Evaluating the efficacy of a two-site ('COVID-19' and 'COVID-19-free') trauma and orthopaedic service for the management of hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK

Determinants of quality in the independent and public hospital sectors in England

BACKGROUND

Increasing the use of independent providers has been proposed as a solution to the long waiting times at public hospitals generated by the postpandemic backlog for elective care. However, the profit-maximizing aims of some independent providers may risk cost-cutting behaviours and reduced care quality. Empirical evidence on the extent to which these concerns are borne out in practice is sparse. We aim to examine the quality of acute hospital care provided by the public and independent hospital sectors in England and explore the drivers of variation in quality.

METHODS

We construct a unique dataset collating publicly available Care Quality Commission (CQC) quality ratings of independent and public acute hospitals as of December 2022 and 2020. We link these to regional deprivation indices, population estimates, average household disposable incomes, and referral to treatment (RTT) data. We first categorize providers into National Health Service (NHS) and independent hospitals to analyse the association of ownership with quality ratings. To analyse ownership further, we then subcategorize independent hospitals further and consider whether the organization provides NHS-commissioned care. Thus, hospitals were categorized into seven mutually exclusive categories: NHS provider, commissioned charity, commissioned brand, commissioned independent other, noncommissioned charity, noncommissioned brand, and noncommissioned independent other. We use linear and ordered logistic regression models to assess the association of ownership with quality ratings. In supplementary analysis, we examine consistency over time by comparing the effects on 2022 ratings and 2020 ratings.

RESULTS

Of the 283 NHS hospitals, 47.3% (N = 134) was rated 'Good' and 41.0% (N = 116) was rated as 'Requires Improvement'. Of the 453 independent hospitals, 82.3% (N = 373) was rated 'Good' and 9.5% (N = 43) was rated as 'Requires Improvement'. On average, independent hospitals had 0.205 (Standard Error [SE] = 0.0581) higher category quality ratings than NHS providers. All types of NHS-commissioned independent sector hospitals had higher average quality ratings than NHS hospitals, as did noncommissioned branded hospitals. Quality ratings were negatively related to the number of different services provided, suggesting that specialization is associated with higher quality.

CONCLUSION

We find higher quality ratings for independent providers providing NHS-funded care, branded providers, and providers with a narrower range of services. We find no evidence to suggest that outsourced patients will experience lower quality care, although cream-skimming could still be detrimental for NHS services if they are left with a more complex case mix. Overall, our results taken together suggest that the increasing number of NHS patients treated in the independent sector does not experience a worse quality of care, especially if providers specialize in a limited number of services.

The impact of NHS outsourcing of elective care to the independent sector on outcomes for patients, healthcare professionals and the United Kingdom health care system: A rapid narrative review of literature

The NHS is increasingly turning to the independent sector, primarily to alleviate elective care backlogs. However, implications for the healthcare system, patients and staff are not well understood. This paper provides a rapid narrative review of research evidence on NHS-funded elective care in the independent sector (IS) and the impact on patients, professionals, and the health care system. The aim was to identify the volume and evaluate the quality of the literature whilst providing a narrative synthesis. Studies were identified through Medline, CINAHL, Econlit, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The quality of the included studies was assessed in relation to study design, sample size, relevance, methodology and methodological strength, outcomes and outcome reporting, and risk of bias. Our review included 40 studies of mixed quality. Many studies used quantitative data to analyse outcome trends across and between sectors. Independent sector providers (ISPs) can provide high-volume and low-complexity elective care of equivalent quality to the NHS, whilst reducing waiting times in certain contexts. However it is clear that the provision of NHS-funded elective care in the IS has a range of implications for public provision. These surround access and outcome inequalities, financial sustainability and NHS workforce impacts. It will subsequently be important for future empirical work to incorporate these caveats, providing a more nuanced interpretation of quantitative improvements.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Prevalence, Mortality, and Associated Risk Factors for Mortality in Patients with Hip Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess (1) the prevalence of COVID-19 in patients with hip fracture; (2) the mortality rate of patients with hip fracture associated with COVID-19; (3) risk factors associated with mortality in patients with hip fracture; and (4) the effects of COVID-19 on surgical outcomes of patients with hip fracture.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with hip fractures during COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically reviewed. The outcomes included the prevalence of COVID-19, case fatality rate, 30-day mortality, cause of death, risk factors associated with the mortality of patients with hip fracture, time to surgery, surgical time, and length of hospitalization. Risk ratio or weight mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were used to pool the estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 60 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimate showed that the prevalence of COVID-19 was 21% in patents with hip fractures. Patients with hip fracture with COVID-19 had an increased 30-day mortality risk compared with those without the infection. The main causes of death were respiratory failure, COVID-19-associated pneumonia, multiorgan failure, and non-COVID-19 pneumonia. The hospitalization was longer in patients with COVID-19 when compared with those without the infection, but was shorter in patients during the pandemic period. The surgery time and time to surgery were not significantly different between patients during or before the pandemic period and in those with or without COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with hip fracture with COVID-19 infection than those without. Patients with COVID-19 had a higher all-cause mortality rate than those without. This information can be used by the medical community to guide the management of patients with hip fracture with COVID-19.

