Advertisement

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 188, Issue 2, pp 517–524 | Cite as

The effect of indirect admission via hospital transfer on hip fracture patients in Ireland

  • Andrew J. HughesEmail author
  • Louise Brent
  • Regien Biesma
  • Paddy J. Kenny
  • Conor J. Hurson
Original Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Current best practice states that hip fracture patients should undergo surgery within 48 hours to minimise perioperative complications. There are 10 emergency departments (EDs) in Ireland that receive hip fracture patients without a trauma and orthopaedic surgery unit on site. Idle periods and duplicated preoperative investigations can lead to a prolonged time to surgery. The aim of this study was to identify the effect of admission route on the time to surgery, length of stay and pressure ulcer development in patients who sustain a hip fracture in Ireland.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed, using 2013 and 2014 data from the Irish Hip Fracture Database. Age, gender and ASA grade were identified as confounders and adjusted for accordingly.

Results

Of the 3893 hip fractures identified, indirect admissions via hospital transfer occurred in 8.6% of cases. Surgery was performed within 48 h in 72.0% of indirect admission and 73.7% of direct admission cases (p = 0.502). The length of stay was significantly prolonged for patients admitted via hospital transfer (25.6 compared to 19.6 days, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Delayed discharges post hip fracture have been shown to expose patients to increased perioperative morbidity and mortality rates, as well as reduced rehabilitation potential and less chance of returning home on discharge. This has significant cost implications for the health service and justifies the introduction of hospital bypass protocols for patients with hip fractures.

Keywords

Admission route Hip fracture Hospital network Length of stay Time to surgery Trauma network 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for the study was granted via the Research and Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (ID 001213). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    National Model of Care for Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery (2015). National Clinical Programme for Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Irish Hip Fracture Database (IHFD): Irish Hip Fracture Database National Report 2014; Better, safer care (2015). National Office of Clincal AuditGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Care of Patients with Fragility Fracture (2007). British Orthopaedic AssociationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khan S, Kalra S, Khanna A, Thiruvengada M, Parker M (2009) Timing of surgery for hip fractures: a systematic review of 52 published studies involving 291,413 patients. Injury 40:692–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simunovic N, Devereaux PJ, Sprague S (2010) Effect of early surgery after hip fracture on mortality and complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 182:1609–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siegmeth AW, Gurusamy K, Parker M (2005) Delay to surgery prolongs hospital stay in patients with fractures of the proximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 87-B(8):1123–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hommel A, Ulander K, Bjorkelund KB, Norrman P-O, Wingstrand H, Thorngren K-G (2008) Influence of optimised treatment of people with hip fracture on time to operation, length of hospital stay, reoperations and mortality within 1 year. Injury 39:1164–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Reference Guide (2009). European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and National Pressure Ulcer Advisory PanelGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dripps RD (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiol 24:111Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsson G, Holgers KM (2011) Fast-track care for patients with suspected hip fracture. Injury 42(11):1257–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devereaux PJ (2014) Accelerated care versus standard care among patients with hip fracture: the HIP ATTACK pilot trial. CMAJ 186(1):52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nikkel LE, Fox EJ, Black KP, Davis C, Andersen L, Hollenbeak CS (2012) Impact of comorbidities on hospitalization costs following hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glance LG, Stone PW, Mukamel DB, Dick AW (2011) Increases in mortality, length of stay, and cost associated with hospital-acquired infections in trauma patients. Arch Surg 146(7):794–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chong CP, Savige JA, Lim WK (2010) Medical problems in hip fracture patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(11):1355–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nikkel LE, Kates SL, Schreck M, Maceroli M, Mahmood B, Elfar JC (2015) Length of hospital stay after hip fracture and risk of early mortality after discharge in New York state: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 351:h6246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGowan B, Casey MC, Silke C, Whelan B, Bennett K (2013) Hospitalisations for fracture and associated costs between 2000 and 2009 in Ireland: a trend analysis. Osteoporos Int 24(3):849–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lawrence TM, White CT, Wenn R, Moran CG (2005) The current hospital costs of treating hip fractures. Injury 36(1):88–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peyravi M, Ortenwall P, Khorram-Manesh A (2015) Can medical decision-making at the scene by EMS staff reduce the number of unnecessary ambulance transportations, but still be safe? PLOS Curr Disasters 1Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cooney DR, Millin MG, Carter A, Lawner BJ, Nable JV, Wallus HJ (2011) Ambulance diversion and emergency department offload delay: resource document for the National Association of EMS physicians position statement. Prehosp Emerg Care 15(4):555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shabat S, Heller E, Mann G (2003) Economic consequences of operative delay for hip fractures in a profit institution. Orthopedics 26:1179–1179Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Høiberg MP, Gram J, Hermann P, Brixen K, Haugeberg G (2014) The incidence of hip fractures in Norway—accuracy of the national Norwegian patient registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15(13):372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cundall-Curry DJ, Lawrence JE, Fountain DM, Gooding CR (2016) Data errors in the National Hip Fracture Database. Bone Joint J 98-B:1406–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hughes AJ, Hennessy O, Brennan L, Rana A, Murphy CG (2018) How accurate is the data provided to the Irish hip fracture database? Ir J Med Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1810-5
  24. 24.
    Basques BA, McLynn RP, Lukasiewicz AM, Samuel AM, Bohl DD, Grauer J (2018) Missing data may lead to changes in hip fracture database studies. Bone Joint J 100-B:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lefaivre KA, Macadam SA, Davidson DJ, Ghandi R, Chan H, Broekhuyse HM (2009) Length of stay, mortality, morbidity and delay to surgery in hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91-B:922–927.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ireland AW, Kelly PJ, Cumming RG (2015) Total hospital stay for hip fracture: measuring the variations due to pre-fracture residence, rehabilitation, complications and comorbidities. BMC Health Serv Res 15(17):1–9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bergeron E, Lavoie A, Belcaid A, Ratte S, Clas D (2005) Should patients with isolated hip fractures be included in trauma registries? J Trauma 58(4):793–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferguson KB, Halai M, Winter A, Elswood T, Smith R, Hutchison JD, Holt G (2016) National audits of hip fractures: are yearly audits required? Injury 47:439–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neuburger J, Currie C, Wakeman R, Tsang C, Plant F, Stavola BD, Cromwell DA, Meulen JVD (2015) The impact of a National Clinician-led Audit Initiative on care and mortality after hip fracture in England: an external evaluation using time trends in non-audit data. Med Care 53:686–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kates SL (2016) Hip fracture programs: are they effective? Injury 47(S1):S25–S27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Management of hip fracture in older people—a national clinical guideline (2009). Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hacke W, Donnan G, Fieschi C (2004) Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet 363:768–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ryan TJ, Anderson JL, Antman EM (1996) ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: executive summary. A report of the American Col- lege of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 94:2341–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySt. Vincent’s University HospitalDublinIreland
  2. 2.National IHFD Audit Coordinator, National Office of Clinical AuditDublinIreland
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Public Health MedicineRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandDublinIreland
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryConnolly Hospital BlanchardstownDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations