Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hip fracture registries: utility, description, and comparison

  • Position Paper
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

Hip fractures (HF) are prevalent and involve high morbidity and mortality so improving their management is important. HF registries are a good way to improve knowledge about this condition and its quality of care, while at the same time reducing clinical variability, optimizing efficiency, improving outcomes, and reducing costs.

Introduction

Hip fractures (HF) are a prevalent fragility fracture secondary to osteoporosis that involves high morbidity and mortality. They are low-impact fractures, resulting from a fall from a standing or sitting height. Despite numerous Clinical Practice Guidelines that establish uniform recommendations for their care, great variability persists regarding clinical and healthcare outcomes. Fracture registries can help detect deficits and establish measures to improve care. The objective of this work is to analyze the contents that a HF registry should have and to compare the characteristics of some national HF registries.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on several national hip fracture registries, and those that contain relevant information on the variables and their outcomes were selected.

Results

The selected HF registries were compared using the parameters they measure as well as the outcomes in the different countries. The variables collected in the majority of the databases and those that give useful information are as follows: sociodemographic variables (age, sex, place of residence), clinical variables (function before and after HF, anesthesia risk as measured by the ASA score, type of fracture, type of surgery and anesthesia, and in-hospital and 1-month mortality), and healthcare variables (pre-operative and overall stay, presence of collaboration with orthogeriatrics or with any clinician in addition to the surgeon, secondary prevention of new fractures by assessing the fall risk, and need for osteoporosis treatment).

Conclusion

The recording of HF cases in different countries improves knowledge about handling this condition and its quality of care, while at the same time reducing clinical variability, optimizing efficiency, improving outcomes, and reducing costs. The debate on the variables that should be recorded is timely, such as organizing how to collect each measurement, and even trying to unify the national and international registries or using a current proposal such as the one from the Fragility Fracture Network.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Singer A, Exuzides A, Spangler L, O’Malley C, Colby C, Johnston K et al (2015) Burden of illness for osteoporotic fractures compared with other serious diseases among postmenopausal women in the United States. Mayo Clin Proc 90(1):53–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J et al (2013) 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 8(1–2):136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Instituto de información Sanitaria (2010) Estadísticas comentadas: la atención a la fractura de cadera en los hospitales del SNS. [Statistical report: the care of hip fracture in Spanish National Health Service hospitals]. Madrid: Spanish Ministry of Health and Social Policy; 2010. Available from: http://www.msps.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/cmbdhome.htm. [In Spanish]. Accessed 8 Dec 2015

  4. Bardales Mas Y, González Montalvo JI, Abizanda Soler P, Alarcón Alarcón MT (2012) Hip fracture guidelines. A comparison of the main recommendations. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol 47(5):220–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pioli G, Barone A, Mussi C, Tafaro L, Bellelli G, Falaschi P et al (2014) The management of hip fracture in the older population. Joint position statement by Gruppo Italiano Ortogeriatria (GIOG). Aging Clin Exp Res 26:547–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Hip Fracture Care. Improving Outcomes in Hip Fracture Management of Adults. September 2014. Available from: http://anzhfr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ANZ-Guideline-for-Hip-Fracture-Care.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2016

  7. American Academic of Orthopaedics Surgeons (AOOS). Management of hip fractures in the elderly. Evidence based clinical practice guideline. Available from: www.aaos.org/research/guidelines/HipFxGuideline.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2016

  8. NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Hip fracture overview. Available from: http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/hip-fracture. Accessed 8 Dec 2014

  9. González Montalvo JI, Alarcón Alarcón T (2014) Orthogeriatrics in acute patients: to act, but also assess and compare as a way to improve. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol 49(3):101–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel NK, Sarraf KM, Chooi Lee SJ, Middleton FR (2013) Implementing the National Hip Fracture Database: an audit of care. Injury 44(12):1934–1939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johansen AW, Wakeman R, Boulton C, Plant F, Roberts J, Williams A (2013) The National Hip Fracture Database National Report 2013. Available at: http://www.nhfd.co.uk/. Accessed 8 Dec 2014

