Identifying Disparities in the Management of Hip Fractures Within Europe: A Comparison of 3 Health-Care Systems

Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries

PURPOSE

Hip fractures are of growing interest due to their increasing number, subsequent functional decline and high institutionalization rate of patients, mortality, and costs. Several process measurements are essential for hip fracture care. To compare and improve these, hip fracture registries in Europe became popular. This systematic review aims to describe the differences between hip fracture registries in Europe as well as the differences in hip fracture treatment between countries.

METHODS

A systematic search using the keywords "hip fracture" AND "national" AND "database OR audit OR registry OR register" was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library according to PRISMA guidelines till 3rd December 2020. Recent annual reports of identified hip fracture registries in Europe were additionally identified in June 2021. Comparisons of most common case-mix, process and outcome measurements were performed.

RESULTS

11 registries in Europe were identified. Differences were observed regarding inclusion criteria of the different registries. Comparison of the different registries was difficult due to differences in the way to report measurements. While mortality rates differed substantially between countries, most of the process measurements met recommendations according to recent guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Hip fracture registries were a valid tool to compare hospitals within one country. However, a comparison between registries of different countries should have also been easily possible. For this, the registries need to make their data easily accessible and further unify their way of measuring and reporting.

Variations in hip fracture inpatient care in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan: an analysis of health administrative data

BACKGROUND

Little is known about hip fracture inpatient care in East Asia. This study examined the characteristics of patients, hospitals, and regions associated with delivery of hip fracture surgeries across Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. We also analyzed and compared how the resource use and a short-term outcome of the care in index hospitals varied according to factors in the respective health systems.

METHODS

We developed comparable, nationwide, individual-level health insurance claims datasets linked with hospital- and regional-level statistics across the health systems using common protocols. Generalized linear multi-level analyses were conducted on length of stay (LOS) and total cost of index hospitalization as well as inpatient death.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were female and aged 75 or older. The standardized LOS of the hospitalization for hip fracture surgery was 32.5 (S.D. = 18.7) days in Japan, 24.7 (S.D. = 12.4) days in Korea, and 7.1 (S.D. = 2.9) days in Taiwan. The total cost per admission also widely varied across the systems. Hospitals with a high volume of hip fracture surgeries had a lower LOS across all three systems, while other factors associated with LOS and total cost varied across countries.

CONCLUSION

There were wide variations in resource use for hip fracture surgery in the index hospital within and across the three health systems with similar social health insurance schemes in East Asia. Further investigations into the large variations are necessary, along with efforts to overcome the methodological challenges of international comparisons of health system performance.

Trends in Irish hip fracture surgery over a 7-year period and international registry comparison

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Timely surgical fixation and early mobilisation are the cornerstone to successful outcomes. The Irish Hip Fracture Database (IHFD) was established in 2012 and publishes annual reports on hip fracture care. This paper describes the trends in surgical fixation in Ireland during a 7-year period (2013-2019), assesses for compliance with guidelines and compares the most recent published reports from ten international hip fracture registries.

METHODS

All published IHFD reports were systematically reviewed and tabulated. Data corresponding to demographics, fracture type, surgical fixation and post-operative management was plotted and analysed. Ten international hip fracture registries were identified and reviewed. Data was extracted corresponding to the IHFD dataset.

RESULTS

A total of 21,684 hip fractures were recorded during this period. The majority of patients were female (70.16%), >80 years old (58.26%), admitted from their own home (82.13%) and ASA grade 3 (53%). The majority of undisplaced and displaced intracapsular fractures were treated with hemiarthroplasty, 62% and 88% respectively. There has been a decline in the use of dynamic hip screw (DHS) for intertrochanteric fractures with intramedullary nails being favoured.

CONCLUSION

Despite greater awareness of hip fracture care through the IHFD and the introduction of Best Practice Tariffs (BPT), further improvements are needed. Ireland compares well to international standards but has low rates of compliance to NICE guidelines for surgical fixation.

Key Service Improvements After the Introduction of an Integrated Orthogeriatric Service

Introduction:

Models of orthogeriatric care have been shown to improve functional outcomes for patients after hip fractures and can improve compliance with best practice guidelines for hip fracture care.

Methods:

We evaluated improvements to key performance indicators in hip fracture care after implementation of a formal orthogeriatric service. Compliance with Irish Hip Fracture standards of care was reviewed, and additional outcomes such as length of stay, access to rehabilitation, and discharge destination were evaluated.

Results:

Improvements were observed in all of the hip fracture standards of care. Mean length of stay decreased from 19 to 15.5 days (mean difference 3.5 days; P < .05). A higher proportion of patients were admitted to rehabilitation (16.7% vs 7.9%, P < .05), and this happened in a timelier fashion (17.8 vs 24.8 days, P < .05). We found that less patients required convalescence post-hip fracture.

Discussion:

A standardized approach to integrated post-hip fracture care with orthogeriatrics has improved standards of care for patients.

Conclusion:

Introduction of orthogeriatric services has resulted in meaningful improvements in clinical outcomes for older people with hip fractures.