Objectives To assess across seven hospitals from six different countries the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic affected the volumes of orthopaedic hospital admissions and patient outcomes for non-COVID-19 patients admitted for orthopaedic care. Design A multi-centre interrupted time series (ITS) analysis. Setting Seven hospitals from six countries who collaborated within the Global Health Data@Work collaborative. Participants Non-COVID-19 patients admitted for orthopaedic care during the pre-pandemic (January/2018-February/2020) and COVID-19 pandemic (March/2020-June/2021) period. Admissions were categorised as: (1) acute admissions (lower limb fractures/neck of femur fractures/pathological fractures/joint dislocations/upper limb fractures); (2) subacute admissions (bone cancer); (3) elective admissions (osteoarthritis). Outcome measures Monthly observed versus expected ratios (O/E) were calculated for in-hospital mortality, long (upper-decile) length-of-stay and hospital readmissions, with expected rates calculated based on case-mix. An ITS design was used to estimate the change in level and/or trend of the monthly O/E ratio by comparing the COVID-19 pandemic with the pre-pandemic period. Results 69 221 (pre-pandemic) and 22 940 (COVID-19 pandemic) non-COVID-19 orthopaedic patient admissions were included. Admission volumes were reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic for all admission categories (range: 33%-45%), with more complex patients treated as shown by higher percentages of patients admitted with ≥1 comorbidity (53.8% versus 49.8%, p<0.001). The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with significant changes in patient outcomes for most diagnostic groups. Only for patients diagnosed with pathological fractures (pre-pandemic n=1671 and pandemic n=749), the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly associated with an immediate mortality reduction (level change of -77.7%, 95% CI -127.9% to -25.7%) and for lower limb fracture patients (pre-pandemic n=9898 and pandemic n=3307) with a significantly reduced trend in readmissions (trend change of -6.3% per month, 95% CI -11.0% to -1.6%). Conclusions Acute, subacute, as well as elective orthopaedic hospital admissions volumes were reduced in all global participating hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, while overall patient outcomes for most admitted non-COVID-19 patients remained the same despite the strain caused by the surge of COVID-19 patients. @en

Routinely reported structured data from the electronic health record (EHR) arefrequently used for secondary purposes. However, it is unknown how valid routinely reported data are for reuse. This study aimed to assess the validity of routinely reported Rutherford scores byclinicians as an indicator for the validity of structured data in the EHR.This observational study compared clinician-reported Rutherford scores with medical record review Rutherford scores for all visits at the vascular surgery department between April 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018. Free-text fields with clinical information for all visits were extracted for the assignment of the medical record review Rutherford score, after which the agreement with the clinician-reported Rutherford score was assessed using Fleiss’ Kappa.A total of 6,633 visits were included for medical record review. Substantial agreement was shown between clinician-reported Rutherford scores and medical record review Rutherford scores for the left (k = 0.62, confidence interval [CI]: 0.60–0.63) and right leg (k =0.62, CI: 0.60–0.64). This increased to the almost perfect agreement for left (k =0.84, CI: 0.82–0.86) and right leg (k = 0.85, CI: 0.83–0.87), when excluding missing clinician-reported Rutherford scores. Expert’s judgment was rarely required to be the deciding factor (11 out of 6,633).Substantial agreement between clinician-reported Rutherford scores and medicalrecord review Rutherford scores was found, which could be an indicator for the validity of routinely reported data. Depending on its purpose, the secondary use of routinely collected Rutherford scores is a viable option.@en

Aims: To evaluate the extent to which publication of high-quality randomised controlled trials(RCTs) in 2018 was associated with a change in volume or trend of subacromial decompression(SAD) surgery in patients with subacromial pain syndrome(SAPS) treated in hospitals across various countries. Methods: Routinely collected administrative data of the Global Health Data@work collaborative were used to identify SAPS patients who underwent SAD surgery in six hospitals from five countries (Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States) between 01/2016 and 02/2020. Following a controlled interrupted time series design, segmented Poisson regression was used to compare trends in monthly SAD surgeries before(01/2016-01/2018) and after(02/2018-02/2020) publication of the RCTs. The control group consisted of musculoskeletal patients undergoing other procedures. Results: A total of 3.046 SAD surgeries were performed among SAPS patients treated in five hospitals; one hospital did not perform any SAD surgeries. Overall, publication of trial results was associated with a significant reduction in the trend to use SAD surgery of 2% per month (Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.984[0.971–0.998]; P = 0.021), but with large variation between hospitals. No changes in the control group were observed. However, publication of trial results was also associated with a 2% monthly increased trend (IRR 1.019[1.004–1.034]; P = 0.014) towards other procedures performed in SAPS patients. Conclusion: Publication of RCT results was associated with a significantly decreased trend in SAD surgery for SAPS patients, although large variation between participating hospitals existed and a possible shift in coding practices cannot be ruled out. This highlights the complexities of implementing recommendations to change routine clinical practice even if based on high-quality evidence.@en