Back

Effect of NHS surgical hubs on elective primary hip-and-knee replacement volume, length of stay and waiting times: national longitudinal difference-in-differences study

Wen, J.; Anteneh, Z.; Castelli, A.; Street, A.; Gutacker, N.; Scantlebury, A.; Glerum-Brooks, K.; Davies, S.; Bloor, K.; Rangan, A.; Castro Avila, A.; Lampard, P.; Adamson, J.; Sivey, P.

2026-04-22 health policy
10.64898/2026.04.21.26351383 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of surgical hubs on the volume of surgeries, patient waiting times, and length of hospital stay for elective hip and knee replacements in the English NHS. DesignA retrospective longitudinal study using a difference-in-differences approach to compare changes in outcomes at NHS trusts that opened surgical hubs with those that did not. SettingThe study was set in the English NHS, using administrative data from NHS acute trusts providing elective hip and knee replacements between April 2014 and September 2024. ParticipantsThe study included 76 NHS trusts. The treatment group consisted of 29 trusts that opened a surgical hub for trauma and orthopaedic surgery during the study period. The control group consisted of 47 trusts that did not. 48 trusts that performed fewer than 1,000 relevant procedures over the ten-year period or that reported data for fewer than 41 of the 42 quarters in the sample period were excluded. InterventionThe phased introduction of surgical hubs dedicated to elective procedures at 29 NHS trusts between Q1 2020 and Q3 2024. Main outcome measuresThe three main outcomes were, measured at the trust-quarter level: the total number of elective primary hip and knee replacements (surgical volume), the average length of stay in hospital, and the average waiting time from being added to the waiting list to hospital admission. ResultsThe opening of a surgical hub was associated with an increase of 43.75 hip and knee replacement surgeries per quarter (95% CI: 22.22 to 65.28), which represents a 19.1% increase compared to the pre-hub mean. Length of stay was reduced by 0.32 days (95% CI: - 0.48 to -0.16), a 7.8% reduction. There was no statistically significant effect on average waiting times (-14.96 days, 95% CI: -33.11 to 3.19). ConclusionsSurgical hubs appear to be effective at increasing the number of hip and knee replacements and reducing the time patients spend in hospital. However, in this study, they did not lead to a statistically significant reduction in waiting times overall.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
40.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.2%
50% of probability mass above
3
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.4%
5
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
6
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
7
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
8
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
9
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
10
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
11
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
12
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
13
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
14
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
16
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
17
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
20
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
21
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
22
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
23
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%