4.6 Article

Monitoring the performance of hip fracture treatment in Finland

期刊

ANNALS OF MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 S39-S46

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/07853890.2011.586360

关键词

Administrative registers; costs; effectiveness; episodes of care; indicators; hip fracture; monitoring system; quality; record linkage

资金

  1. Amgen
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. MSD
  4. Novartis
  5. Roche
  6. Sanofi-Aventis
  7. Finnish Academy
  8. Finnish Innovation Fund SITRA
  9. Helsinki University Central Hospital EVO
  10. Yrjo Jahnsson Foundation [5978]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. This article in the supplement on the PERFormance, Effectiveness, and Costs of Treatment episodes (PERFECT)-project aims to measure the performance and quality of hip fracture treatment by analysing annual trends and regional differences in developed performance indicators. Material and methods. The PERFECT Hip Fracture Database contains all hip fracture patients identified from the Hospital Discharge Register in Finland since 1999. Follow-up data from several administrative registers were also linked to the database. Several risk-adjusted performance indicators were developed. Results. In 2007 (compared with 1999), 4.1 percentage points fewer patients had died and 7.5 percentage points more patients were at home four months after fracture. The mean length of treatment had shortened from about 50 to about 45 days, and the mean costs of treatment per patient during the year following hip fracture had increased from about euroa,not sign18,000 to almost euroa,not sign20,000. There was extensive variation between the hospitals in the proportion of patients with an operative delay longer than two days and clear differences between hospital districts in several performance indicators. Conclusions. Outcomes of hip fracture treatment in Finland have been improved in recent years, but regional variation exists. Register-based data are useful for performance assessment of hip fracture treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据