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

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

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

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 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

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

Hip fracture is a common injury with a high associated mortality. Many recommendations regarding timing of operative intervention exist for patients with such injuries. The Best Practice Tariff was introduced in England and Wales in 2010, offering financial incentives for surgery undertaken within 36 hours of admission. The England and Wales National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidance states that surgery should be performed on the day or day after admission. Due to lack of clear evidence, this recommendation is based on Humanitarian grounds. NICE have called for further research into the effect of surgical timing on mortality. We utilised data from the National Hip Fracture database prospectively collected between 2007 and 2015, comprising 413,063 hip fractures. Using 11 variables, both Cox and Logistic regression analysis was used to establish the effect on mortality of each 12 hour interval from admission to surgery. For each 12 hour time frame from admission to surgery a trend for improved 30 day survival was demonstrated the earlier the surgery was performed. However, this did not reach significance until beyond 48 hours (Hazard ratio of 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04–1.20). Surgery after 48 hours suffered significantly higher chance of mortality compared to surgery done within 12 hours. This is the largest analysis undertaken to date. Lowest mortality rates are found within the 0–12 hour window. After 48 hours there is a significant increased risk of mortality compared to the 0–12 hour time frame. As such, expeditious surgery within 48 hours can be justified both on humanitarian and survivorship grounds. Hip fracture surgery performed within 48 hours is associated with reduced mortality when compared to that beyond this time. This is in agreement with Blue Book recommendations and extends the currently recommended NICE and Best Practice Tariff targets of 36 hours

Aims

We present an audit comparing our level I major trauma centre’s data for a cohort of patients with hip fractures in the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) with locally held data on these patients.

We have a national UK database for hip fracture outcome. It has been developed synchronously with an agreed care pathway that is multi-disciplinary, including surgeons, anaesthetists, geriatricians, osteoporosis experts, healthcare managers and lay charities. Care has been improved and audit established for future evolution.

The database started in 2007 and now includes 85 units. The synchronous care pathway deals with falls and osteoporosis prevention, perioperative multi-disciplinary care, rehabilitation and outcome results.

Key issues are avoidance of delay and cancellation of surgery and how we deal with patients with medical co-morbidities. Outcome is analysed prospectively to take account of co-morbidities and variations in surgical techniques.

The care pathway and data base are now universally accepted as a national priority with advice for all UK trauma units to participate. Of the 121 registered units, only 85 actively contribute data. The cost and staff needs for data input are now accepted. To date, 12,983 clinical cases have been entered. Variation of trauma theatre list operating time per head of population and other related resource has been highlighted. This has been accepted by politicians and health managers. The NHS Institute of Improvement has started a rapid improvement plan to support units with poor resource/audit outcome. It is early days in terms of validity of outcome data for technical variations in treatment eg. fixation/replacement/use of bone cement.

We have a national increase in resouce for hip fractures. We now have some logic to interaction between surgeons and medics/managers. Objectively struggling units get active support. We accept the possible lack of validity of some outcome data. Some units who look bad on paper should not be disadvantaged.

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

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

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

Aims. Hip fracture commonly affects the frailest patients, of whom many are care-dependent, with a disproportionate risk of contracting COVID-19. We examined the impact of COVID-19 infection on hip fracture mortality in England. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of patients with hip fracture recorded in the National Hip Fracture Database between 1 February 2019 and 31 October 2020 in England. Data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics to quantify patient characteristics and comorbidities, Office for National Statistics mortality data, and Public Health England’s SARS-CoV-2 testing results. Multivariable Cox regression examined determinants of 90-day mortality. Excess mortality attributable to COVID-19 was quantified using Quasi-Poisson models. Results. Analysis of 102,900 hip fractures (42,630 occurring during the pandemic) revealed that among those with COVID-19 infection at presentation (n = 1,120) there was a doubling of 90-day mortality; hazard ratio (HR) 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89 to 2.31), while the HR for infections arising between eight and 30 days after presentation (n = 1,644) the figure was greater at 2.51 (95% CI 2.31 to 2.73). Malnutrition (1.45 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.77)) and nonoperative treatment (2.94 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.95)) were the only modifiable risk factors for death in COVID-19-positive patients. Patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 more than two weeks prior to hip fracture initially had better survival compared to those who contracted COVID-19 around the time of their hip fracture; however, survival rapidly declined and by 365 days the combination of hip fracture and COVID-19 infection was associated with a 50% mortality rate. Between 1 January and 30 June 2020, 1,273 (99.7% CI 1,077 to 1,465) excess deaths occurred within 90 days of hip fracture, representing an excess mortality of 23% (99.7% CI 20% to 26%), with most deaths occurring within 30 days. Conclusion. COVID-19 infection more than doubles the rate of early hip fracture mortality. Those contracting infection between 8 and 30 days after initial presentation are at even higher mortality risk, signalling the potential for targeted interventions during this period to improve survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1156–1167

Within an ageing population, the morbidity and mortality burden of neck of femur fractures will only worsen. Financially incentivising acute Trusts via the Best Practice Tariff for inpatient care has yielded good results(1,2,3,4) but post-discharge care is still variable. Most importantly, restoring patients to their pre-fracture mobility is key to their quality of life(5,6) and reducing both readmissions to hospital(7,8) and expensive local authority residential care. Unfortunately, physiotherapist vacancies are in their thousands(9,10) leading to waiting times of around three months once discharged(11). In 2019, the Royal Derby Hospital created a novel Hip Fracture Patient Advocate (HFPA) to observe those who have fallen through gaps in community services. It involves monitoring patients’ progression, signposting to appropriate services, flagging issues to the responsible consultant and assisting in physical mobilisation. A retrospective review examined data from patients discharged to their own homes. This included demographics, residential status and mobility, both pre-fracture and at 120 days post-fracture. Mobility was classified into five categories, in line with the national hip fracture database. In 2018, of 238 patients, 41.2% returned to their baseline or increased mobility, and, after the introduction of the HFPA in 2019, this figure increased to 48.2%. In one year, there was a 7% increase in patients recovering their baseline mobility. This is a cost-effective intervention that can successfully improve mobility, leading to improved long-term outcomes. This includes the potential to reduce acute readmissions and the need for residential care, appealing to Integrated Care Boards. It also bridges the gap to primary care to optimise medical management and after further development, could be financially-incentivised via the Best Practice Tariff. Rather than thinking more expensive clinicians are required, this study proposes that a HFPA can garner better outcomes for both the patient and the wider system

Following the establishment of regional Major Trauma Networks in England in 2012, there were concerns that pressures regarding resource allocation in Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) may have a detrimental impact on the care of patients with hip fractures in these hospitals. This study aimed to compare outcomes in hip fracture care between MTCs and trauma units (TUs). National Hip Fracture Database data was extracted from 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2022 for all hospitals in England. Outcome measures included perioperative medical and physiotherapy assessments, time to surgery, consultant supervision in theatre, Best Practice Tariff (BPT) compliance, discharge to original residence, and mortality. Data was pooled and weighted for MTCs and remaining hospitals (TUs). A total of 487,089 patients with hip fractures were included from 167 hospitals (23 MTCs and 144 TUs). MTCs achieved marginally higher rates of orthogeriatrician assessment within 72 hours of admission (91.1% vs 90.4%, p<0.001) and mobilisation out of bed by first postoperative day (81.9% vs 79.7%, p<0.001). A lower proportion of patients underwent surgery by the day after admission in MTCs (65.2% vs 69.7%, p<0.001). However, there was significantly higher consultant surgeon and anaesthetist supervision rates during surgery in MTCs (71.8% vs 61.6%, p<0.001). There was poorer compliance with BPT criteria in MTCs (57.3% vs 60.4%, p<0.001), and proportionately fewer MTC patients were discharged to their original residence (63.5% vs 60.4%, p<0.001). There was no difference between MTCs and TUs in 30-day mortality (6.8% vs 6.8%, p=0.825). This study demonstrates that MTCs have greater difficulty in providing prompt surgery to hip fracture patients. However, their marginally superior perioperative care outcomes appear to compensate for this, as their mortality rates are similar to TUs. These findings suggest that the regionalisation of major trauma in England has not significantly compromised the overall care of hip fracture patients

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of hospital-level service characteristics on hip fracture outcomes and quality of care processes measures. Methods. This was a retrospective analysis of publicly available audit data obtained from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) 2018 benchmark summary and Facilities Survey. Data extraction was performed using a dedicated proforma to identify relevant hospital-level care process and outcome variables for inclusion. The primary outcome measure was adjusted 30-day mortality rate. A random forest-based multivariate imputation by chained equation (MICE) algorithm was used for missing value imputation. Univariable analysis for each hospital level factor was performed using a combination of Tobit regression, Siegal non-parametric linear regression, and Mann-Whitney U test analyses, dependent on the data type. In all analyses, a p-value < 0.05 denoted statistical significance. Results. Analyses included 176 hospitals, with a median of 366 hip fracture cases per year (interquartile range (IQR) 280 to 457). Aggregated data from 66,578 patients were included. The only identified hospital-level variable associated with the primary outcome of 30-day mortality was hip fracture trial involvement (no trial involvement: median 6.3%; trial involvement: median 5.7%; p = 0.039). Significant key associations were also identified between prompt surgery and presence of dedicated hip fracture sessions; reduced acute length of stay and both a higher number of hip fracture cases per year and more dedicated hip fracture operating lists; Best Practice Tariff attainment and greater number of hip fracture cases per year, more dedicated hip fracture operating lists, presence of a dedicated hip fracture ward, and hip fracture trial involvement. Conclusion. Exploratory analyses have identified that improved outcomes in hip fracture may be associated with hospital-level service characteristics, such as hip fracture research trial involvement, larger hip fracture volumes, and the use of theatre lists dedicated to hip fracture surgery. Further research using patient level data is warranted to corroborate these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1627–1632

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

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

Aims. Postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative cognitive decline (POCD) are common surgical complications. In the UK, the Best Practice Tariff incentivizes the screening of delirium in patients with hip fracture. Further, a National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) performance indicator is the reduction in the incidence of POD. To aid in its recognition, we sought to determine factors associated with POD and POCD in patients with hip fractures. Methods. We interrogated the NHFD data on patients presenting with hip fractures to our institution from 2016 to 2018. POD was determined using the 4AT score, as recommended by the NHFD and UK Department of Health. POCD was defined as a decline in Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) of two or greater. Using logistic regression, we adjusted for covariates to identify factors associated with POD and POCD. Results. Of the 1,224 patients presenting in the study period, 1,023 had complete datasets for final analysis. POD was observed in 242 patients (25%). On multivariate analysis only preoperative AMTS and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (ASA) were independent predictors of POD. Every point increase in AMTS was associated with a fall in the odds of POD by a factor of 0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.63, p < 0.001). Every grade increase in ASA led to a 1.7-fold increase in the odds of POD (95% CI 1.13 to 2.50, p = 0.009). A preoperative AMTS of less than 8 was strongly predictive of POD with area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.86 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.89). Only ASA was predictive of POCD—every grade increase in ASA led to a 2.6-fold increase in the odds of POCD (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0, p < 0.001). Conclusion. POD and POCD are common in the hip fracture patients. Preoperative AMTS and ASA are strong predictors of POD, and ASA predictive of POCD. This may aid in the earlier identification of those most at risk and suited for the patient consent and decision-making process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1675–1681