ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Achieving effective and timely quality of care in same-day discharge total hip arthroplasty without compromising patient safety.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUsing quality improvement (QI) processes, we sought to safely achieve >80% efficiency in same-day discharge (SDD) of eligible primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients.
methodsA "Plan-Do-Study-Act" approach was used. QI elements included: research of prior relevant publications, clinical audit for data-driven evaluation, service evaluation assessments and clinical transformation on a small scale for piloting change. Care interventions were introduced within an already established highly iterative and enhanced recovery after surgery-based programme. Intervention 1 established patient eligibility. Those eligible could be SDD once discharge criteria were met (the "Standard" cohort). Intervention 2 implemented "Enhanced Recovery Canada" (ERC) recommendations for pre-emptive nausea and pain management, and lidocaine-based regional surgical anaesthesia (the "ERC" cohort). Intervention 3 changed from epidural to spinal lidocaine for surgical anaesthesia. This cohort was evaluated as part of the ERC cohort, as well as a stand-alone Lidocaine Spinal cohort. Clinical audits were the main comparative benchmarks. Improved rates of SDD were the primary measure of success. Safety was based on rates of unscheduled hospital encounters within 30-days of surgery. Data was collected prospectively and analysed using logistic regression, adjusting for age and gender. Patient satisfaction was also surveyed.
resultsThe ERC cohort had significantly greater odds of successful SDD compared to the standard group (74.4% vs 54.3%, OR 2.51, p=0.0015). Odds were even higher for Lidocaine Spinal (80.6% vs 54.3%, OR 3.4, 95% CI (1.34 to 8.66), p=0.0102). There was no significant difference in the rates of unscheduled 30-day hospital encounters. The ERC group experienced fewer complications that prevented SDD (25.6% vs 45.7%, OR 0.41, p=0.0015). Patient satisfaction scores were high in the Spinal Lidocaine group.
conclusionImplementing ERC recommendations significantly improved SDD rates for THA without increasing postoperative complication rates. This suggests that targeted interventions can enhance the efficiency of SDD THA programmes without compromising patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.