Comparing the 30-Day Mortality for Hip Fractures in Patients with and without COVID-19: An Updated Meta-Analysis

We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the 30-day mortality of hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess mortality rates by country. We systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2022 for studies on the 30-day mortality of hip fractures during the pandemic. Two reviewers used the Newcastle-Ottawa tool to independently assess the methodological quality of the included studies. We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review including 40 eligible studies with 17,753 patients with hip fractures, including 2280 patients with COVID-19 (12.8%). The overall 30-day mortality rate for hip fractures during the pandemic was 12.6% from published studies. The 30-day mortality of patients with hip fractures who had COVID-19 was significantly higher than those without COVID-19 (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 5.51-9.15; I2 = 57%). The hip fracture mortality rate increased during the pandemic and varied by country, with the highest rates found in Europe, particularly the United Kingdom (UK) and Spain. COVID-19 may have contributed to the increased 30-day mortality rate in hip fracture patients. The mortality rate of hip fracture in patients without COVID-19 did not change during the pandemic.

[Treatment of periprosthetic fractures in Europe during the pandemic]

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of reorganization of European hospitals during the most severe phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on standards of care and early outcomes in patients with periprosthetic fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed available data collected from 14 hospitals in Northern Italy during the quarantine period between March 9 and May 4, 2020. The study included all patients admitted to emergency departments with periprosthetic fractures and scheduled for surgery within a 2-month period. Periprosthetic fractures were classified according to the Uniform Classification System (UCS). Distribution normality was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Accordingly, data were described as non-parametric. Statistical analysis was performed using the Microsoft Excel v. 16.0.

RESULTS

In total, 1390 patients admitted to the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology for emergency care throughout the follow-up period including 38 (2.7%) ones with periprosthetic fractures. There were 12 (31.5%) men and 26 (68.5%) women. Mean age was 81 years (range 70-96). Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by swab was performed in 23 out of 38 patients (60.5%) at admission. It was positive in 2 (5.3%) cases. Three out of thirty-eight patients (7.9%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 due to clinical signs. Of these, 2 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 before surgery, 3 patients - after surgery. Although the study period coincided with quarantine, the number of admissions for periprosthetic fractures (3%) was similar to that in 2019 and accounted for 3% of the total number of visits to the traumatology and orthopedics departments.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed no obvious changes in hospitalizations for periprosthetic fractures despite social restrictions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. In emergency, hospitals were still able to provide standard care for patients with periprosthetic fractures despite significant amount of resources redirected for the pandemic.

Hip Fracture Surgery in Trinidad and Tobago During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of Two Patients Treated in the Parallel Healthcare System

The rapid spread of the deadly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has fundamentally affected healthcare delivery globally. As governments struggled to preserve life, several approaches to healthcare delivery have emerged. Central to limiting viral transmission is the separation of patients based on their COVID-19 status. Studies have shown that a geographically separate dual-site service is preferable, contingent upon the local infrastructure and circumstances. Despite the restrictions on free movement, most studies indicate that low-energy hip fractures in elderly patients have remained relatively constant throughout the pandemic. Arguably these patients represent the most vulnerable subgroup in society and are susceptible to developing severe COVID-19 respiratory disease.

In keeping with global recommendations, the government of Trinidad and Tobago devised a parallel healthcare system to limit the spread of disease. All regional health authorities under the Ministry of Health were at liberty to implement the system in a manner best suited for their particular infrastructure leading to highly variable practices among institutions. This report describes the clinical course of two hip fracture patients treated within the parallel healthcare system at different regional health authorities. Analysis of these cases provides an understanding of the potential risks to patients entering the parallel healthcare system and an insight into preventative measures to improve clinical outcomes.

Rate of COVID-19 infection and 30 day mortality between blue and green (dedicated COVID-19 safe) pathways: Results from phase 1 and 2 of the UK foot and ankle COVID-19 national (UK-FAlCoN) audit

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to determine the differences in COVID-19 infection rate and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery between different treatment pathways over the two phases of the UK-FALCON audit, spanning the first and second UK national lockdowns.

SETTING

This was an ambispective (retrospective Phase 1 and prospective Phase 2) national audit of foot and ankle procedures in the UK in 2020 completed between 13th January 2020 and 30th November 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included from 46 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were categorised as either a green pathway (designated COVID-19 free) or blue pathway (no protocols to prevent COVID-19 infection).

RESULTS

10,846 patients were included, 6644 from phase 1 and 4202 from phase 2. Over the 2 phases the infection rate on a blue pathway was 1.07% (69/6470) and 0.21% on a green pathway (9/4280). In phase 1, there was no significant difference in the COVID-19 perioperative infection rate between the blue and green pathways in any element of the first phase (pre-lockdown (p = .109), lockdown (p = .923) or post-lockdown (p = .577)). However, in phase 2 there was a significant reduction in perioperative infection rate when using the green pathway in both the pre-lockdown (p < .001) and lockdown periods (Odd's Ratio 0.077, p < .001). There was no significant difference in COVID-19 related mortality between pathways.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a five-fold reduction in the perioperative COVID-19 infection rate when using designated COVID-19 green pathways over the whole study period; however the success of the pathways only became significant in phase 2 of the study, where there was a 13-fold reduction in infection rate. The study shows a developing success to using green pathways in reducing the risk to patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery.

Post-fracture care programs for prevention of subsequent fragility fractures: a literature assessment of current trends

Post-fracture care (PFC) programs evaluate and manage patients with a minimal trauma or fragility fracture to prevent subsequent fractures. We conducted a literature review to understand current trends in PFC publications, evaluate key characteristics of PFC programs, and assess their clinical effectiveness, geographic variations, and cost-effectiveness. We performed a search for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2003 and December 2020 listed in PubMed or Google Scholar. We categorized identified articles into 4 non-mutually exclusive PFC subtopics based on keywords and abstract content: PFC Types, PFC Effectiveness/Success, PFC Geography, and PFC Economics. The literature search identified 784 eligible articles. Most articles fit into multiple PFC subtopics (PFC Types, 597; PFC Effectiveness/Success, 579; PFC Geography, 255; and PFC Economics, 98). The number of publications describing how PFC programs can improve osteoporosis treatment rates has markedly increased since 2003; however, publication gaps remain, including low numbers of publications from some countries with reported high rates of osteoporosis and/or hip fractures. Fracture liaison services and geriatric/orthogeriatric services were the most common models of PFC programs, and both were shown to be cost-effective. We identified a need to expand and refine PFC programs and to standardize patient identification and reporting on quality improvement measures. Although there is an increasing awareness of the importance of PFC programs, publication gaps remain in most countries. Improvements in established PFC programs and implementation of new PFC programs are still needed to enhance equitable patient care to prevent occurrence of subsequent fractures.

Single vs Dual-site service reconfiguration during Covid-19 pandemic - A tertiary care centre experience in hip fractures and a Scoping review

Aims and objectives

The Covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on surgical practice and healthcare delivery globally. We compared the impact of the care pathways which segregate Covid-19 Positive and Negative patients into two geographically separate sites, on hip fracture patients in our high-volume trauma center in 3 distinct eras - the pre-pandemic period, against the first Covid-19 wave with dual-site service design, as well as the subsequent surge with single-site service delivery. In addition, we sought to invoke similar experiences of centres worldwide through a scoping literature review on the current evidence on "Dual site" reconfigurations in response to Covid-19 pandemic.

Methods

We prospectively reviewed our hip fracture patients throughout the two peaks of the pandemic, with different service designs for each, and compared the outcomes with a historic service provision. Further, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using several databases for articles discussing Dual-site service redesign.

Results

In our in-house study, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality of hip fracture patients between the 3 periods, as well as their discharge destinations. With dual-site reconfiguration, patients took longer to reach theatre. However, there was much more nosocomial transmission with single-site service, and patients stayed in the hospital longer. 24 articles pertaining to the topic were selected for the scoping review. Most studies favour dual-site service reorganization, and reported beneficial outcomes from the detached care pathways.

Conclusion

It is safe to continue urgent as well as non-emergency surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic in a separate, geographically isolated site.

Short-Term Hip Fracture Outcomes during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction  Despite many significant changes as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and reductions in overall trauma workload, patients with fragility hip fractures continued to present to hospital. As we plan for ongoing service provision during future waves of the pandemic, valuable lessons can be learned from patients that have been treated surgically during the “first wave.”

Methods  All patients admitted to our center (a busy District General Hospital in London, United Kingdom) with a hip fracture during a 13-week period representing the initial rise (“United Kingdom first wave”) in COVID-19 cases, from February 17 ^th to May 17 ^th , 2020 (study group) were compared with hip fracture patients from the equivalent 13-week period in February to May 2019 (control group). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and additional information was collected in terms of length of stay (LOS), SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing, and cause of death.

Results  During the COVID-19 study period, 69 patients were admitted with a hip fracture, compared with 70 patients in the control group ( p  = 0.949). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups (5.8 vs. 7.1%, p  = 0.747). Mean LOS was shorter in the COVID-19 period compared with the control group (11.6 vs. 19.6 days, p <0.001, effect size 0.572).

Forty-six patients (66.7%) had a SARS-CoV-2 antigen swab test, as testing was not available in the early period, and 10 patients (14.5%) tested positive. None of the patients, who presented before the antigen testing was available, had clinical suspicion of COVID-19 retrospectively. Two “COVID-19 positive” patients (20%) died within 30 days of admission.

Conclusion  We report reassuring short-term results demonstrating no statistically significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate of hip fracture patients admitted during the United Kingdom's first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the equivalent period in the previous year. Hip fracture incidence remained stable, and LOS was reduced, likely due to recent departmental changes as well as a drive to discharge patients quickly during the pandemic. We agree with existing reports that elderly hip fracture patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of perioperative mortality, however, our results suggest that overall mortality for the whole hip fracture population was similar to the previous year, in which deaths were more commonly attributed to respiratory infections associated with other pathogens. Further work may be needed to evaluate the outcomes during subsequent waves of the pandemic as mutations in the virus and conditions may affect outcomes.

Hip fracture care during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort and literature review

Objectives:

The goal of this study was to investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected hip fracture care at a Level I Trauma hospital. The secondary goal was to summarize the published hip fracture reports during the pandemic.

Design:

A retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

Level I Trauma Center.

Patients/Participants:

Eighty-six operatively treated hip fracture patients age ≥65 years, occurring from January 17 to July 2, 2020.

Intervention (if any):

N/A.

Main Outcome Measurements:

We defined 3 phases of healthcare system response: pre-COVID-19 (period A), acute phase (period B), and subacute phase (period C). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Clinical outcomes including time to surgery (TTS) and length of stay (LOS) were extracted from the electronic medical record.

Results:

Twenty-seven patients from Period A, 27 patients from Period B, and 32 patients from Period C were included. The 30-day mortality was not statistically different. The mean TTS was 20.0 +/− 14.3 hours and was the longest in Period C (22.1 +/− 9.8 hours), but the difference was not statistically significant. The mean LOS was 113.0 +/− 66.2 hours and was longest in Period B (120.9 +/− 100.6 hours). However, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions:

The 30-day mortality, TTS, and LOS were not statistically different across multiple phases of pandemic at a level 1 trauma center. Our results suggest that we successfully adapted new protocol changes and continued to provide evidence-based care for hip fracture patients. Our results were comparable with that of other authors around the world.

Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis.

SETTING

Prospective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

This study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p<0.001), age >80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04323644.

Mortality escalates in patients of proximal femoral fractures with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 35 studies on 4255 patients

BACKGROUND

Concerns have been raised about the escalated mortality in patients of proximal femoral fractures (PPFs) with COVID-19. A meta-analysis to evaluate the mortality in patients with PPFs managed during the current COVID-19 pandemic was conducted.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies were conducted with a search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases using appropriate keywords from January 01, 2020 to January 29, 2021.

RESULTS

35 relevant studies reporting 4255 patients with hip fracture in the current ongoing pandemic, out of which 692 patients were COVID-19 positive. Twenty studies reported mortality and other relevant statistics on hip fracture patients with and without COVID-19 (4123 hip fracture patients in the year 2020-21, out of which 560 had or were suspected of having COVID -19). A meta-analysis of mortality statistics in patients with and without COVID revealed increased odds of mortality among COVID patients [odds ratio (OR) 6.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.09, 7.83] and meta-analysis on the subgroup of surgically treated patients also showed markedly increased mortality risk among those with COVID-19 (OR) 5.99, 95% CI [3.88,9.24].

CONCLUSION

The mortality risk is markedly increased in hip fracture with concomitant COVID-19 as compared to those without it. This increased risk persisted in those managed surgically. It could be due to the inflammation induced by the fracture or surgery for fracture fixation, further exacerbating inflammation, leading to cytokine storm. It is imperative that such patients are informed regarding increased mortality risk during the consent and shared decision-making process.

Do standards of care and early outcomes of periprosthetic fractures change during the COVID-19 pandemic? A multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) are a growing matter for orthopaedic surgeons, and patients with PPFs may represent a frail target in the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether hospital reorganisations during the most severe phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected standards of care and early outcomes of patients treated for PPFs in Northern Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were retrieved from a multicentre retrospective orthopaedics and traumatology database, including 14 hospitals. The following parameters were studied: demographics, results of nasopharyngeal swabs, prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), comorbidities, general health status (EQ-5D-5L Score), frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS), pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), anaesthesiologic risk (American Society of Anaesthesiology Score, ASA Score), classification (unified classification system, UCS), type of operation and anaesthesia, in-hospital and early complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification, CDC), and length of stay (LOS). Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics. Out of 1390 patients treated for any reason, 38 PPFs were included.

RESULTS

Median age was 81 years (range 70-96 years). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) were swabbed on admission, and two of them (5.3%) tested positive; in three patients (7.9%), the diagnosis of COVID-19 was established on a clinical and radiological basis. Two more patients tested positive post-operatively, and one of them died due to COVID-19. Thirty-three patients (86.8%) presented a proximal femoral PPF. Median ASA Score was 3 (range, 1-4), median VAS score on admission was 3 (range, 0-6), median CFS was 4 (range, 1-8), median EQ-5D-5L Score was 3 in each one of the categories (range, 1-5). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) developed post-operative complications, and median CDC grade was 3 (range, 1-5). The median LOS was 12.8 days (range 2-36 days), and 21 patients (55.3%) were discharged home.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPFs did not seem to change during the lockdown. Patients were mainly elderly with comorbidities, and complications were frequently recorded post-operatively. Despite the difficult period for the healthcare system, hospitals were able to provide effective conventional surgical treatments for PPFs, which were not negatively influenced by the reorganisation. Continued efforts are required to optimise the treatment of these frail patients in the period of the pandemic, minimising the risk of contamination, and to limit the incidence of PPFs in the future.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Perioperative mortality and morbidity of hip fractures among COVID-19 infected and non-infected patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hip fractures among elderly patients are surgical emergencies. During COVID-19 pandemic time, many such patients could not be operated at early time because of the limitation of the medical resources, the risk of infection and redirection of medical attention to a severe infective health problem.

METHODS

A search of electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) with the keywords "COVID", "COVID-19″, "SARS-COV-2", "Corona", "pandemic", "hip fracture", "trochanteric fracture" and "neck femur fracture" revealed 64 studies evaluating treatment of hip fracture in elderly patients during COVID-19 pandemic time. The 30-day mortality rate, inpatient mortality rate, critical care/special care need, readmission rate and complications rate in both groups were evaluated. Data were analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan) V.5.3.

RESULTS

After screening, 7 studies were identified that described the mortality and morbidity in hip fractures in both COVID-19 infected (COVID-19 +) and non-infected (COVID-19 -) patients. There were significantly increased risks of 30-day mortality (32.23% COVID-19 + death vs. 8.85% COVID-19 - death) and inpatient mortality (29.33% vs. 2.62%) among COVID-19 + patients with odds ratio (OR) of 4.84 (95% CI: 3.13-7.47, p < 0.00001) and 15.12 (95% CI: 6.12-37.37, p < 0.00001), respectively. The COVID-19 + patients needed more critical care admission (OR = 5.08, 95% CI: 1.49-17.30, p < 0.009) and they remain admitted for a longer time in hospital (MD = 3.6, 95% CI: 1.74-5.45, p = 0.0001); but there was no difference in readmission rate between these 2 groups. The risks of overall complications (OR = 17.22), development of pneumonia (OR = 22.25), and acute respiratory distress syndrome/acute respiratory failure (OR = 32.96) were significantly high among COVID-19 + patients compared to COVID-19 - patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There are increased risks of the 30-day mortality, inpatient mortality and critical care admission among hip fracture patients who are COVID-19 +. The chances of developing pneumonia and acute respiratory failure are more in COVID-19 + patients than in COVID-19 ‒ patients.

COVID-19 pandemic did not affect emergency theatre patient demographic and length of stay in the first phase of UK countrywide lockdown in a district general hospital

INTRODUCTION

We aim to identify any changes in outcome for patients undergoing nonelective surgery at the start of the UK pandemic in our district general hospital. This was a single-centre retrospective cohort review of a UK district general hospital serving a population of over 250,000 people.

METHODS

Participants were all patients undergoing a surgical procedure in the acute theatre list between 23 March to 11 May in both 2019 and 2020. Primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes include time to surgical intervention and length of inpatient stay.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients (2020) versus 141 (2019) patients were included. Although overall 90-day postoperative mortality was higher in 2020 (9.8%) compared with 2019 (5.7%), this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.196). In 2020, eight patients tested positive for COVID-19 either as an inpatient or within 2 weeks of discharge, of whom five patients died. Time to surgical intervention was significantly faster for NCEPOD (National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death) code 3 patients in 2020 than in 2019 (p=0.027). There were no significant differences in mean length of inpatient stay.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that patients were appropriately prioritised using NCEPOD classification, with no statistically significant differences in 90-day postoperative mortality and length of inpatient stay compared with the 2019 period. A study on a larger scale would further elucidate the profile and outcomes of patients requiring acute surgery to generate statistical significance.

A dual-site trauma system during COVID-19 pandemic - Our experience in a high-risk area with 60-day mortality report

AIM

We set up a COVID-free trauma site due to the high rates of COVID-19 infections within our hospital. We aimed to determine the incidence of post-operative COVID-19 infection within the first two weeks post-treatment at the COVID-free site and the postoperative mortality rate. We analysed data for non-hip fracture and fragility hip fracture patients separately.

METHOD

Data was collected for 138 patients presented during the study period, having 147 operations in total. 103 were non-hip fracture patients and 35 were hip fracture patients.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up and none of the non-hip fracture cohort developed symptoms of COVID-19 infection. Postoperative 60-day mortality rate for this cohort was 0.97%. Of the 35 hip fracture patients, none were tested positive for COVID-19. However, two patients were treated as suspected COVID cases due to their symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Establishing a separate site with screening for COVID-19 infection can allow safe emergency surgery.

