Anzeige
Erschienen in:
23.03.2019 | Original Article
Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry (RNFC): analysis of its first annual report and international comparison with other established registries
Erschienen in: Osteoporosis International | Ausgabe 6/2019
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Summary
Hip fracture registries have helped improve quality of care and reduce variability, and several audits exist worldwide. The results of the Spanish National Hip Fracture Registry are presented and compared with 13 other national registries, highlighting similarities and differences to define areas of improvement, particularly surgical delay and early mobilization.
Introduction
Hip fracture audits have been useful for monitoring current practice and defining areas in need of improvement. Most established registries are from Northern Europe. We present the results from the first annual report of the Spanish Hip Fracture Registry (RNFC) and compare them with other publically available audit reports.
Method
Comparison of the results from Spain with the most recent reports from another ten established hip fracture registries highlights the differences in audit characteristics, casemix, management, and outcomes.
Results
Of the patients treated in 54 hospitals, 7.208 were included in the registry between January and October 2017. Compared with other registries, the RNFC included patients ≥ 75 years old; in general, they were older, more likely to be female, had a worse prefracture ambulation status, and were more likely to have extracapsular fractures. A larger proportion was treated with intramedullary nails than in other countries, and spinal anesthesia was most commonly used. With a mean of 75.7 h, Spain had by far the longest surgical delay, and the lowest proportion of patients mobilized on the first postoperative day (58.5%). Consequently, development of pressure ulcers was high, but length of stay, mortality, and discharge to home remained in the range of other audits.
Conclusions
National hip fracture registries have proved effective in changing clinical practice and our understanding of patients with this condition. Such registries tend to be based on an internationally recognized common dataset which would make comparisons between national registries possible, but variations such as age inclusion criteria and follow-up are becoming evident across the world. This variation should be avoided if we are to maximize the comparability of registry results and help different countries learn from each other’s practice. The results reported in the Spanish RNFC, compared with those of other countries, highlight the differences between countries and detect areas of improvement, particularly surgical delay and early mobilization.