Hip fracture audit: Time for standards to be evidence-based

6Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Hip fractures are a common and increasing problem. Outcome varies considerably between hospitals. The reasons for this variability are complex. To reduce inequality in patient outcome, management guidelines should be evidence-based. In order to assess quality of care, audit methods and targets should also be evidence-based. Most hip fracture audit in the UK is based upon non evidence-based guidelines and uses parameters of process rather than outcome. Current audit tools are insufficiently sensitive to account for differences in demography between hospitals. This may produce misleading results. In the space of 5 years, only modest improvements have been made in the care of patients with hip fracture. Audit tools should look at pre-existing comorbidity and functional outcome as well as the process of care, mortality and length of hospital stay. Future guidelines should be evidence-based, concentrate on outcome measures, and account for variations in demography.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Treml, J., & Kroker, P. B. (2000). Hip fracture audit: Time for standards to be evidence-based. International Orthopaedics, 24(4), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640000152

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free