  12. Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme (FFFAP). National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) extended report 2014. Available at: http://www.nhfd.co.uk/20/hipfractureR.nsf/vwcontent/2014reportPDFs/$file/NHFD2014ExtendedReport.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 8 Apr 2015

  13. Neuburger J, Currie C, Wakean R, Tsang C, Plant F, De Stavola B et al (2015) The impact of a National Clinician-Led Audit Initiative on care and mortality after hip fracture in England. MedCare 53(8):686–691

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards GAD, Metcalfe AJ, Johansen A, O’Doherty D (2010) Performance monitoring in hip fracture surgery. How big a database do we really need? Injury 41(4):374–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bhandari M, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH (2009) FRCSC for the International Hip Fracture Research Collaborative. Resolving controversies in hip fracture care: the need for large collaborative trials in hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23(6):479–484

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Liem IS, Kammerlander C, Suhm N, Blauth M, Roth T, Gosch M et al (2013) Investigation performed with the assistance of the AOTrauma Network. Identifying a standard set of outcome parameters for the evaluation of orthogeriatric co-management for hip fractures. Injury 44(11):1403–1412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bohl DD, Basques BA, Golinvaux NS, Baumgaertner MR, Grauer JN (2014) Nationwide Inpatient Sample and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program give different results in hip fracture studies. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1672–1680

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Audit Commission. Best Practice Tariffs and their impact. London: Audit Commission (2012) Available from: http://archive.audit-commission.gov.uk/auditcommission/SiteCollectionDocuments/Downloads/20121129best-practice-tariffs.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2015

  19. Prevention and management of hip fracture in older people. A National Clinical Guideline. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Edinburgh (2009) Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign111.pdf/. Accessed 23 Apr 2015

  20. Holt G, Smith R, Duncan K, Hutchison JD, Gregori A (2008) Epidemiology and outcome after hip fracture in the under 65 s. Evidence from the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit. Injury Int J Care Injured 39:1175–1181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Boulton C, Johansen A, Wakeman R, Williams A, Plant F, Costa M, Moran C (2014) Setting priorities for hip fracture research—realising the potential of the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). Osteoporos Int 25(Suppl 6):S704–s705

    Google Scholar 

  22. Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme (FFFAP). National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) extended report 2016. Available at: http://web1.crownaudit.org/Report2016/NHFD2016Report.pdf Accessed 16 Sep 2016.

  23. Irish Hip Fracture Database IHFD (2014) Irish hip fracture database National Report 2014. Better, safer care. Available at: https://www.noca.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IHFD-National-Report-2014-Online-Version.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2015

  24. Inacio MCS, Weiss JM, Miric A, Hunt JJ, Zohman GL, Paxton EW (2015) A community-based hip fracture registry: population, methods, and outcomes. The Permanente Journal 19(3):29–36

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gjertsen J, Engesaeter LB, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Steindal K, Vinie T et al (2008) The Norwegian hip fracture register experiences after the first 2 years and 15,576 reported operations. Acta Orthop 79(5):583–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Søgaard AJ, Meyer HE, Emaus N, Grimnes G, Gjesdal CG, Forsmo S et al (2014) Cohort profile: Norwegian Epidemiologic Osteoporosis Studies (NOREPOS). Scand J Public Health 42(8):804–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry. 2016 Annual Report. http://anzhfr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ANZHFR-Annual-Report-2016.pdf Available: www.anzhr.org Accessed September 16, 2016.

