Abstract
In 2007, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was conceived in the United Kingdom (UK) as a national audit aiming to improve hip fracture care across the country. It now represents the world's largest hip fracture registry. The purpose of the NHFD is to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fracture care, at an institutional level, that reflect the evidence-based clinical guidelines and quality standards developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. No national program currently exists, equivalent to the NHFD, in Canada despite evidence suggesting that national audit programs can significantly improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fractures at our Canadian academic tertiary referral center using the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and benchmarks used by the NHFD. In doing so, we aimed to compare our performance to other hospitals contributing to the NHFD database.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients who presented to our Canadian center for surgical management of a hip fracture between August 2019 to September 2020. Fracture types included intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric, and femoral neck fractures treated with either surgical fixation or arthroplasty. Cases were identified from the affiliate institute's Operatively Repaired Fractures Database (ORFD). The ORFD prospectively collects patient-level data extracted from electronic medical records, operating room information systems, and from patients’ discharge summaries. All applicable data from our database were compared to the established KPI and benchmarks published by the NHFD that apply to the Canadian healthcare system.
Six hundred and seven patients’ data (64.5% female) were extracted from the ORFD, mean age 80.4 ± 13.3 years. The NHFD contains data from 63,284 patients across the entire UK. The affiliate institute performed inferiorly compared to the NHFD for two KPIs: prompt surgery (surgery by the day following presentation with hip fracture, 52.8% vs. 69%) and prompt mobilization after surgery (mobilized out of bed by the day after operation, 43.0% vs. 81.0%). However, more patients at the affiliate institute were not delirious when tested postoperatively (89.6% vs. 68.4%). There was no significant difference in the average length of stay (12.23 days versus 13.5 days) or in 30-day mortality rate (8.4% versus 8.3%).
More than half of all KPI's and benchmarks for patients receiving a hip fracture surgery at our tertiary referral center in Canada ranked significantly lower than patients receiving a hip fracture surgery in the UK. These findings indicate that perhaps a national audit program should be implemented in Canada to improve aspects of hip fracture care, at an institutional level. Following evidence-based clinical guidelines and using standardized benchmarks would encourage change and foster improvement across Canadian centres when necessary.
