Dataset Information

Emergency Department Pain Management Following Implementation of a Geriatric Hip Fracture Program.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Over 300,000 patients in the United States sustain low-trauma fragility hip fractures annually. Multidisciplinary geriatric fracture programs (GFP) including early, multimodal pain management reduce morbidity and mortality. Our overall goal was to determine the effects of a GFP on the emergency department (ED) pain management of geriatric fragility hip fractures.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study including patients age ?65 years with fragility hip fractures two years before and two years after the implementation of the GFP. Outcomes were time to (any) first analgesic, use of acetaminophen and fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) in the ED, and amount of opioid medication administered in the first 24 hours. We used permutation tests to evaluate differences in ED pain management following GFP implementation.

Results

We studied 131 patients in the pre-GFP period and 177 patients in the post-GFP period. In the post-GFP period, more patients received FICB (6% vs. 60%; difference 54%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 45-63%; p<0.001) and acetaminophen (10% vs. 51%; difference 41%, 95% CI 32-51%; p<0.001) in the ED. Patients in the post-GFP period also had a shorter time to first analgesic (103 vs. 93 minutes; p=0.04) and received fewer morphine equivalents in the first 24 hours (15mg vs. 10mg, p<0.001) than patients in the pre-GFP period.

Conclusion

Implementation of a GFP was associated with improved ED pain management for geriatric patients with fragility hip fractures. Future studies should evaluate the effects of these changes in pain management on longer-term outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Casey SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5468062 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Emergency Department Pain Management Following Implementation of a Geriatric Hip Fracture Program.

Casey Scott D SD Stevenson Dane E DE Mumma Bryn E BE Slee Christina C Wolinsky Philip R PR Hirsch Calvin H CH Tyler Katren K

The western journal of emergency medicine 20170419 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Over 300,000 patients in the United States sustain low-trauma fragility hip fractures annually. Multidisciplinary geriatric fracture programs (GFP) including early, multimodal pain management reduce morbidity and mortality. Our overall goal was to determine the effects of a GFP on the emergency department (ED) pain management of geriatric fragility hip fractures.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a retrospective study including patients age ≥65 years with fragility hip fractures t ...[more]

PMID: 28611877

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Falls are the leading cause of traumatic mortality in geriatric adults. Despite recent multispecialty guideline recommendations that advocate for proactive fall prevention protocols in the emergency department (ED), the ability of risk factors or risk stratification instruments to identify subsets of geriatric patients at increased risk for short-term falls is largely unexplored. OBJECTIVES:This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of ED-based history, physical examination, and fall risk stratification instruments with the primary objective of providing a quantitative estimate for each risk factor's accuracy to predict future falls. A secondary objective was to quantify ED fall risk assessment test and treatment thresholds using derived estimates of sensitivity and specificity. METHODS:A medical librarian and two emergency physicians (EPs) conducted a medical literature search of PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, DARE, the Cochrane Registry, and Clinical Trials. Unpublished research was located by a hand search of emergency medicine (EM) research abstracts from national meetings. Inclusion criteria for original studies included ED-based assessment of pre-ED or post-ED fall risk in patients 65 years and older with sufficient detail to reproduce contingency tables for meta-analysis. Original study authors were contacted for additional details when necessary. The Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess individual study quality for those studies that met inclusion criteria. When more than one qualitatively similar study assessed the same risk factor for falls at the same interval following an ED evaluation, then meta-analysis was performed using Meta-DiSc software. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for fall risk factors or risk stratification instruments. Secondary outcomes included estimates of test and treatment thresholds using the Pauker method based on accuracy, screening risk, and the projected benefits or harms of fall prevention interventions in the ED. RESULTS:A total of 608 unique and potentially relevant studies were identified, but only three met our inclusion criteria. Two studies that included 660 patients assessed 29 risk factors and two risk stratification instruments for falls in geriatric patients in the 6 months following an ED evaluation, while one study of 107 patients assessed the risk of falls in the preceding 12 months. A self-report of depression was associated with the highest positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 6.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41 to 30.48). Six fall predictors were identified in more than one study (past falls, living alone, use of walking aid, depression, cognitive deficit, and more than six medications) and meta-analysis was performed for these risk factors. One screening instrument was sufficiently accurate to identify a subset of geriatric ED patients at low risk for falls with a negative LR of 0.11 (95% CI = 0.06 to 0.20). The test threshold was 6.6% and the treatment threshold was 27.5%. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the paucity of evidence in the literature regarding ED-based screening for risk of future falls among older adults. The screening tools and individual characteristics identified in this study provide an evidentiary basis on which to develop screening protocols for geriatrics adults in the ED to reduce fall risk.

Project description:ImportanceThere has been a significant increase in the implementation and dissemination of geriatric emergency department (GED) programs. Understanding the costs associated with patient care would yield insight into the direct financial value for patients, hospitals, health systems, and payers.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of GED programs with Medicare costs per beneficiary.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included data on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at 2 hospitals implementing Geriatric Emergency Department Innovations in Care Through Workforce, Informatics, and Structural Enhancement (GEDI WISE) (Mount Sinai Medical Center [MSMC] and Northwestern Memorial Hospital [NMH]) from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2016. Analyses were conducted and refined from August 28, 2018, to November 20, 2020, using entropy balance to account for observed differences between the treatment and comparison groups.InterventionsTreatment included consultation with a transitional care nurse (TCN) or a social worker (SW) trained for the GEDI WISE program at a beneficiary's first ED visit (index ED visit). The comparison group included beneficiaries who were never seen by either a TCN or an SW during the study period.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome evaluated was prorated total Medicare payer expenditures per beneficiary over 30 and 60 days after the index ED visit encounter.ResultsOf the total 24 839 unique Medicare beneficiaries, 4041 were seen across the 2 EDs; 1947 (17.4%) at MSMC and 2094 (15.4%) at the NMH received treatment from either a GED TCN and/or a GED SW. The mean (SD) age of beneficiaries at MSMC was 78.8 (8.5) years and at NMH was 76.4 (7.7) years. Most patients at both hospitals were female (6821 [60.8%] at MSMC and 8023 [58.9%] at NMH) and White (7729 [68.9%] at MSMC and 9984 [73.3%] at NMH). Treatment was associated with statistically significant mean savings per beneficiary of $2436 (95% CI, $1760-$3111; P < .001) at one ED and $2905 (95% CI, $2378-$3431; P < .001) at the other ED in the 30 days after the index ED visit. The association between treatment and mean cumulative savings at 60 days after the index ED visit per beneficiary was also significant: $1200 (95% CI, $231-$2169; P = .02) at one ED and $3202 (95% CI, $2452-$3951; P < .001) at the other ED.Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, receipt of ED-based geriatric treatment by a TCN and/or an SW was associated with lower Medicare expenditures. These estimated cost savings may be used when calculating or considering the bundled value and potential reimbursement per patient for GED care programs.

Project description:BackgroundFrail older adults require specific, targeted care and expedited shared decision making in the emergency department (ED) to prevent poor outcomes and minimise time spent in this chaotic environment. The Geriatric Emergency Department Intervention (GEDI) model was developed to help limit these undesirable consequences. This qualitative study aimed to explore the ways in which two hospital implementation sites implemented the structures and processes of the GEDI model and to examine the ways in which the i-PARIHS (innovation-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework influenced the implementation.MethodsUsing the i-PARIHS approach to implementation, the GEDI model was disseminated into two hospitals using a detailed implementation toolkit, external and internal facilitators and a structured program of support. Following implementation, interviews were conducted with a range of staff involved in the implementation at both sites to explore the implementation process used. Transcribed interviews were analysed for themes and sub-themes.ResultsThere were 31 interviews with clinicians involved in the implementation, conducted across two hospitals, including interviews with the two external facilitators. Major themes identified included: (i) elements of the GEDI model adopted or (ii) adapted by implementation sites and (iii) factors that affected the implementation of the GEDI model. Both sites adopted the model of care and there was general support for the GEDI approach to the management of frail older people in the ED. Both sites adapted the structure of the GEDI team and the expertise of the team members to suit their needs and resources. Elements such as service focus, funding, staff development and service evaluation were initially adopted but adaptation occurred over time. Resourcing and cost shifting issues at the implementation sites and at the site providing the external facilitators negatively impacted the facilitation process.ConclusionsThe i-PARIHS framework provided a pragmatic approach to the implementation of the evidenced-based GEDI model. Passionate, driven clinicians ensured that successful implementation occurred despite unanticipated changes in context at both the implementation and host facilitator sites as well as the absence of sustained facilitation support.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hip fracture causes moderate to severe pain and while fascia iliaca block has been reported to provide analgesic benefit, most previous trials were unblinded, with subsequent high risks of performance, selection and detection biases. In this randomized, control double-blind trial, we tested the hypothesis that a fascia iliaca block provides effective analgesia for patients suffering from hip fracture. METHODS:Thirty ASA I-III hip fracture patients over 70 years old, who received prehospital morphine, were randomized to receive either a fascia iliaca block using 30 ml of bupivacaine 0.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000 or a sham injection with normal saline. The fascia iliaca block was administered by emergency medicine physicians trained to perform an anatomic landmark-based technique. The primary outcome was the comparison between groups of the longitudinal pain score profiles at rest over the first 45 min following the procedure (numeric rating scale, 0-10). Secondary outcomes included the longitudinal pain score profiles on movement and the comparison over 4 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h after the procedure, along with cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24 h. RESULTS:At baseline, the fascia iliaca group had a lower mean pain score than the sham injection group, both at rest (difference = - 0.9, 95%CI [- 2.4, 0.5]) and on movement (difference = - 0.9, 95%CI [- 2.7; 0.9]). These differences remained 45 min after the procedure and the two longitudinal pain score profiles were parallel both for patients at rest and on movement (test of parallelism for patients at rest p = 0.53 and on movement p = 0.45). The same parallel change in pain scores over time was observed over 24 h of follow-up (test of parallelism for patients at rest p = 0.82 and on movement p = 0.12). These results were confirmed after adjustment for gender, ASA score, and cumulative sums of intravenous morphine received pre-procedure and during-follow-up. In addition, there was no difference between the two groups in total cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24 h. CONCLUSION:Fascia iliaca block following anatomic landmarks may not provide supplementary analgesia for patients suffering from hip fracture, when low pain scores are reported after prehospital morphine. Additional larger trials will help reach definitive conclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrials.gov - NCT02433548 . The study was registered retrospectively.

Dataset Information

Emergency Department Pain Management Following Implementation of a Geriatric Hip Fracture Program.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Emergency Department Pain Management Following Implementation of a Geriatric Hip Fracture Program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets