Access Keys:
Skip to content (Access Key - 0)

Benchmarks for the Management of Hip Fractures

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Scroll down to respond to the


OrthopaedicsOne Poll: It is appropriate to establish a time-to-treatment benchmark that redirects resources to acute hip fracture patients


This point-counterpoint discussion between Drs. Karl-André Lalonde and Hans Kreder regarding benchmarks for the management of hip fracture patients is timely. The dilemma faced by all of us providing clinical care in orthopaedic surgery is limited resource allocation in most public hospitals in Canada. Our two protagonists are both from Ontario and therefore their arguments may seem parochial to those of you reading from outside that province. However, I can assure you that the move by the Ontario government to define wait times for both elective and emergent orthopaedic surgery (hip fractures) is a trend that will soon be national.

Both Dr. Lalonde and Dr. Kreder make very legitimate points in their essays regarding the benefits of and problems with the establishment of benchmarks. Essential to the establishment and, more importantly, adoption of benchmarks is first, evidence that the benchmarks are appropriate and second, a data collection/monitoring system that not only confirms that the benchmarks are being utilized appropriately but that their utilization does not adversely impact care for other deserving patients.


Viewpoint 1: Karl-André Lalonde

Include Page
Benchmarks in Orthopaedic Care - Not without Pitfalls

Viewpoint 2: Hans J. Kreder

Include Page
Barriers to the Implementation of Best Practice Benchmarks


Include Page
Viewpoint:Poll - Benchmarks for Management of Hip Fractures