Patient-related healthcare disparities in the quality of acute hip fracture care: a 10-year nationwide population-based cohort study

ObjectivesTo characterise and quantify possible patient-related disparities in hip fracture care including temporal changes.DesignPopulation-based cohort study.SettingAll Danish hospitals treating patients with hip fracture.Participants60 275 hip fracture patients from 2007 to 2016.InterventionsQuality of care was defined as fulfilment of eligible care process measures for the individual patient recommended by an expert panel. Using yearly logistic regression models, we predicted the individual patient’s probability for receiving high-quality care, resulting in a distribution of adjusted probabilities based on age, sex, comorbidity, fracture type, education, family mean income, migration status, cohabitation status, employment status, nursing home residence and type of municipality. Based on the distribution, we identified best-off patients (ie, the 10% of patients with the highest probability) and worst-off patients (ie, the 10% of patients with the lowest probability). We evaluated disparities in quality of care by measuring the distance in fulfilment of outcomes between the best-off and worst-off patients.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was fulfilment of all-or-none, defined as receiving all relevant process measures. Secondary outcomes were fulfilment of the individual process measures including preoperative optimisation, early surgery, early mobilisation, assessment of pain, basic mobility, nutritional risk and need for antiosteoporotic medication, fall prevention and a postdischarge rehabilitation programme.ResultsThe proportion of patients receiving high-quality care varied over time for both best-off and worst-off patients. The absolute difference in percentage points between the best-off and worst-off patients for receiving all-or-none of the eligible process measures was 12 (95% CI 6 to 18) in 2007 and 23 (95% CI 19 to 28) in 2016. Disparities were consistent for a range of care processes, including assessment of pain, mobilisation within 24 hours, assessment of need for antiosteoporotic medication and nutritional risk assessment.ConclusionsDisparity of care between best-off and worst-off patients remained substantial over time.

Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries

Purpose Hip fractures are of growing interest due to their increasing number, subsequent functional decline and high institutionalization rate of patients, mortality, and costs. Several process measurements are essential for hip fracture care. To compare and improve these, hip fracture registries in Europe became popular. This systematic review aims to describe the differences between hip fracture registries in Europe as well as the differences in hip fracture treatment between countries. Methods A systematic search using the keywords “hip fracture” AND “national” AND “database OR audit OR registry OR register” was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library according to PRISMA guidelines till 3rd December 2020. Recent annual reports of identified hip fracture registries in Europe were additionally identified in June 2021. Comparisons of most common case-mix, process and outcome measurements were performed. Results 11 registries in Europe were identified. Differences were observed regarding inclusion criteria of the different registries. Comparison of the different registries was difficult due to differences in the way to report measurements. While mortality rates differed substantially between countries, most of the process measurements met recommendations according to recent guidelines. Conclusion Hip fracture registries were a valid tool to compare hospitals within one country. However, a comparison between registries of different countries should have also been easily possible. For this, the registries need to make their data easily accessible and further unify their way of measuring and reporting.