Dataset Information

Hip fracture characteristics and outcomes during COVID-19: a large retrospective national database review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare in various vulnerable patient subpopulations. However, data are lacking on the impact of COVID-19 on hip fractures, seen mainly in older patients. Using national claims data, we aimed to describe the epidemiology during the first COVID-19 wave in the USA.

Methods

We compared patients admitted for hip fractures during March and April of 2020 with those admitted in 2019 in terms of patient and healthcare characteristics, COVID-19 diagnosis, and outcomes. An additional comparison was made between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS), admission to an ICU, ICU LOS, use of mechanical ventilation, 30-day readmission, discharge disposition, and a composite variable of postoperative complications.

Results

Overall, 16 068 hip fractures were observed in 2019 compared with 7498 in 2020. Patients with hip fractures in 2020 (compared with 2019) experienced earlier hospital discharge and were less likely to be admitted to ICU, but more likely to be admitted to home. Amongst 83 patients with hip fractures with concomitant COVID-19 diagnosis, we specifically observed more non-surgical treatments, almost doubled LOS, a more than 10-fold increased mortality rate, and higher complication rates compared with COVID-19-negative patients.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted not only volume of hip fractures, but also patterns in care and outcomes. These results may inform policymakers in future outbreaks and how this may affect vulnerable patient populations, such as those experiencing a hip fracture.

SUBMITTER: Zhong H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8049451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly mobilisation leads to a two-fold increase in the adjusted odds of discharge by 30-days compared to late mobilisation. Whether this association varies by patient characteristics identified as reasons for delayed mobilisation is unknown.MethodsAudit data was linked to hospitalisation records for 133,319 patients 60 years or older surgically treated for hip fracture in England or Wales between 2014 and 2016. Adjusted proportional odds regression models tested whether the cumulative incidences of discharge differed between those mobilised early and those mobilised late for subgroups defined by dementia, delirium, hypotension, prefracture ambulation, and prefracture residence, accounting for the competing risk of death.ResultsOverall, 34,253 patients presented with dementia, 9818 with delirium, and 10,123 with hypotension. Prefracture, 100,983 were ambulant outdoors, 30,834 were ambulant indoors only, 107,144 were admitted from home, and 23,588 from residential care. 1502 had incomplete data for ambulation and 2587 for prefracture residence. 10, 8, 8, 12, and 12% fewer patients with dementia, delirium, hypotension, ambulant indoors only prefracture, or admitted from residential care mobilised early when compared to those who presented without dementia, delirium, hypotension, with outdoor ambulation prefracture, or admitted from home. The adjusted odds ratios of discharge by 30-days postoperatively among those who mobilised early compared with those who mobilised late were 1.71 (95% CI 1.62-1.81) for those with dementia, 2.06 (95% CI 1.98-2.15) without dementia, 1.56 (95% CI 1.41-1.73) with delirium, 2.00 (95% CI 1.93-2.07) without delirium, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.66-2.02) with hypotension, 1.95 (95% CI, 1.89-2.02) without hypotension, 2.00 (95% CI 1.92-2.08) with outdoor ambulation prefracture, 1.80 (95% CI 1.70-1.91) with indoor ambulation only prefracture, 2.30 (95% CI 2.19-2.41) admitted from home, and 1.64 (95% CI 1.51-1.77) admitted from residential care, accounting for the competing risk of death.ConclusionIrrespective of dementia, delirium, hypotension, prefracture ambulation or residence, early compared to late mobilisation increased the likelihood of hospital discharge by 30-days postoperatively. However, fewer patients with dementia, delirium, or hypotension, poorer prefracture ambulation, or from residential care mobilised early. There is a need reduce this care gap by ensuring sufficient resource to enable all patients to benefit from early mobilisation.

Project description:BackgroundRehabilitation programmes are used to improve hip fracture outcomes. There is little published trial clinical trial or population-based data on the effects of the type or provider of rehabilitation treatments on hip fracture outcomes. We evaluated the associations of rehabilitation interventions with post-operative hip fracture outcomes.MethodsCross-sectional (2013-2015) analysis of data from the English National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) from all 191 English hospitals treating hip fractures. Of 62,844 NHFD patients, we included 17,708 patients with rehabilitation treatment and 30-day mobility data, and 34,142 patients with rehabilitation treatment and discharge destination data. The intervention was early mobilisation rehabilitation treatments delivered by a physiotherapist (PT, physical therapist in North America) or other clinical staff as identifiable in NHFD. We used ordinal logistic and propensity scoring regression models to adjust for confounding variables including age, sex, pre-fracture mobility, operative delay, and cognitive function and peri-operative risk scores.ResultsIn both the adjusted multivariate and propensity-weighted analyses, mobilisation on the day or the day following surgery is associated with better mobility function 30 days after discharge. However patients mobilised by a PT did not have better mobility compared to mobilisation by other professionals. Patients who received a PT assessment were not protected from poorer mobility 30 days after discharge, compared with those who did not receive an assessment. The discharge destination outcome is also better in mobilised than unmobilised patients, whether done by a PT or another health professional, and the difference persists, slightly attenuated, after propensity weighting.ConclusionsIn addition to the type of health professional initiating mobilisation, data on rehabilitation treatment activity and post-operative gait speed is needed to determine optimum rehabilitation dosage and functional outcome. After adjustment patients mobilised by non-PTs did as well as patients mobilised by PTs, suggesting that PTs' current roles in very early rehabilitation should be reconsidered, with a view to redeploying them to more specialised later rehabilitation activity.

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is common after hip fracture surgery, affecting up to 50% of patients. The incidence of delirium may be influenced by mode and conduct of anaesthesia. We examined the effect of spinal anaesthesia (with and without sedation) compared with general anaesthesia on early outcomes following hip fracture surgery, including delirium.MethodsWe used prospective data on 107,028 patients (2018 to 2019) from the National Hip Fracture Database, which records all hip fractures in patients aged 60 years and over in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were grouped by anaesthesia: general (58,727; 55%), spinal without sedation (31,484; 29%), and spinal with sedation (16,817; 16%). Outcomes (4AT score on post-operative delirium screening; mobilisation day one post-operatively; length of hospital stay; discharge destination; 30-day mortality) were compared between anaesthetic groups using multivariable logistic and linear regression models.ResultsCompared with general anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia without sedation (but not spinal with sedation) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR)=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92-0.98), increased likelihood of day one mobilisation (OR=1.06, CI=1.02-1.10) and return to original residence (OR=1.04, CI=1.00-1.07). Spinal without sedation (p<0.001) and spinal with sedation (p=0.001) were both associated with shorter hospital stays compared with general anaesthesia. No differences in mortality were observed between anaesthetic groups.ConclusionsSpinal and general anaesthesia achieve similar outcomes for patients with hip fracture. However, this equivalence appears to reflect improved perioperative outcomes (including a reduced risk of delirium, increased likelihood of mobilisation day one post-operatively, shorter length of hospital stay and improved likelihood of returning to previous residence on discharge) among the sub-set of patients who received spinal anaesthesia without sedation. The role and effect of sedation should be studied in future trials of hip fracture patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia.