header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL OUTCOME OF HIP FRACTURE MANAGEMENT FOLLOWING THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH NEW POLICY?



Abstract

Introduction: In 2003 the Ministry of Health in Israel added hip fractures to the DRG listing. The rational behind this move was aiming at the shortening of hip fractures waiting time to surgery and shortening of hospitalization period. Some hospitals in Israel have assigned an additional OR shift for this purpose. Hip fracture patients consist of two main sub-groups: patients who undergo hemi-arthroplasty (HA Group) and those who undergo internal fracture fixation (IFF Group). The new policy determines that DRG of internal fixation patients ends at the fifth day of their initial hospitalization after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the practical effect of this policy on hip fracture management.

Patients and Methods: We retrospectively compared two major groups of patients (total 808) with hip fractures: the first group of patients was treated in 2001 (377 patients) (before the new policy came into effect) and the second in 2005 (431 patients). Each of these groups included the HA group and the IFF group. In each of the groups we compared the time to surgery, length of hospitalization, mortality rates after six months and the diurnal distribution of the operations.

Results: The length of hospitalization in 2005 was found to be shorter in the IFF group by 2.82 days (2001 – mean stay of 12.52, 2005 - 9.7 days) as opposed to the HA group where hospitalization was shorter in 2005 by a mean of only 0.42 day. Mortality rates at six months following surgery, when comparing the two major groups, were 11.3% in 2001 and 7.9% in 2005. 90% of the operations in 2005 were performed between 15:00–19:30 compared to 2001 when 90% of surgeries were evenly distributed between 15:00 and 24:00. We did not find statistically significant differences between the groups in relation to the time to surgery before and after the new policy. There was a trend towards a longer waiting time to surgery in the HA group in 2001 as well as in 2005.

Discussion: The presence of a dedicated shift, according to the new policy, made more room available for other emergency list surgeries. Hospitalization stay became shorter due to the fact that the insurer is committed to discharge patients from the IFF group after 4 days of hospitalization and to finance each additional day. In spite of the fact that waiting time to surgery was not shortened following the new policy, the majority of surgeries were performed during the afternoon sessions. It should be noted that in 2001 waiting time to surgery was already very short. Mortality data are interesting and necessitate further investigation.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Orah Naor, IOA Secretary and Co-ordinator (email: ioanaor@netvision.net.il)