Thirty-day mortality of patients with hip fracture during COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic periods: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Timely intervention in hip fracture is essential to decrease the risks of perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, limitations of the resources, risk of disease transmission and redirection of medical attention to a more severe infective health problem during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period have affected the quality of care even in a surgical emergency.

AIM

To compare the 30-d mortality rate and complications of hip fracture patients treated during COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic times.

METHODS

The search of electronic databases on 1^st August 2020 revealed 45 studies related to mortality of hip fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic times. After careful screening, eight studies were eligible for quantitative and qualitative analysis of data.

RESULTS

The pooled data of eight studies (n = 1586) revealed no significant difference in 30-d mortality rate between the hip fracture patients treated during the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods [9.63% vs 6.33%; odds ratio (OR), 0.62; 95%CI, 0.33, 1.17; P = 0.14]. Even the 30-d mortality rate was not different between COVID-19 non-infected patients who were treated during the pandemic time, and all hip fracture patients treated during the pre-pandemic period (OR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.61, 1.75; P = 0.91). A significant difference in mortality rate was observed between COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients (OR, 6.99; 95%CI, 3.45, 14.16; P < 0.00001). There was no difference in the duration of hospital stay (OR, -1.52, 95%CI, -3.85, 0.81; P = 0.20), overall complications (OR, 1.62; P = 0.15) and incidence of pulmonary complications (OR, 1.46; P = 0.38) in these two-time frames. Nevertheless, the preoperative morbidity was more severe, and there was less use of general anesthesia during the pandemic time.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in 30-d mortality rate between hip fracture patients treated during the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. However, the mortality risk was higher in COVID-19 positive patients compared to COVID-19 negative patients. There was no difference in time to surgery, complications and hospitalization time between these two time periods.

The prevalence, mortality, and associated risk factors for developing COVID-19 in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The aims of this meta-analysis were to assess: 1) the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hip fracture patients; 2) the associated mortality rate and risk associated with COVID-19; 3) the patient demographics associated with COVID-19; 4) time of diagnosis; and 5) length of follow-up after diagnosis of COVID-19.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Search terms included "hip", "fracture", and "COVID-19". The criteria for inclusion were published clinical articles reporting the mortality rate associated with COVID-19 in hip fracture patients. In total, 53 articles were identified and following full text screening 28 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies reported the mortality of COVID-19-positive patients, of which 21 studies reported the prevalence of COVID-19-positive patients and compared the mortality rate to COVID-19-negative patients. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11% to 16%) and was associated with a crude mortality rate of 35% (95% CI 32% to 39%), which was a significantly increased risk compared to those patients without COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR) 7.11, 95% CI 5.04 to 10.04; p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to be male (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.96; p = 0.002). The duration of follow-up was reported in 20 (71.4%) studies. A total of 17 studies reported whether a patient presented with COVID-19 (n = 108 patients, 35.1%) or developed COVID-19 following admission (n = 200, 64.9%), of which six studies reported a mean time to diagnosis of post-admission COVID-19 at 15 days (2 to 25).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13%, of which approximately one-third of patients were diagnosed on admission, and was associated with male sex. COVID-19-positive patients had a crude mortality rate of 35%, being seven times greater than those without COVID-19. Due to the heterogenicity of the reported data minimum reporting standards of outcomes associated with COVID-19 are suggested. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(12):873-883.

The role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 pandemic and impact on post-graduate orthopaedic education: a four-nation survey of over 100 orthopaedic trainees

AIMS

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to "frontline" specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education.

METHODS

A 42-point questionnaire was designed, validated, and disseminated via e-mail and an instant-messaging platform.

