Improving the care of patients with a hip fracture: A quality improvement report
BMJ Quality and Safety, ISSN: 2044-5415, Vol: 24, Issue: 8, Page: 532-538
2015
- 22Citations
- 23Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations22
- Citation Indexes20
- 20
- CrossRef13
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Captures23
- Readers23
- 23
Article Description
Introduction Hip fractures are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and their incidence is set to increase. The National Hip Fracture Database and the Best Practice Tariff were introduced with the aim of improving patient care. This complete audit cycle charts the substantial clinical improvements that were achieved in a busy district general hospital. Methods The first audit cycle comprised 379 patients who were admitted between May 2012 and April 2013. The primary audit criterion was operative intervention within 36 h of admission. Variation according to the day of the week of admission was assessed to evaluate specific deficiencies in local service provision. The principle audit intervention was the introduction of two additional morning trauma lists. A re-audit of 162 patients was conducted prospectively between January 2014 and June 2014. Results Mean time to theatre was 49± 39 h during the first audit cycle compared with 27± 19 h (p< 0.0001) during the second. Consequently, the proportion of patients undergoing operative intervention within 36 h of admission improved from 41% to 78% (p< 0.0001). Overall achievement of Best Practice Tariff was significantly higher during the second cycle: 28% vs 73% (p< 0.0001). Conclusions Significant improvements in the quality of hip fracture care were achieved following this audit. These were accomplished by rigorously analysing the variation in Best Practice Tariff achievement according to the day of the week on which patients were admitted. Targeted interventions could therefore be introduced that addressed specific problems in local service provision.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84938501191&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003700; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25979000; https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003700; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003700; https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/24/8/532
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know