11 research outputs found
The consistency of care for older patients with a hip fracture: are the results of the integrated orthogeriatric treatment model of the Centre of Geriatric Traumatology consistent 10Â years after implementation?
Functional outcome and quality of life in patients with hip fracture after total knee arthroplasty
Orthogeriatric treatment reduces potential inappropriate medication in older trauma patients: a retrospective, dual-center study comparing conventional trauma care and co-managed treatment
Improved outcome in hip fracture patients in the aging population following co-managed care compared to conventional surgical treatment: a retrospective, dual-center cohort study
Combination of measures of handgrip strength and red cell distribution width can predict in-hospital complications better than the ASA grade after hip fracture surgery in the elderly
Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review
Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators