Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Apr;28(4):1157-1166. doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3834-x. Epub 2016 Nov 21.

Hip fracture registries: utility, description, and comparison.

Author information

1
Geriatrics Unit, Complejo Asistencial Universitario, Avila, Spain.
2
Orthogeriatrics Working Group of the Castilla-Leon, Cantabria, and Rioja Society of Traumatology, Complejo Asistencial Universitario, Avila, Spain.
3
Geriatrics and Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain. fbranas@gmail.com.
4
Madrid Geriatrics and Gerontology Society, Madrid, Spain. fbranas@gmail.com.
5
Department of Traumatology, Complejo Asistencial Universitario, Avila, Spain.
6
Madrid Geriatrics and Gerontology Society, Madrid, Spain.
7
Hospital La Paz Research Foundation, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain.
8
Department of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
9
Department of Geriatrics, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain.

Abstract

Hip fractures (HF) are prevalent and involve high morbidity and mortality so improving their management is important. HF registries are a good way to improve knowledge about this condition and its quality of care, while at the same time reducing clinical variability, optimizing efficiency, improving outcomes, and reducing costs.

INTRODUCTION:

Hip fractures (HF) are a prevalent fragility fracture secondary to osteoporosis that involves high morbidity and mortality. They are low-impact fractures, resulting from a fall from a standing or sitting height. Despite numerous Clinical Practice Guidelines that establish uniform recommendations for their care, great variability persists regarding clinical and healthcare outcomes. Fracture registries can help detect deficits and establish measures to improve care. The objective of this work is to analyze the contents that a HF registry should have and to compare the characteristics of some national HF registries.

METHODS:

A literature search was conducted on several national hip fracture registries, and those that contain relevant information on the variables and their outcomes were selected.

RESULTS:

The selected HF registries were compared using the parameters they measure as well as the outcomes in the different countries. The variables collected in the majority of the databases and those that give useful information are as follows: sociodemographic variables (age, sex, place of residence), clinical variables (function before and after HF, anesthesia risk as measured by the ASA score, type of fracture, type of surgery and anesthesia, and in-hospital and 1-month mortality), and healthcare variables (pre-operative and overall stay, presence of collaboration with orthogeriatrics or with any clinician in addition to the surgeon, secondary prevention of new fractures by assessing the fall risk, and need for osteoporosis treatment).

CONCLUSION:

The recording of HF cases in different countries improves knowledge about handling this condition and its quality of care, while at the same time reducing clinical variability, optimizing efficiency, improving outcomes, and reducing costs. The debate on the variables that should be recorded is timely, such as organizing how to collect each measurement, and even trying to unify the national and international registries or using a current proposal such as the one from the Fragility Fracture Network.

KEYWORDS:

Database; Elderly; Hip fracture; Registry

PMID:
27872956
DOI:
10.1007/s00198-016-3834-x
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center