Simpatie Logo Simpatie: Safety Improvement for Patients in Europe Logo of the European Union




- Login

Table 37 'In-Hospital Hip Fracture or Fall'

  • Please find a pdf-file of Table 37 here






  • PSI 36: In Hospital Hip Fracture or Fall
    Review of an OECD PSI (33).
    Dimension Description
    Description of Specific
    Aspects of Patient Safety
    Falls are a common cause of morbidity and mortality especially among
    elderly in-patients over 65 years of age. Falls are associated with
    functional disability and injury, increased length of stay, and risk of
    nursing home placement from hospital. Often falls are the result of the
    interaction of many factors. Falls may be caused by the persons’ health
    status, response to medical interventions, external factors such as the
    type of floor or other factors. Thus in-hospital hip fracture or fall is an
    adequate measure of patient safety.
    Aim of the PSI This PSI is intended to flag cases of in-hospital hip fractures or falls.
    Level of Determination of
    Patient Safety
    Safety is assessed at the aggregated patient level.
    Source(s) The complication screening programme (33).
    Extent of Clinically
    Testing
    The OECD Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) Project was
    initiated to implement quality measures for international
    benchmarking of medical care at the health system level. Five priority
    areas including patient safety were selected. International expert
    panels were formed to identify clinically important, scientifically
    sound, and feasible measures based on a structured consensus process.
    The consensus process was successfully completed in all five priority
    areas leading to a recommendation of 86 indicators of which 21 cover
    patient safety (33).
    The Complications Screening Program (CSP) aims to identify 28
    potentially preventable complications of hospital care using
    computerised discharge abstracts, including demographic information,
    diagnosis and procedure codes. A study was set up to validate the CSP
    as a quality indicator. Explicit process of care criteria were used to
    determine whether hospital discharges flagged by the CSP experienced
    more process problems than unflagged discharges. The CSP was
    applied to computerised hospital discharge abstracts from Medicare
    beneficiaries > 65 years old admitted in 1994 to hospitals in California
    and Connecticut for major surgery or medical treatment. The final
    sample included 740 surgical and 416 medical discharges. Rates of
    process problems were high, ranging from 24.4 to 82.5% across CSP
    screens for surgical cases. Problems were lower for medical cases,
    ranging from 2.0 to 69.1% across CSP screens. Problem rates were
    45.7% for surgical and 5.0% for medical controls. Rates of problems
    did not differ significantly across flagged and unflagged discharges.
    The researchers concluded: “The CSP did not flag discharges with
    significantly higher rates of explicit process problems than unflagged
    discharges” (37).
    SImPatIE WP4 – Catalogue of Patients Safety Indicators
    93
    Another study of the CSP was undertaken to study the accuracy of
    computer algorithms on administrative data to identify hospital
    complications. The assessment was based on a medical records
    indicator differentiating hospital-acquired conditions from pre-existing
    comorbidities. Indicators for identifying potential hospital
    complications were applied to all secondary diagnoses for all 1997-
    1998 discharges. The researchers concluded: “Current complication
    algorithms identify many cases where the condition was actually
    present on hospital admission. This fact, coupled with the known
    variability in coding between institutions, makes comparisons between
    hospitals on many of the complications problematic. Collection of the
    present-on-admission flag significantly reduces the noise in monitoring
    complication rates (38).
    The results suggest that this PSI may be useful as a measure of patient
    safety (33;37).
    Evidence of Clinically use
    of Standards
    No evidence of clinically use of standards was found.
    PSI category Theme Related PSI: “In-Hospital Fall”.
    Data definitions Cases of in-hospital hip fracture or fall per 100 surgical discharges
    with an operating room procedure.
    Numerator Description Patients experiencing an in-hospital hip fracture or fall; defined as
    secondary diagnosis only.
    A fall is defined as unintentionally coming to rest on the ground, floor,
    or other lower level, but not as a result of syncope or overwhelming
    external force.
    Exclude cases:
    − With trauma or metastatic cancer as any diagnosis
    − With principal diagnosis of seizure, syncope, stroke, coma, cardiac
    arrest, or poisoning
    − In MDC 8.
    Denominator Description Inpatients undergoing major surgery OR minor or miscellaneous
    surgery OR invasive cardiac procedures OR invasive radiologic
    procedures OR endoscopy OR medical patients OR all patients as
    defined by the CSP.
    Data Source Administrative data.
    Identifying the
    institutional context
    The impact of falls makes this PSI important for both financial and
    quality improvement policies.
    Care Setting The PSI applies for high quality care.
    Professionals Responsible
    for Health Care
    All health care workers.
    Lowest Level of Health
    Care Delivery Addressed
    Individual clinical department.
    SImPatIE WP4 – Catalogue of Patients Safety Indicators
    94
    Allowance for Patient
    Factors
    No risk adjustment described.
    Stratification by
    Vulnerable Populations
    No stratification.
    Standard of Comparison No specific standards given.
    Scoring Not specified