↓ Skip to main content

The SCHHS hip fracture clinical network experience–Improving care and outcomes through an interprofessional approach

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Orthopaedic & Trauma Nursing, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 156)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The SCHHS hip fracture clinical network experience–Improving care and outcomes through an interprofessional approach
Published in
International Journal of Orthopaedic & Trauma Nursing, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ijotn.2016.12.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Hip fractures are a major global health care issue, with the 1.26 million estimated cases in 1990 predicted to increase to 4.5 million by 2050. Varying models of care have been developed to improve outcomes following fragility hip fractures. Most of these care models embrace an interprofessional approach to care. Specialist orthopedic nurses play an important role in the management of fragility hip fracture patients and their contribution to the interprofessional health care team is an important predictor of patient outcomes. The Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (SCHHS) is compromised of four hospitals in South East Queensland, Australia however only one large regional hospital provides specialist hip fracture services. Approximately, 350 older hip fracture patients present to the Sunshine Coast Hospital & Health Service (SCHHS) each year. We used Hospital Health round table (HHRT) data to identify and assess key performance care and management of hip fracture patient and outcomes at SCHHS. The HHRT is a nonprofit membership organisation of health services across Australia and New Zealand that aims to provide opportunity for Health Services to achieve best practice, collect analyse and publish information, identify ways to improve and promote collaboration and networking. Exemplars of best practice are also identified in the data so that organizations can adopt similar models of care. HHRT data identified underperformance in management of hip fracture patients in a number of quality indicators at the study site, including length of stay (LOS), time to surgery and relative stay index (RSI). Following review of HHRT data key stakeholders undertook a quality improvement project and formed the Hip Fracture Clinical Network Group (HFCNG). This was established in 2013 with the aim of improving outcomes and achieving key performance indicators for all elderly patients who sustain a hip fracture through active collaboration and regular communication between a broad group of key clinical stakeholders. Following the implementation of the initiative the Relative Stay Index reduced from 88% in 2012/13 to 78% in 2014/15, and the average LOS reduced from 10.4 days to 8.6 days. The percentage of patients receiving surgery within 2 days rose from 85% to 96%; demonstrating consistent outperformance of the time to surgery key performance indicator of 80%. The percentage of patients discharged to their place of usual residence increased from 45% to 54%. The rate of complications reduced slightly from 69% to 66%. Rates of hospital acquired anaemia reduced from 20.7% to 15%. Detection of delirium rose over the reporting period from 22% to 34%, enabling rapid management. We noted during this period that there was no corresponding increase in readmission rates for this group of patients. These data reflect improvement to clinical documentation and the appropriate identification of cognitive changes. In this quality improvement report, we describe how key stakeholders were engaged to improve communication and collaboration, and how the use of a national benchmarking dataset enabled health care providers to identify care gaps and inconsistencies in clinical practice. This quality improvement project markedly improved collaboration, clinical practice and patient outcomes.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Librarian 6 7%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 21%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 29 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,982,638
of 33,928,890 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Orthopaedic & Trauma Nursing
#29
of 156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,321
of 458,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Orthopaedic & Trauma Nursing
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,928,890 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 458,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.