To explore the relation between hospital orthopaedic specialisation and postoperative outcomes after total hip or knee replacement surgery.
Retrospective analysis of US Medicare data, 2001-5.
3818 US hospitals carrying out total joint replacement. Population 1 273 081 Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older who underwent primary or revision hip or knee replacement.
Hospitals were stratified into fifths on the basis of their degree of orthopaedic specialisation (lowest fifth, least specialised; highest fifth, most specialised). The primary outcome was defined as a composite representing the occurrence of one or more of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, haemorrhage, infection, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days of the index surgery.
As hospital orthopaedic specialisation increased from the lowest fifth to highest fifth, the proportion of people admitted who were women or black, or who had diabetes or heart failure progressively decreased (P<0.001), whereas procedural volume increased. Compared with the most specialised hospitals (highest fifth), after adjustment for patient characteristics and hospital volume, the odds of adverse outcomes increased progressively with decreased hospital specialisation: lowest fifth (odds ratio 1.59, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 1.65), second fifth (1.32, 1.28 to 1.36), third fifth (1.24, 1.21 to 1.28), and fourth fifth (1.10, 1.07 to 1.13).
Increased hospital orthopaedic specialisation is associated with improved patient outcomes after adjusting for both patient characteristics and hospital procedural volume. These results should be interpreted with caution because the possibility that other unmeasured confounders related to socioeconomic status or different factors are responsible for the improved patient outcomes rather than hospital specialisation can not be excluded. The findings suggest that hospital specialisation may capture different components of hospital quality than the components captured by hospital volume.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 September 2012.
All research outputs
#9,609,254
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#39,940
of 75,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,928
of 236,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#128
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 75,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 236,257 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
