3.8 Article

Urban-rural differences in total hip replacements: the next stage

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH MEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 435-438

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/22.3.435

Keywords

total hip replacement; needs assessment; rural; commissioning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The aim of this study was to explore the differences in the incidence of primary elective total hip replacements between urban and rural communities and different age and sex groups in Northern Ireland, and to use this information to develop an equitable method for the allocation of surgical capacity among groups of general practices, in a system where referrals are matched to the contracted capacity. Methods A retrospective review was performed of all cases of primary elective total hip replacement between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1997. Incidence rates were calculated using direct standardization. Age, sex, and urban and rural specific rates for Northern Ireland were calculated and applied to each general practice population giving that practice's annual expected number of total hip replacements. Results A total of 4147 cases were analysed. The age and sex standardized incidence of primary elective total hip replacement for the total population was 87.6 per 100000. The incidence was significantly greater in rural populations (101.3 per 100000), than in urban ones (77.6 per 100000), p < 0.001. The overall standardized ratio of males to females was 1:1 although it was 1:1.2 in urban and 1:0.9 in rural populations. Using a 3 year commissioning cycle, commissioning for a population of 130000 allows a 10 per cent margin of error in the numbers of procedures required. Conclusions A system of calculating the expected need for a total hip replacements was developed based on the demography and rurality of individual general practices. This system allowed a method of commissioning to be instituted that could significantly reduce in-patient waiting lists for this procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available