RESULTS

A total of 101 orthopaedic trainees, representing the four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), completed the questionnaire. Overall, 23.1% (23/101) of trainees were redeployed to non-surgical roles. Of these, 73% (17/23) were redeployed to intensive treatment units (ITUs), 13% (3/23) to A/E, and 13%(3/23%) to general medicine. Of the trainees redeployed to ITU 100%, (17/17) received formal induction. Non-deployed or returning trainees had a significant reduction in sessions. In total, 42.9% (42/101) % of trainees were not timetabled into fracture clinic, 53% (53/101) of trainees had one allocated theatre list per week, and 63.8%(64/101) of trainees did not feel they obtained enough experience in the attached subspecialty and preferred repeating this. Overall, 93% (93/101) of respondents attended at least one weekly online webinar, with 79% (79/101) of trainees rating these as useful or very useful, while 95% (95/101) trainees attended online deanery teaching which was rated as more useful than online webinars (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic specialist trainees occupied an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic training. It is imperative this is properly understood to ensure orthopaedic specialist trainees achieve competencies set out in the training curriculum.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:676-682.

A comparative review of 1,004 orthopaedic trauma patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

AIMS

COVID-19 necessitated abrupt changes in trauma service delivery. We compare the demographics and outcomes of patients treated during lockdown to a matched period from 2019. Findings have important implications for service development.

METHODS

A split-site service was introduced, with a COVID-19 free site treating the majority of trauma patients. Polytrauma, spinal, and paediatric trauma patients, plus COVID-19 confirmed or suspicious cases, were managed at another site. Prospective data on all trauma patients undergoing surgery at either site between 16 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 was collated and compared with retrospective review of the same period in 2019. Patient demographics, injury, surgical details, length of stay (LOS), COVID-19 status, and outcome were compared.

RESULTS

There were 1,004 urgent orthopaedic trauma patients (604 in 2019; 400 in 2020). Significant reductions in time to theatre and LOS stay were observed. COVID-19 positive status was confirmed in 4.5% (n = 18). The COVID-19 mortality rate was 1.8% (n = 7). Day-case surgery comprised 47.8% (n = 191), none testing positive for COVID-19 or developing clinically significant COVID-19 symptoms requiring readmission, at a minimum of 17 days follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The novel split-site service, segregating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases, minimized onward transmission and demonstrated improved outcomes regarding time to surgery and LOS, despite altered working patterns and additional constraints. Day-surgery pathways appear safe regarding COVID-19 transmission. Lessons learned require dissemination and should be sustained in preparation for a potential second wave or, the return of a "normal" non-COVID workload.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:568-575.

The impact of COVID-19 on trauma and orthopaedic patients requiring surgery during the peak of the pandemic: a retrospective cohort study

AIMS

COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19.

RESULTS

A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520-529.

The effects of COVID-19 on perioperative morbidity and mortality in patients with hip fractures

AIMS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients continue to require urgent surgery for hip fractures. However, the impact of COVID-19 on perioperative outcomes in these high-risk patients remains unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the effects of COVID-19 on perioperative morbidity and mortality, and determine any risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

This multicentre cohort study included 340 COVID-19-negative patients versus 82 COVID-19-positive patients undergoing surgical treatment for hip fractures across nine NHS hospitals in Greater London, UK. Patients in both treatment groups were comparable for age, sex, body mass index, fracture configuration, and type of surgery performed. Predefined perioperative outcomes were recorded within a 30-day postoperative period. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify risk factors associated with increased risk of mortality.

RESULTS

COVID-19-positive patients had increased postoperative mortality rates (30.5% (25/82) vs 10.3% (35/340) respectively, p < 0.001) compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery included positive smoking status (hazard ratio (HR) 15.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.55 to 52.2; p < 0.001) and greater than three comorbidities (HR 13.5 (95% CI 2.82 to 66.0, p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients had increased risk of postoperative complications (89.0% (73/82) vs 35.0% (119/340) respectively; p < 0.001), more critical care unit admissions (61.0% (50/82) vs 18.2% (62/340) respectively; p < 0.001), and increased length of hospital stay (mean 13.8 days (SD 4.6) vs 6.7 days (SD 2.5) respectively; p < 0.001), compared to COVID-19-negative patients.

CONCLUSION

Hip fracture surgery in COVID-19-positive patients was associated with increased length of hospital stay, more admissions to the critical care unit, higher risk of perioperative complications, and increased mortality rates compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery included positive smoking status and multiple (greater than three) comorbidities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1136-1145.