  28. Sund R, Juntunen M, Lüthje P, Huusko T, HÄkkinen U (2011) Monitoring the performance of hip fracture treatment in Finland. Ann Med 43(Suppl 1):S 39–S 46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kang HY, Yang K, Nam Kim Y, Moon S, Choi W, Kang D et al (2010) Incidence and mortality of hip fracture among the elderly population in South Korea: a population-based study using the National Health Insurance claims data. BMC Public Health 10:230 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/230

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Pugely AJ, Martín CT, Gao Y, Klocke NF, Callaghan JJ, Marsh L (2014) A risk calculator for short-term morbidity and mortality alter hip fracture surgery. J Orthop Trauma 28(2):63–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. BC Hip Fracture Registry Dataset Creation Meeting at the Centre for Hip Health and Mobility. http://www.hiphealth.ca/blog/bc-hip-fracture-registry-dataset-creation-meeting

  32. Fragility fracture network of the bone and joint decade (FFN). Available at: http://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/our-organisation/about-the-ffn/ Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  33. Report of the pilot phase. http://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/files/ffn-hfad_pilot_phase_2nd_report.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2015

  34. Beaupre LA, Binder EF, Cameron ID, Jones CA, Orwig D, Sherrington C, Magaziner J (2013) Maximising functional recovery following hip fracture in frail seniors. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 27(6):771–788

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bachmann S, Finger C, Huss A, Egger M, Stuck AE, Clough-Gorr KM (2010) Inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 340:c1718

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Handoll HHG, Cameron ID, Mak JCS, Finnegan TP (2009) Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD007125.10.1002/14651858.CD007125.pub2

  37. Sáez-López P, Hernández Jiménez T, Romero Mayoral I (2013) Functional impairment secondary to a hip fracture and adequacy of social welfare resources at discharge. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol 48:98–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hawkes D, Baxter J, Bailey C, Holland G, Ruddlesdin J, Wall A, et al. (2014) Quality improvement report: improving the care of patients with a hip fracture: a quality improvement report. BMJ Qual Saf bmjqs-2014-003700

  39. Basques BA, Bohl DD, Golinvaux NS, Samuel AM, Grauer JG (2015) General versus spinal anaesthesia for patients aged 70 years and older with a fracture of the hip. Bone Joint J 97-B:689–695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. White SM, Moppett IK, Griffiths R (2014) Outcome by mode of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. An observational audit of 65 535 patients in a national dataset. Anaesthesia 69(3):224–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sáez-López P, Martín Pérez E, González Ramírez A, Pablos Hernández C, Jiménez Mola S, Vuelta Calzada E et al (2014) Orthogeriatric activity in public hospitals of Castilla y León: description and review of the literature. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol 49:137–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ryg J, Rejnmark L, Overgaard S, Brixen K, Vestergaard P (2009) Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977-2001. J Bone Miner Res 24(7):1299–1307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian M, Bolognese M, Dawson-Hughes B, Favus MJ et al (2014) The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group. Osteoporosis Int 25:1439–1443

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geriatrics Unit, Complejo Asistencial Universitario, Avila, Spain

    P. Sáez-López

  2. Orthogeriatrics Working Group of the Castilla-Leon, Cantabria, and Rioja Society of Traumatology, Complejo Asistencial Universitario, Avila, Spain

    P. Sáez-López

  3. Geriatrics and Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain

    F. Brañas

  4. Madrid Geriatrics and Gerontology Society, Madrid, Spain

    F. Brañas & J. I. González-Montalvo

  5. Department of Traumatology, Complejo Asistencial Universitario, Avila, Spain

    N. Sánchez-Hernández & N. Alonso-García

  6. Hospital La Paz Research Foundation, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain

    J. I. González-Montalvo

  7. Department of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    J. I. González-Montalvo

  8. Department of Geriatrics, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain

    J. I. González-Montalvo

Authors
  1. P. Sáez-López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Brañas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Sánchez-Hernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Alonso-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. I. González-Montalvo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Brañas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sáez-López, P., Brañas, F., Sánchez-Hernández, N. et al. Hip fracture registries: utility, description, and comparison. Osteoporos Int 28, 1157–1166 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3834-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3834-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation