using Scotland, which did not participate in the scheme, as a control.

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.