Continuous improvement process: ortho-geriatric co-management of proximal femoral fractures
- 109 Downloads
The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of a quality management system on treatment and care delivery of proximal femoral fractures. Specifically, our hypothesis was that the “plan–do–check–act (PDCA)” philosophy of the ISO 9001 quality management system results in a continuous improvement process.
1015 proximal femoral fractures were prospectively included into a hip fracture database over a 5-year period, after a restructuring process with implementation of clinical pathways and standard operation procedures. A close and structured ortho-geriatric co-management (certified ortho-geriatric center) was the basis for treatment. ISO 9001 certification was granted for the first time in 2012. Procedural and patient outcome parameters were analyzed by year and evaluated statistically using SPSS 25.0.
In both categories (procedural and outcome) significant changes could be detected during the 5-year period, e.g., significant reduction of time to surgery for the first 2 years, improvement in discharge management, and reduction of surgical complications. However, no significant changes could be demonstrated for mortality or internal complications such as pneumonia, urinary tract infections, or postoperative delirium. However, the incidence of the latter was already on a very low level at the onset of the quality improvement process.
We could show a relevant and continuous improvement of several quality indicators during a 5-year period after implementation of a quality management system based on the PDCA philosophy for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in elderly patients. However, other parameters (internal complications, cost-effectiveness, etc.) need our close attention in the future.
KeywordsProximal femoral fracture Continuous improvement process PDCA cycle Quality management
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Approval by the internal review board (IRB) was obtained.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS, Vanderschueren D, Milisen K, Velkeniers B, Boonen S (2010) Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med 152(6):380–390. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Griffin XL, Parsons N, Achten J, Fernandez M, Costa ML (2015) Recovery of health-related quality of life in a United Kingdom hip fracture population. The Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation—a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 97-B(3):372–382. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B3.35738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Vanhaecht K, Sermeus W, Peers J, Lodewijckx C, Deneckere S, Leigheb F, Boonen S, Sermon A, Boto P, Mendes RV, Panella M, EQCP Study Group (2012) The impact of care pathways for patients with proximal femur fracture: rationale and design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 12:124. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Tittel S, Burkhardt J, Roll C, Kinner B (2018) Clinical pathways for geriatric patients with proximal femoral fracture improve quality of care delivery and outcome. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res (submitted) Google Scholar
- 14.Tague NR (2005) “Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle”. The quality toolbox, 2nd edn. ASQ Quality Press, MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
- 22.Sanchez-Hernandez N, Saez-Lopez P, Paniagua-Tejo S, Valverde-Garcia JA (2016) Results following the implementation of a clinical pathway in the process of care to elderly patients with osteoporotic hip fracture in a second level hospital. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 60(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2015.08.001 Google Scholar
- 24.Kalmet PH, Koc BB, Hemmes B, Ten Broeke RH, Dekkers G, Hustinx P, Schotanus MG, Tilman P, Janzing HM, Verkeyn JM, Brink PR, Poeze M (2016) Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary clinical pathway for elderly patients with hip fracture: a multicenter comparative cohort study. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 7(2):81–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2151458516645633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Burgers PT, Van Lieshout EM, Verhelst J, Dawson I, de Rijcke PA (2014) Implementing a clinical pathway for hip fractures; effects on hospital length of stay and complication rates in five hundred and twenty six patients. Int Orthop 38(5):1045–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2218-5 Google Scholar
- 27.Koval KJ, Chen AL, Aharonoff GB, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD (2004) Clinical pathway for hip fractures in the elderly: the Hospital for Joint Diseases experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res (425):72–81Google Scholar
- 29.Soong C, Cram P, Chezar K, Tajammal F, Exconde K, Matelski J, Sinha SK, Abrams HB, Fan-Lun C, Fabbruzzo-Cota C, Backstein D, Bell CM (2016) Impact of an integrated hip fracture inpatient program on length of stay and costs. J Orthop Trauma 30(12):647–652. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Forni S, Pieralli F, Sergi A, Lorini C, Bonaccorsi G, Vannucci A (2016) Mortality after hip fracture in the elderly: the role of a multidisciplinary approach and time to surgery in a retrospective observational study on 23,973 patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 66:13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2016.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Beaupre LA, Cinats JG, Senthilselvan A, Lier D, Jones CA, Scharfenberger A, Johnston DW, Saunders LD (2006) Reduced morbidity for elderly patients with a hip fracture after implementation of a perioperative evidence-based clinical pathway. Qual Saf Health Care 15(5):375–379. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.017095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar