We describe the impact of a targeted performance improvement programme and the associated performance improvement interventions, on mortality rates, error rates and process of care for haemodynamically unstable patients with pelvic fractures. Clinical care and performance improvement data for 185 adult patients with exsanguinating pelvic trauma presenting to a United Kingdom Major Trauma Centre between January 2007 and January 2011 were analysed with univariate and multivariate regression and compared with National data. In total 62 patients (34%) died from their injuries and opportunities for improved care were identified in one third of deaths.

Three major interventions were introduced during the study period in response to the findings. These were a massive haemorrhage protocol, a decision-making algorithm and employment of specialist pelvic orthopaedic surgeons. Interventions which improved performance were associated with an annual reduction in mortality (odds ratio 0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.93), p = 0.02), a reduction in error rates (p = 0.024) and significant improvements in the targeted processes of care. Exsanguinating patients with pelvic trauma are complex to manage and are associated with high mortality rates; implementation of a targeted performance improvement programme achieved sustained improvements in mortality, error rates and trauma care in this group of severely injured patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1090–7.

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.