PurposeEvidence for a hospital volume-outcome relationship in hip fracture surgery is inconclusive. This study aimed to analyze the association between hospital volume as a continuous parameter and... Show morePurposeEvidence for a hospital volume-outcome relationship in hip fracture surgery is inconclusive. This study aimed to analyze the association between hospital volume as a continuous parameter and several processes and outcomes of hip fracture care.MethodsAdult patients registered in the nationwide Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA) between 2018 and 2020 were included. The association between annual hospital volume and turnaround times (time on the emergency ward, surgery < 48 h and length of stay), orthogeriatric co-treatment and case-mix adjusted in-hospital and 30 days mortality was evaluated with generalized linear mixed models with random effects for hospital and treatment year. We used a fifth-degree polynomial to allow for nonlinear effects of hospital volume. P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferoni method.ResultsIn total, 43,258 patients from 68 hospitals were included. The median annual hospital volume was 202 patients [range 1-546]. Baseline characteristics did not differ with hospital volume. Provision of orthogeriatric co-treatment improved with higher volumes but decreased at > 367 patients per year (p < 0.01). Hospital volume was not significantly associated with mortality outcomes. No evident clinical relation between hospital volume and turnaround times was found.ConclusionThis is the first study analyzing the effect of hospital volume on hip fracture care, treating volume as a continuous parameter. Mortality and turnaround times showed no clinically relevant association with hospital volume. The provision of orthogeriatric co-treatment, however, increased with increasing volumes up to 367 patients per year, but decreased above this threshold. Future research on the effect of volume on complications and functional outcomes is indicated. Show less
Summary: Additional variables for a nationwide hip fracture registry must be carefully chosen to prevent unnecessary registry load. A registry pilot in seven hospitals resulted in recommending... Show moreSummary: Additional variables for a nationwide hip fracture registry must be carefully chosen to prevent unnecessary registry load. A registry pilot in seven hospitals resulted in recommending polypharmacy, serum hemoglobin at admittance, and questions screening for risk of delirium to be used in case-mix correction and for development of quality indicators. Purpose: Clinical registries help improve the quality of care but come at the cost of registration load. Datasets should therefore be as compact as possible; however, variables are usually chosen empirically. This study aims to evaluate potential variables with additional value to improve the nationwide Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA). Methods: An expert panel selected eleven new variables for the DHFA, which were tested in a prospective cohort of all hip fracture patients treated in 2018 and 2019 in seven pilot hospitals participating in the DHFA. The association of these eleven variables with complications, mortality, and functional outcomes at 3 months was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Based on the results, a proposal for variables to add to the dataset of the DHFA was made. Results: In 4.904 analyzed patients, three tested variables had significant associations (p < 0.01) with outcomes: polypharmacy with complications (aOR 1.34), serum hemoglobin at admittance with complications (aOR 0.63) and mortality (aOR for 30-day mortality 0.78), and a set of questions screening for risk of delirium with complications in general (aOR 1.55), e.g., delirium (aOR 2.98), and decreased functional scores at three months (aOR 1.98). Conclusion: This study assesses potential new variables for a hip fracture registry. Based on the results of this study, we recommend polypharmacy, serum hemoglobin at admittance, and questions screening for risk of delirium to be used in case-mix correction and for the development of quality indicators. Incorporating these variables in the DHFA dataset may contribute to better and clinically relevant quality indicators. Show less
To compare hospitals' hip fracture patient mortality in a quality of care registry, correction for patient characteristics is needed. This study evaluates in 39,374 patients which characteristics... Show moreTo compare hospitals' hip fracture patient mortality in a quality of care registry, correction for patient characteristics is needed. This study evaluates in 39,374 patients which characteristics are associated with 30 and 90-day mortality, and showed how using these characteristics in a case mix-model changes hospital comparisons within the Netherlands. Purpose: Mortality rates after hip fracture surgery are considerable and may be influenced by patient characteristics. This study aims to evaluate hospital variation regarding patient demographics and disease burden, to develop a case-mix adjustment model to analyse differences in hip fracture patients' mortality to calculate case-mix adjusted hospital-specific mortality rates. Methods: Data were derived from 64 hospitals participating in the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA). Adult hip fracture patients registered in 2017-2019 were included. Variation of case-mix factors between hospitals was analysed, and the association between case-mix factors and mortality at 30 and 90 days was determined through regression models. Results: There were 39,374 patients included. Significant variation in case-mix factors amongst hospitals was found for age >= 80 (range 25.8-72.1% p < 0.001), male gender (12.0-52.9% p < 0.001), nursing home residents (42.0-57.9% p < 0.001), pre-fracture mobility aid use (9.9-86.7% p < 0,001), daily living dependency (27.5-96.5% p < 0,001), ASA-class >= 3 (25.8-83.3% p < 0.001), dementia (3.6-28.6% p < 0.001), osteoporosis (0.0-57.1% p < 0.001), risk of malnutrition (0.0-29.2% p < 0.001) and fracture types (all p < 0.001). All factors were associated with 30- and 90-day mortality. Eight hospitals showed higher and six showed lower 30-day mortality than expected based on their case-mix. Six hospitals showed higher and seven lower 90-day mortality than expected. The specific outlier hospitals changed when correcting for case-mix factors. Conclusions: Dutch hospitals show significant case-mix variation regarding hip fracture patients. Case-mix adjustment is a prerequisite when comparing hospitals' 30-day and 90-day hip fracture patients' mortality. Adjusted mortality may serve as a starting point for improving hip fracture care. Show less
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not... Show moreDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause an increase in adverse surgical outcomes, and oncological surgery-related duration of hospital and ICU stay were significantly shorter.Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.Lay Summary COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018-2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations. Show less
Purpose The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA), a nationwide hip fracture registry in the Netherlands, registers hip fracture patients and aims to improve quality of care since 2016. This study shows... Show morePurpose The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA), a nationwide hip fracture registry in the Netherlands, registers hip fracture patients and aims to improve quality of care since 2016. This study shows trends in the data quality during the first 5 years of data acquisition within the DHFA, as well as trends over time for designated quality indicators (QI). Methods All patients registered in the DHFA between 1-1-2016 and 31-12-2020 were included. Data quality-registry case coverage and data completeness-and baseline characteristics are reported. Five QI are analysed: Time to surgery < 48 h, assessment for osteoporosis, orthogeriatric co-management, registration of functional outcomes at three months, 30-day mortality. The independent association between QI results and report year was tested using mixed-effects logistic models and in the case of 30-day mortality adjusted for casemix. Results In 2020, the case capture of the DHFA comprised 85% of the Dutch hip fracture patients, 66/68 hospitals participated. The average of missing clinical values was 7.5% in 2016 and 3.2% in 2020. The 3 months follow-up completeness was 36.2% (2016) and 46.8% (2020). The QI 'time to surgery' was consistently high, assessment for osteoporosis remained low, orthogeriatric co-management scores increased without significance, registration of functional outcomes improved significantly and 30-day mortality rates remained unchanged. Conclusion The DHFA has successfully been implemented in the past five years. Trends show improvement on data quality. Analysis of several QI indicate points of attention. Future perspectives include lowering the burden of registration, whilst improving (registration of) hip fracture patients outcomes. Show less
A Summary Individual process indicators often do not enable the benchmarking of hospitals and often lack an association with outcomes of care. The composite hip fracture process indicator, textbook... Show moreA Summary Individual process indicators often do not enable the benchmarking of hospitals and often lack an association with outcomes of care. The composite hip fracture process indicator, textbook process, might be a tool to detect hospital variation and is associated with better outcomes during hospital stay.Purpose The aim of this study was to determine hospital variation in quality of hip fracture care using a composite process indicator (textbook process) and to evaluate at patient level whether fulfilment of the textbook process indicator was associated with better outcomes during hospital stay.Methods Hip fracture patients aged 70 and older operated in five hospitals between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 were included. Textbook process for hip fracture care was defined as follows: (1) assessment of malnutrition (2) surgery within 24 h, (3) orthogeriatric management during admission and (4) operation by an orthopaedic trauma certified surgeon. Hospital variation analysis was done by computing an observed/expected ratio (O/E ratio) for textbook process at hospital level. The expected ratios were derived from a multivariable logistic regression analysis including all relevant case-mix variables. The association between textbook process compliance and in-hospital complications and prolonged hospital stay was determined at patient level in a multivariable logistic regression model, with correction for patient, treatment and hospital characteristics. In-hospital complications were anaemia, delirium, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, in-hospital fall, heart failure, renal insufficiency, pulmonary embolism, wound infection and pressure ulcer.Results Of the 1371 included patients, 753 (55%) received care according to textbook process. At hospital level, the textbook compliance rates ranged from 38 to 76%. At patient level, textbook process compliance was significantly associated with fewer complications (38% versus 46%) (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.84), but not with hospital stay (median length of hospital stay was 5 days in both groups) (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30).Conclusion The textbook process indicator for hip fracture care might be a tool to detect hospital variation. At patient level, this quality indicator is associated with fewer complications during hospital stay. Show less
Objectives: This study evaluated whether patients with a left-sided femoral neck fracture (FNF) treated with a sliding hip screw (SHS) had a higher implant failure rate than patients treated for a... Show moreObjectives: This study evaluated whether patients with a left-sided femoral neck fracture (FNF) treated with a sliding hip screw (SHS) had a higher implant failure rate than patients treated for a right-sided FNF. This was performed to determine the clinical relevance of the clockwise rotational torque of the femoral neck lag screw in a SHS, in relation to the rotational stability of left and right-sided FNFs after fixation. Methods: Data were derived from the FAITH trial and Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA). Patients with a FNF, aged >= 50, treated with a SHS, with at least 3-month follow-up data available, were included. Implant failure was analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, fracture displacement, prefracture living setting and functional mobility, and American Society for Anesthesiologists Class. Results: One thousand seven hundred fifty patients were included, of which 944 (53.9%) had a left-sided and 806 (46.1%) a right-sided FNF. Implant failure occurred in 60 cases (3.4%), of which 31 were left-sided and 29 right-sided. No association between fracture side and implant failure was found [odds ratio (OR) for left vs. right 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.52]. Female sex (OR 3.02, CI: 1.62-6.10), using a mobility aid (OR 2.02, CI 1.01-3.96) and a displaced fracture (OR 2.51, CI: 1.44-4.42), were associated with implant failure. Conclusions: This study could not substantiate the hypothesis that the biomechanics of the clockwise screw rotation of the SHS contributes to an increased risk of implant failure in left-sided FNFs compared with right-sided fractures. Show less
Voeten, S.C.; Nijmeijer, W.S.; Vermeer, M.; Schipper, I.B.; Hegeman, J.H.; Klerk, G. de; ... ; DHFA Taskforce Study Grp 2020
Introduction: The Parker Mobility Score has proven to be a valid and reliable measurement of hip fracture patient mobility. For hip fracture registries the Fracture Mobility Score is advised and... Show moreIntroduction: The Parker Mobility Score has proven to be a valid and reliable measurement of hip fracture patient mobility. For hip fracture registries the Fracture Mobility Score is advised and used, although this score has never been validated. This study aims to validate the Fracture Mobility Score against the Parker Mobility Score.Patients and methods: The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit uses the Fracture Mobility Score (categorical scale). For the purpose of this study, five hospitals registered both the Fracture Mobility Score and the Parker Mobility Score (0-9 scale) for every admitted hip fracture patient in 2018. The Spearman correlation between the two scores was calculated. To test whether the correlation coefficient remained stable among different patient subgroups, analyses were stratified according to baseline patient characteristics.Results: In total 1,201 hip fracture patients were included. The Spearman correlation between the Fracture Mobility Score and Parker Mobility Score was strong: 0.73 (p = < 0.001).Stratified for gender, age, ASA score, dementia, Index of Activities of Daily Living (KATZ-6 ADL score), living situation and nutritional status, the correlation coefficient varied between 0.40-0.84. For patients aged 90 and over and having an ASA score of III-IV who suffered from dementia, had a KATZ-6 ADL score of 1-6, lived in an institution and/or were malnourished, the correlation was moderate.Conclusion: The Fracture Mobility Score is overall strongly correlated with the Parker Mobility Score and can be considered as a valid score to measure hip fracture patient mobility. This may encourage other hip fracture audits to also use the Fracture Mobility Score, which would increase the uniformity of mobility score results among national hip fracture audits and decrease the overall registration load. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Voeten, S.C.; Nijmeijer, W.S.; Vermeer, M.; Schipper, I.B.; Hegeman, J.H.; Klerk, G. de; ... ; DHFA Taskforce Study Grp 2020
