Search

Background In 2040 the estimated number of people with a hip fracture in the Netherlands will be about 24,000. The medical care for this group of patients is complicated and challenging. Multidisciplinary approaches aim to improve clinical outcome. Quality indicators that gain insight in the treatment and outcome of hip fracture patients may help to optimize and monitor the standard of medical care. The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA) is a new multidisciplinary quality indicator that is implemented in the Dutch hospitals in 2017. Aim The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the implementation of the DHFA on 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay and time until surgery in elderly with a hip fracture in the Netherlands. Methods A multicenter retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted and data were extracted from the Dutch Nationwide Trauma Registration (LTR). Included were patients aged 60 years and older with a hip fracture (femoral neck and trochanteric) and admitted in one of the ten participating hospitals registered in 2015 and 2017. Data from 2015, before implementation of DHFA, were compared with data from 2017, when the DHFA was implemented. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and time until surgery. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results 3808 patients were included, 1839 in the 2015 cohort and 1969 in the 2017 cohort. 29% was male; mean age 82 years. The multilevel analysis showed a positive non-significant difference between groups on the primary outcome30-day mortality (OR adjusted 1.23, 95%CI 0.93 - 1.63). The secondary outcomes length of hospital stay (adjusted effect estimates -0.002, 95%CI -0.03 - 0.03) and time until surgery (adjusted effect estimates 0.292, 95%CI -2.68 - 3.26) showed no differences between groups. Conclusions Implementation of the DHFA quality indicator does have a positive non-significant trend on 30-day mortality, but showed no impact on length of hospital stay and time until surgery. More research on relevant quality indicators seems therefore mandatory.

Background Inguinal hernia repair, gallbladder removal, and knee- and hip replacements are the most commonly performed surgical procedures, but all are subject to practice variation and variable patient-reported outcomes. Shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to reduce surgery rates and increase patient satisfaction. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an SDM strategy with online decision aids for surgical and orthopaedic practice in terms of impact on surgery rates, patient-reported outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Methods The E-valuAID-study is designed as a multicentre, non-randomized stepped-wedge study in patients with an inguinal hernia, gallstones, knee or hip osteoarthritis in six surgical and six orthopaedic departments. The primary outcome is the surgery rate before and after implementation of the SDM strategy. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Patients in the usual care cluster prior to implementation of the SDM strategy will be treated in accordance with the best available clinical evidence, physician’s knowledge and preference and the patient’s preference. The intervention consists of the implementation of the SDM strategy and provision of disease-specific online decision aids. Decision aids will be provided to the patients before the consultation in which treatment decision is made. During this consultation, treatment preferences are discussed, and the final treatment decision is confirmed. Surgery rates will be extracted from hospital files. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Discussion The E-valuAID-study will examine the cost-effectiveness of an SDM strategy with online decision aids in patients with an inguinal hernia, gallstones, knee or hip osteoarthritis. This study will show whether decision aids reduce operation rates while improving patient-reported outcomes. We hypothesize that the SDM strategy will lead to lower surgery rates, better patient-reported outcomes, and be cost-effective. Trial registration: The Netherlands Trial Register, Trial NL8318, registered 22 January 2020. URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8318.

IntroductionThe Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria have been implemented for optimal triaging of burn patients. Admission to a burn centre is indicated for patients with severe burns or with specific characteristics like older age or comorbidities. Patients not meeting these criteria can also be treated in a hospital without burn centre. Limited information is available about the organisation of care and referral of these patients. The aims of this study are to determine the burn injury characteristics, treatment (costs), quality of life and scar quality of burn patients admitted to a hospital without dedicated burn centre. These data will subsequently be compared with data from patients withMethods and analysisIn this multicentre, prospective, observational study (cohort study), the following two groups of patients will be followed: 1) all patients (no age limit) admitted with burn-related injuries to a hospital without a dedicated burn centre in the Southwest Netherlands or Brabant Trauma Region and 2) all patients (no age limit) withEthics and disseminationThis study has been exempted by the medical research ethics committee Erasmus MC (Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Each participant will provide written consent to participate and remain encoded during the study. The results of the study are planned to be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNTR6565.