Decrease in incidence of distal radius fractures in Oslo, Norway.

This study reported the incidence of validated adult distal radius fractures in Oslo, Norway, in 2019. The incidence has been reduced over the last 20 years. However, it is still high compared to other regions in Norway and some of the other Nordic countries. PURPOSE: We aimed to report the incidence of distal radius fractures in Oslo in 2019 and compare it to the incidence rates in 1998/1999. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 20 years resident in Oslo sustaining a distal radius fracture in 2019 were identified by electronic diagnosis registers, patient protocols, and/or radiology registers. The diagnosis was verified using medical records and/or radiology descriptions. We used the same method as the previous study from Oslo, making the comparison over time more accurate. The age-adjusted incidence rates and the age-standardized incidence rate ratio (IRR) were calculated. RESULTS: The absolute number of fractures decreased from 1490 in 1998/1999 to 1395 in 2019. The IRR for women and men in the age group ≥ 20 years in 2019 compared to 1998/1999 was 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.84) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.90), respectively. The IRR for women and men in the age group ≥ 50 years in 2019 compared to 1998/1999 was 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.86) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.63-0.97), respectively. For the population in Oslo with Asian background compared to Norwegian background in the age group ≥ 50 years, the IRR in 2019 was 0.57 (95% CI 0.40-0.80) for women and 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.37) for men. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of distal radius fractures in Oslo has decreased over the last 20 years. It is still, however, higher than in other areas of Norway and in some of the other Nordic countries.

Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment in a Norwegian intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: To withhold and withdraw treatment are important and difficult decisions made in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of withholding or withdrawing treatment, characteristics of the patients, and how these decision processes were handled and documented in a general ICU from 2007 to 2009 in a university hospital in Norway. METHODS: Patient characteristics and outcomes of treatment were prospectively registered. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records for information on limitations in treatment. RESULTS: In total, 1287 patients were admitted to the ICU. The ICU mortality was 208 (16%), and the hospital mortality was 341 (26%). In total, 301 patients (23%) had treatment withheld or withdrawn. Medical and unscheduled surgical patients with limitations in treatment had higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (P < 0.001) and were older (P < 0.001) than those without limitations in treatment. The most common main reason for withdrawing treatment was poor prognosis. According to the medical records, the patient was involved in the decision-making regarding withdrawal of treatment in only 2% of the cases, and the patient's relatives were involved in the decision-making in 77% of the cases. In 12% of the cases, type of treatment withdrawn was not documented. CONCLUSION: Withholding or withdrawing treatment in the ICU was common. Medical and unscheduled surgical patients with limitations in treatment were older and more severely ill than patients without limitations. There is a potential for better documentation of the processes regarding withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining intensive care treatment.