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

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

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

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

Total hip replacement (THR) is NICE recommended for a group of patients with neck of femur fracture (NOF) and guidance published in 2011. In our institution a Hip Fracture Program was established at this time to improve patient care. An audit of the Hip Fracture Program, appropriateness of THR and management following THR was undertaken and compared to NICE standards, set at 100%, and National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) results. The case-notes for 53 patients (38 female, 15 male) undergoing THR for NOF between 2011 and 2013 were reviewed: median age 70 yrs (34–87), follow-up 28 months (3–57). All patients were initiated on a Hip Fracture Program. 92% were eligible for THR according to NICE guidance. Pre-operative pain management (67%), hourly assessment of pain in ED (4%), surgery with 48 hours (32%), pre-operative orthogeriatric review (58%) and intra-operative nerve block (38%) are areas for development, but most results are comparable to NHFD. Post-operative care is satisfactory with daily mobilisation (87%) and post-operative pain management (100%). No post-operative dislocation or infection was recorded. There was one case of post-operative DVT. This study highlights areas for improvement in hip fracture management and emphasises the benefits in implementing a Hip Fracture Program in this vulnerable patient population

The majority of hip fracture patients receive operative treatment, although the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) 2012 suggest 2.6% were treated conservatively. One of only a few published reports on the outcomes of these patients has demonstrated that mortality rates beyond 30 days remain comparable to patients receiving surgery. We have assessed the outcomes of conservatively managed patients in our unit. Patients treated conservatively at our hospital between 2010 and 2012 inclusive were identified using the NHFD. Data collection included mobility status, ASA grade, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS), mortality (30 days and 1 year) and pain scores. The study group (N=31) had a mean age 85, mean ASA was 4 and mean NHFS mortality risk 21.3%. Morbidity included one case of pneumonia and one infection from another source, however there were no pressure sores or VTE. Three patients later received surgery once their health had improved. Pain control was achieved in 91% patients (21/23) and although mobility decreased, 34.8% of patients were able to mobilise with either two aids or a frame. Given the selection bias for conservative treatment in unwell patients, the higher mortality figure is not unexpected. Although the 30 day mortality data is higher than the national average for operative management, those patients surviving 30 days have a mortality similar to those managed operatively. Despite mobility decreasing from the pre-admission status, a significant number of patients were pain free and could mobilise. Therefore conservative management can produce acceptable results in these patients

The Dawn Hip - An Effective Strategy to Improve the Management of Traumatic Hip Fractures. Introduction. Traumatic hip fractures are managed with nationwide standards, and are regularly audited and published. A previous audit last year at the William Harvey revealed 66% of hip fractures were operated within 48 hours, compared to the national average of 75%. We implemented a strategy to improve this target by introducing the ‘Dawn Hip’ - a hip fracture operation which is prepared for surgery at 8am on the Emergency (CEPOD) list. Methods. Over a two month period after the introduction of the ‘Dawn hip’, the number of hip operations and start time on the CEPOD list were audited. Performance data were extrapolated from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) and compared nationally. Results. Three months prior to the ‘Dawn hip’ the mean start time of surgery on the CEPOD list was 9.50am. Two months since the introduction of the dawn hip, 67% of all trauma hip operations were done on the CEPOD list. The mean start time of the CEPOD list improved to 8.38am. Data from the NHFD revealed 81% of traumatic hip fractures were operated on within 48 hours, with the national average being 80%. Conclusion. This is an effective strategy which increases efficiency of existing resources and improves hospital services and patient care. It requires a multidisciplinary approach and participation from both managerial and clinical departments. This strategy not only optimises the care we provide for hip fractures, but also increases trauma list space for other pending trauma operations. By meeting nationwide targets, the trust is rewarded with cash incentives, which is used to further improve services. In the current economic climate, this represents a method of optimising healthcare, increasing cost savings and maximising productivity and efficiency

Aims

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence of hip fracture has not changed. Evidence has shown increased mortality rates associated with COVID-19 infection. However, little is known about the outcomes of COVID-19 negative patients in a pandemic environment. In addition, the impact of vitamin D levels on mortality in COVID-19 hip fracture patients has yet to be determined.