Hospitals that treat more patients with osteoporotic hip fractures do not generally have better care outcomes than those that treat fewer hip fracture patients. Institutions that do look after more such patients tend, however, to more consistently perform relevant health assessments. INTRODUCTION: An inveterate link has been found between institution case volume and a wide range of clinical outcomes; for a host of medical and surgical conditions. Hip fracture patients, notwithstanding the significance of this injury, have largely been overlooked with regard to this important evaluation. METHODS: We used the UK National Hip Fracture database to determine the effect of institution hip fracture case volume on hip fracture healthcare outcomes in 2019. Using logistic regression for each healthcare outcome, we compared the best performing 50 units with the poorest performing 50 institutions to determine if the unit volume was associated with performance in each particular outcome. RESULTS: There were 175 institutions with included 67,673 patients involved. The number of hip fractures between units ranged from 86 to 952. Larger units tendered to perform health assessments more consistently and mobilise patients more expeditiously post-operatively. However, patients treated at large institutions did not have any shorter lengths of stay. With regard to most other outcomes there was no association between the unit number of cases and performance; notably mortality, compliance with best practice tariff, time to surgery, the proportion of eligible patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, length of stay delirium risk and pressure sore risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is no relationship between unit volume and the majority of health care outcomes. It would seem that larger institutions tend to perform better at parameters that are dependent upon personnel numbers. However, where the outcome is contingent, even partially, on physical infrastructure capacity, there was no difference between larger and smaller units.
Hospitals that treat more patients with osteoporotic hip fractures do not generally have better care outcomes than those that treat fewer hip fracture patients. Institutions that do look after more such patients tend, however, to more consistently perform relevant health assessments. INTRODUCTION: An inveterate link has been found between institution case volume and a wide range of clinical outcomes; for a host of medical and surgical conditions. Hip fracture patients, notwithstanding the significance of this injury, have largely been overlooked with regard to this important evaluation. METHODS: We used the UK National Hip Fracture database to determine the effect of institution hip fracture case volume on hip fracture healthcare outcomes in 2019. Using logistic regression for each healthcare outcome, we compared the best performing 50 units with the poorest performing 50 institutions to determine if the unit volume was associated with performance in each particular outcome. RESULTS: There were 175 institutions with included 67,673 patients involved. The number of hip fractures between units ranged from 86 to 952. Larger units tendered to perform health assessments more consistently and mobilise patients more expeditiously post-operatively. However, patients treated at large institutions did not have any shorter lengths of stay. With regard to most other outcomes there was no association between the unit number of cases and performance; notably mortality, compliance with best practice tariff, time to surgery, the proportion of eligible patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, length of stay delirium risk and pressure sore risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is no relationship between unit volume and the majority of health care outcomes. It would seem that larger institutions tend to perform better at parameters that are dependent upon personnel numbers. However, where the outcome is contingent, even partially, on physical infrastructure capacity, there was no difference between larger and smaller units.
Authors: Joseph S Ross; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Yun Wang; Dennis T Ko; Jersey Chen; Elizabeth E Drye; Patricia S Keenan; Judith H Lichtman; Héctor Bueno; Geoffrey C Schreiner; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245