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

Despite the vast quantities of published artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that target trauma and orthopaedic applications, very few progress to inform clinical practice. One key reason for this is the lack of a clear pathway from development to deployment. In order to assist with this process, we have developed the Clinical Practice Integration of Artificial Intelligence (CPI-AI) framework – a five-stage approach to the clinical practice adoption of AI in the setting of trauma and orthopaedics, based on the IDEAL principles (https://www.ideal-collaboration.net/). Adherence to the framework would provide a robust evidence-based mechanism for developing trust in AI applications, where the underlying algorithms are unlikely to be fully understood by clinical teams.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):507–512.

An outpatient TKA program was developed by integrating advances in analgesia, rehabilitation, and minimally invasive surgical techniques with the objective of improving value in elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA) while maintaining quality standards. Previous studies have established the safety of outpatient TKA in selected populations, but the literature is devoid of outcome measures in these patients. Our goal was to investigate the quality of recovery, patient satisfaction, and safety profile in the first 90 days undergoing outpatient TKA. One hundred TKAs in 93 consecutive patients with end-stage arthritis of the knee candidate for primary TKA were enrolled in this prospective matched cohort study. Patients that underwent inpatient TKA (47 TKAs) were compared with patients that underwent planned outpatient TKA (53 TKAs). The following 28 day post-operative scores were recorded: quality of recovery (QoR-18) and pain scores by Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11). Satisfaction with pain control (0 to 10) and quantity of opioid use was collected. Secondary outcome measures of 90-day complications, readmissions, and emergency department (ED) visits were recorded. Ninety-six percent of patients planned for outpatient TKA met our defined multidisciplinary criteria for same-day discharge. QoR-18 at post-operative day one was statistically higher in the outpatient TKA group. Otherwise, outcome measures were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Two patients required overnight admission: 1 for extended motor-block and 1 for vasovagal syncope. There were 7 ED visits in the in the outpatient group and 4 in the inpatient group. One outpatient was admitted for irrigation and debridement with liner exchange for an acute infection 2 weeks post-operatively. One inpatient required manipulation under anesthesia at six weeks post-operatively. Outpatient TKA in selected patients produced a post-operative quality of recovery and patient satisfaction similar to that of inpatient TKA. Our results support that outpatient TKA is a safe alternative that should be considered due to its potential cost-savings and comparable recovery

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.