IntroductionThe Parker Mobility Score has proven to be a valid and reliable measurement of hip fracture patient mobility. For hip fracture registries the Fracture Mobility Score is advised and used... Show moreIntroductionThe Parker Mobility Score has proven to be a valid and reliable measurement of hip fracture patient mobility. For hip fracture registries the Fracture Mobility Score is advised and used, although this score has never been validated. This study aims to validate the Fracture Mobility Score against the Parker Mobility Score. MethodsThe Dutch Hip Fracture Audit uses the Fracture Mobility Score (categorical scale). For the purpose of this study, five hospitals registered both the Fracture Mobility Score and the Parker Mobility Score (0 – 9 scale) for every admitted hip fracture patient in 2018. The Spearman correlation between the two scores was calculated. To test whether the correlation coefficient remained stable among different patient subgroups, analyses were stratified according to baseline patient characteristics. ResultsIn total 1,201 hip fracture patients were included. The Spearman correlation between the Fracture Mobility Score and the Parker Mobility Score was strong: 0.73 (p = < 0.001). Stratified for gender, age, ASA grade, dementia, Index of Activities of Daily Living (KATZ-6 ADL score), living situation and nutritional status, the correlation coefficient varied between 0.40 and 0.84. For patients aged 90 and over, having ASA grade 3 or 4, suffering from dementia, having a KATZ-6 ADL score of 1 – 6, living in an institution and/or being malnourished, the correlation was moderate. Conclusion The Fracture Mobility Score is overall strongly correlated with the Parker Mobility Score and can be considered as a valid score to measure hip fracture patient mobility. This may encourage other hip fracture audits to also use the Fracture Mobility Score, which would increase the uniformity of mobility score results among national hip fracture audits and decrease the overall registration load. Show less
Background: Routine radiography in the follow-up of distal radial fractures is common practice, although its usefulness is disputed. The aim of this study was to determine whether the number of... Show moreBackground: Routine radiography in the follow-up of distal radial fractures is common practice, although its usefulness is disputed. The aim of this study was to determine whether the number of radiographs in the follow-up period can be reduced without resulting in worse patient outcomes.Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a non-inferiority design, patients >= 18 years old with a distal radial fracture could participate. They were randomized between a regimen with routine radiographs at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up (usual care) and a regimen without routine radiographs at those time points (reduced imaging). Randomization was performed using an online registration and randomization program. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Secondary outcomes included the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) score, health-related quality of life, pain, and complications. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year of follow-up. Data were analyzed using mixed models. Neither the patients nor the health-care providers were blinded.Results: Three hundred and eighty-six patients were randomized, and 326 of them were ultimately included in the analysis. The DASH scores were comparable between the usual-care group (n = 166) and the reduced-imaging group (n = 160) at all time points as well as overall. The adjusted regression coefficient for the DASH scores was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.8 to 4.8). There was also no difference between the groups with respect to the overall PRWHE score (adjusted regression coefficient, 1.4 [95% CI = -2.4 to 5.2]), quality of life as measured with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) (-0.02 [95% CI = -0.05 to 0.01]), pain at rest as measured with a visual analog scale (VAS) (0.1 [95% CI = -0.2 to 0.5]), or pain when moving (0.3 [95% CI = -0.1 to 0.8]). The complication rate was similar in the reduced imaging group (11.3%) and the usual-care group (11.4%). Fewer radiographs were made for the participants in the reduced-imaging group (median, 3 versus 4; p < 0.05).Conclusions: This study shows that omitting routine radiography after the initial 2 weeks of follow-up for patients with a distal radial fracture does not affect patient-reported outcomes or the risk of complications compared with usual care. Show less
Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality... Show moreQuality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators. Show less
