Advertisement

The implementation of a clinical pathway enhancing early surgery for geriatric hip fractures: how to maintain a success story?

  • An Sermon
  • Ine Rochus
  • Bart Smeets
  • Willem-Jan Metsemakers
  • Dominique Misselyn
  • Stefaan Nijs
  • Harm HoekstraEmail author
Original Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Timing of surgery in geriatric hip fracture treatment remains controversial. Early surgery is acknowledged as a quality indicator and NICE guidelines recommend surgery within 0–48 h from admission. In 2014 we implemented the indicator of early surgery in our institution, enhancing operative treatment within the next calendar day. We aimed to evaluate the implementation, define the room for improvement and provide strategies to maintain the quality indicator.

Methods

Clinical outcome of 744 patients (January 2011–December 2013) before early surgery was implemented, compared to 817 patients (June 2014–May 2017) after implementation of early surgery with a follow-up of 6 months. Data-analysis was done by Pearson’s Chi-square test and Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

Early surgery was achieved in 47.6% and 85.7% in the preimplementation and postimplementation group, respectively (P < 0.001). Both 30 days and 6 months mortality were similar (6.0% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.573 and 18.7% vs. 16.9%, P = 0.355, preimplementation vs. postimplementation, respectively). Early surgery resulted in a significantly shorter total length-of-stay (14 vs. 12 days, P < 0.001, preimplementation vs. postimplementation, respectively). Early surgery did not reduce the readmission rate.

Conclusions

The indicator of early surgery has been successfully implemented. Early surgery resulted in a significantly shorter LOS. No significant reduction in 30 days and 6 months mortality, and 90 days readmission was observed. To maintain early surgery, continuous engagement and monitoring is required by all shareholders involved and if necessary, adjustment of the clinical route is appropriate.

Keywords

Geriatric hip fracture Early surgery Quality indicator 

Notes

Funding

Not applicable.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

68_2018_1034_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPG 52 KB)
68_2018_1034_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (42 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (JPG 41 KB)
68_2018_1034_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (60 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (JPG 59 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the international osteoporosis foundation (IOF) and the European federation of pharmaceutical industry associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1–2):136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moja L, Piatti A, Pecoraro V, et al. Timing matters in hip fracture surgery: patients operated within 48 hours have better outcomes. A meta-analysis and meta-regression of over 190,000 patients. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Palma R. Impact of multidisciplinary hip fracture program on timing of surgery in elderly patients. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(11):2591–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orosz GM, Magaziner J, Hannan EL, et al. Association of timing of surgery for hip fracture and patient outcomes. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1738–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Librero J, Peiró S, Leutscher E, et al. Timing of surgery for hip fracture and in-hospital mortality: a retrospective population-based cohort study in the Spanish national health system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vidán MT, Sánchez E, Gracia Y, et al. Causes and effects of surgical delay in patients with hip fracture: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(4):226–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Clinical Guideline Centre. (2011) (The management of hip fracture in adults). London: national clinical guideline centre. http://www.ncgc.ac.uk.
  8. 8.
    Leung F, Lau TW, Kwan K, et al. Does timing of surgery matter in fragility hip fractures? Osteoporos Int. 2010;21(Suppl 4):529-34.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hyholm AM, Gromov K, Palm H, et al. Time to surgery is associated with thirty-day and ninety-day mortality after proximale femur fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1333)9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pincus D, Ravi B, Wasserstein D, et al. Association between wait time and 30-day mortality in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. JAMA. 2017;318(20):1994–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Basu N, Natour M, Mounasamy V, Kates SL. Geriatric hip fracture management: keys to providing a successful program. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42:565–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dubljanin-Raspopović E, Marković-Denić L, et al. Does early functional outcome predict 1-year mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(8):2703–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parker M, Johansen A. Hip fracture. BMJ. 2006;333(7557):27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vidal EI, Coeli CM, Pinheiro RS, Camargo KR. Mortality within 1 year after hip fracture surgical repair in the elderly according to postoperative period: a probabilistic record linkage study in Brazil. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(10):1569–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smeets B, Nijs S, Nderlita M, Vandoren C, Hoekstra H. Health care usage and related costs in fibular pating for AO type 44-B ankle fractures in a Belgian university hospital: an exploratory analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016 May-Jun;55(3):535–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sermon A, Flamaing J (sup.), Broos P (cosup.), Richards, R. (cosup.) (2014). Addressing the challenge of hip fracture fixation and prevention in old age—Preclinical and clinical studies assessing the osteoporotic femoral head, p 194 https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/467116/1/Manuscript_AnSermon.pdf.
  19. 19.
    Cameron ID, Handoll HH, Finnegan TP, et al. Co-ordinated multidisciplinary approaches for inpatient rehabilitation of older patients with proximal femoral fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(3):CD000106.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oldmeadow LB, Edwards ER, Kimmel LA, et al. No rest for the wounded: early ambulation after hip surgery accelerates recovery. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76(7):607–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kempenaers K, Van Calster B, Vandoren C, Sermon A, Metsemakers W-J, Vanderschot P, … Hoekstra H. (2018). Are the current guidelines for surgical delay in hip fractures too rigid? A single center assessment of mortality and economics. Injury.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.032.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • An Sermon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ine Rochus
    • 1
  • Bart Smeets
    • 3
  • Willem-Jan Metsemakers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dominique Misselyn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stefaan Nijs
    • 1
    • 2
  • Harm Hoekstra
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Trauma SurgeryUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Development and RegenerationKU Leuven, University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.University Hospitals Leuven, Management Information and ReportingLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations