Elizabeth Armstrong

➢ Fragility fracture care remains suboptimal worldwide despite strong evidence supporting timely surgery, orthogeriatric care, early mobilization, unrestricted weight-bearing, and secondary fracture prevention. ➢ International quality standards and registry-based audits have translated this evidence into measurable indicators that improve care in many high-income health-care systems. ➢ Implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited primarily by health-system constraints, including workforce shortages, delayed presentation, limited infrastructure, and fragmented care pathways, rather than by lack of evidence. ➢ Emerging initiatives demonstrate that evidence-based quality standards can be successfully adapted to local contexts while preserving their core clinical principles. ➢ Orthopaedic surgeons have a central role in leading multidisciplinary care, promoting secondary fracture prevention, and driving quality improvement across the entire fragility fracture pathway. ➢ Future progress depends on strengthening health systems, embedding auditing and certification programs, and implementing context-sensitive quality standards that bridge the gap between evidence and routine.

Background/Objectives: Evidence-based guidelines and care standards recommend offering oral nutrition supplements to all older adults with hip fracture, not just those already malnourished. This study aimed to identify the proportion of inpatients in a sample of hospitals in two countries that were provided with oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) following a hip fracture and to identify factors associated with ONS provision. Methods: An analysis of prospectively collected data from a bi-national Hip Fracture Registry nutrition sprint and registry audit data limited to older adults (≥65 years) undergoing surgical intervention for a fractured hip from 1 to 31 August 2021. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with providing ONS. Results: Patient-level data was available for 385 older adults (median 85 years; 60.5% female) admitted to twenty-nine hospitals. Less than half (n = 47.3%) of the audited inpatients were provided ONS. After adjusting for covariates, ONS was more likely to be provided to older adults who were identified as malnourished on formal testing (OR 11.92; 95%CI 6.57, 21.69). Other factors associated with prescription of ONS included those who did not have a preoperative medical assessment (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.19, 4.27) or were cognitively impaired (OR 1.83; 95%CI 1.01, 3.32), severely frail, or terminally ill (OR 3.17; 95%CI 1.10, 9.17). Conclusions: ONS was provided in line with evidence-based recommendations for less than half of the older adults with a hip fracture in 29 hospitals in two countries. A structured approach to implementation may be required to reduce complications and improve outcomes for all older adults after a hip fracture, not just those assessed as cognitively impaired, frail, and/or malnourished.

Background A hip fracture in an older person is a devastating injury. It impacts functional mobility, independence and survival. Models of care may provide a means for delivering integrated hip fracture care in less well-resourced settings. The aim of this review was to determine the elements of hip fracture models of care to inform the development of an adaptable model of care for low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods Multiple databases were searched for papers reporting a hip fracture model of care for any part of the patient pathway from injury to rehabilitation. Results were limited to publications from 2000. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened based on eligibility criteria. Papers were evaluated with an equity lens against eight conceptual criteria adapted from an existing description of a model of care. Results 82 papers were included, half of which were published since 2015. Only two papers were from middle-income countries and only two papers were evaluated as reporting all conceptual criteria from the existing description. The most identified criterion was an evidence-informed intervention and the least identified was the inclusion of patient stakeholders. Conclusion Interventions described as models of care for hip fracture are unlikely to include previously described conceptual criteria. They are most likely to be orthogeriatric approaches to service delivery, which is a barrier to their implementation in resource-limited settings. In LMICs, the provision of orthogeriatric competencies by other team members is an area for further investigation.

Globally, populations are ageing and the estimated number of hip fractures will increase from 1.7 million in 1990 to more than 6 million in 2050. The greatest increase in hip fractures is predicted in Low- and Middle–Income Countries (LMICs), largely in the Asia-Pacific region where direct costs are expected to exceed $US15 billion by 2050. The aims of this qualitative study are to identify barriers to, and enablers of, evidence–informed hip fracture care in LMICs, and to determine if the Blue Book standards, developed by the British Orthopaedic Association and British Geriatrics Society to facilitate evidence-informed care of patients with fragility fractures, are applicable to these settings. This study utilized semi-structured interviews with clinical and administrative hospital staff to explore current hip fracture care in LMICs. Transcribed interviews were imported into NVivo 12 and analysed thematically. Interviews were conducted with 35 participants from 11 hospitals in 5 countries. We identified five themes—costs of care and the capacity of patients to pay, timely hospital presentation, competing demands on limited resources, delegation and defined responsibility and utilization of available data—and within each theme, barriers and enablers were distinguished. We found a mismatch between patient needs and provision of recommended hip fracture care, which in LMICs must commence at the time of injury. This study describes clinician and administrator perspectives of the barriers to, and enablers of, high-quality hip fracture care in LMICs; results indicate that initiatives to overcome barriers (in particular, delays to definitive treatment) are required. While the Blue Book offers a starting point for clinicians and administrators looking to provide high-quality hip fracture care to older people in LMICs, locally developed interventions are likely to provide the most successful solutions to improving hip fracture care.

Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for life-long learning of health professionals, yet evaluations of CPD focus on a narrow range of impacts. This study explored the range of im...

(2020). Use of Nazi torture device image in digital scholarship article. Medical Teacher. Ahead of Print.

The Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry NSW (ACORN) was initiated in 2012. ACORN is a registry piloting within NSW, Australia with several participating hospitals; it aims to monitor patient-centred outcomes and post-surgical complications after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Using retrospective audit methodology, we aimed to investigate the completeness and accuracy of data in ACORN. We undertook a reabstracting audit of 100 clinical records of patients who underwent surgery in 2012/2013 (50 each from hospitals A and B). These records represented 27% (100/367) of patient entries in the ACORN registry, all of which were collected at either hospital A or hospital B. Firstly, data completeness was determined by identifying the proportion of missing data in the original data pro forma. Secondly, accuracy of the initial data extraction was determined by comparing these data to reabstracted data collated by an auditor blind to the outcomes of the initial extraction. Inaccuracies were ascertained to be a disagreement between categorical variables and for continuous data, a pre-determined window of error was established. Benchmarks for data completeness and accuracy were set at 95.0%; kappa and intraclass coefficient (ICC) calculations were also utilised to supplement this analysis. In addition, registry completeness (the percentage capture of eligible patients) was also determined as part of the data quality analysis. Completeness and accuracy of submitted datasets were evaluated to be 99.0% (1259/1272) and 94.0% (2159/2296) respectively for Hospital A, and 99.3% (1589/1600) and 96.1% (2444/2542) for Hospital B. The majority of accuracy discrepancies pertained to medical history data. For Hospital A, 57.1% (28/49) of variables met the accuracy benchmark of 95%; 74.5% (38/51) of variables in Hospital B met this benchmark. Of the number of patients eligible for inclusion in the registry, 93.5% (660/706) were found to be included. Levels of data completeness and accuracy were found to be high in the submitted datasets for both hospitals. However, important deficits were identified in the accuracy of patient comorbidities. More specific and clear data definitions, and a more thorough examination of medical records would be possible methods to improve the accuracy of deficient areas.