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. We undertook an interrupted time series study with data from all patients aged more than 60 years with a hip fracture in England (2000 to 2018) using the Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC) data set linked to national death registrations. Difference-in-differences (DID) analysis incorporating equivalent data from the Scottish Morbidity Record was used to control for secular trends. The outcomes were 30-day and 365-day mortality, 30-day re-admission, time to operation, and acute length of stay.Aims
Materials and Methods
Health economic evaluations potentially provide
valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators,
and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions
about the care of patients. The highest quality research should
be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access
to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses
are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar
to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial
national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit
the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum
guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency
of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments
are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the
interpretation of results. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types
of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments
for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current
reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these
types of studies to Cite this article:
The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK. What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed? In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services.
The February 2015 Research Roundup360 looks at: Markers of post-traumatic ankle arthritis; Mangoes, trees and Solomon Islanders; Corticosteroid injection and ulnar neuropathy; Moral decision-making: the secret skill?; Biomechanical studies under the spotlight; Anaesthetic risk and hip replacement
The lack of a consensus for core health outcomes
that should be reported in clinical research has hampered study design
and evidence synthesis. We report a United Kingdom consensus for
a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of patients with a
hip fracture. We adopted a modified nominal group technique to derive consensus
on 1) which outcome domains should be measured, and 2) methods of
assessment. Participants reflected a diversity of perspectives and
experience. They received an evidence synthesis and postal questionnaire
in advance of the consensus meeting, and ranked the importance of
candidate domains and the relevance and suitability of short-listed
measures. During the meeting, pre-meeting source data and questionnaire
responses were summarised, followed by facilitated discussion and
a final plenary session. A COS was determined using a closed voting
system: a 70% consensus was required. Consensus supported a five-domain COS: mortality, pain, activities
of daily living, mobility, and health-related quality of life (HRQL).
Single-item measures of mortality and mobility (indoor/outdoor walking
status) and a generic multi-item measure of HRQL - the EuroQoL EQ-5D
- were recommended. These measures should be included as a minimum
in all hip fracture trials. Other outcome measures should be added
depending on the particular interventions being studied. Cite this article:
The aim of this study was to review the role
of clinical trial networks in orthopaedic surgery. A total of two
electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from inception
to September 2013 with no language restrictions. Articles related
to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), research networks and orthopaedic
research, were identified and reviewed. The usefulness of trainee-led
research collaborations is reported and our knowledge of current
clinical trial infrastructure further supplements the review. Searching
yielded 818 titles and abstracts, of which 12 were suitable for
this review. Results are summarised and presented narratively under
the following headings: 1) identifying clinically relevant research
questions; 2) education and training; 3) conduct of multicentre
RCTs and 4) dissemination and adoption of trial results. This review
confirms growing international awareness of the important role research
networks play in supporting trials in orthopaedic surgery. Multidisciplinary
collaboration and adequate investment in trial infrastructure are crucial
for successful delivery of RCTs. Cite this article:
Peri-prosthetic femoral fracture after total hip replacement (THR) is associated with a poor outcome and high mortality. However, little is known about its long-term incidence after uncemented THR. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 326 patients (354 hips) who had received a CLS Spotorno replacement with an uncemented, straight, collarless tapered titanium stem between January 1985 and December 1989. The mean follow-up was 17 years (15 to 20). The occurrence of peri-prosthetic femoral fracture during follow-up was noted. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of fracture. At the last follow-up, 86 patients (89 hips) had died and eight patients (eight hips) had been lost to follow-up. A total of 14 fractures in 14 patients had occurred. In ten hips, the femoral component had to be revised and in four the fracture was treated by open reduction and internal fixation. The cumulative incidence of peri-prosthetic femoral fracture was 1.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.8) at ten years and 4.5% (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 8.0) at 17 years after the primary THR. There was no association between the occurrence of fracture and gender or age at the time of the primary replacement. Our findings indicate that peri-prosthetic femoral fracture is a significant mode of failure in the long term after the insertion of an uncemented CLS Spotorno stem. Revision rates for this fracture rise in the second decade. Further research is required to investigate the risk factors involved in the occurrence of late peri-prosthetic femoral fracture after the implantation of any uncemented stem, and to assess possible methods of prevention.
Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice. Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive. Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged. The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.
