Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep;29(9):1963-1985.
doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4558-x. Epub 2018 May 17.

Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review

Affiliations

Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review

S C Voeten et al. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Sep.

Abstract

Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators.

Keywords: Audit; Benchmark; Hip fracture; Quality indicators.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of study selection

References

    1. Abrahamsen B, van Staa T, Ariely R, Olson M, Cooper C. Excess mortality following hip fracture: a systematic epidemiological review. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:1633–1650. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-0920-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roberts SE, Goldacre MJ. Time trends and demography of mortality after fractured neck of femur in an English population, 1968–98: database study. BMJ. 2003;327:771–775. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7418.771. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Keene GS, Parker MJ, Pryor GA. Mortality and morbidity after hip fractures. BMJ. 1993;6914:1248–1250. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6914.1248. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Magaziner J, Hawkes W, Hebel JR, Zimmerman SI, Fox KM, Dolan M, Felsenthal G, Kenzora J. Recovery from hip fracture in eight areas of function. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55:M498–M507. doi: 10.1093/gerona/55.9.M498. - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Institute For Health and Care Excellence (2011) Hip fracture: management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG124. Accessed 24 July 2017

Publication types

MeSH terms