Effects of Orthogeriatric Care Models on Outcomes of Hip Fracture Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Van Heghe A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8784368 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVES:to evaluate orthogeriatric and nurse-led fracture liaison service (FLS) models of post-hip fracture care in terms of impact on mortality (30 days and 1 year) and second hip fracture (2 years). SETTING:Hospital Episode Statistics database linked to Office for National Statistics mortality records for 11 acute hospitals in a region of England. POPULATION:patients aged over 60 years admitted for a primary hip fracture from 2003 to 2013. METHODS:each hospital was analysed separately and acted as its own control in a before-after time-series design in which the appointment of an orthogeriatrician or set-up/expansion of an FLS was evaluated. Multivariable Cox regression (mortality) and competing risk survival models (second hip fracture) were used. Fixed effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates of impact for interventions of the same type. RESULTS:of 33,152 primary hip fracture patients, 1,288 sustained a second hip fracture within 2 years (age and sex standardised proportion of 4.2%). 3,033 primary hip fracture patients died within 30 days and 9,662 died within 1 year (age and sex standardised proportion of 9.5% and 29.8%, respectively). The estimated impact of introducing an orthogeriatrician on 30-day and 1-year mortality was hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.82) and HR = 0.81 (CI: 0.75-0.87), respectively. Following an FLS, these associations were as follows: HR = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.71-0.91) and HR = 0.84 (0.77-0.93). There was no significant impact on time to second hip fracture. CONCLUSIONS:the introduction and/or expansion of orthogeriatric and FLS models of post-hip fracture care has a beneficial effect on subsequent mortality. No evidence for a reduction in second hip fracture rate was found.
| S-EPMC4776625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fracture liaison services are recommended as a model of best practice for organizing patient care and secondary fracture prevention for hip fracture patients, although variation exists in how such services are structured. There is considerable uncertainty as to which model is most cost-effective and should therefore be mandated. This study evaluated the cost- effectiveness of orthogeriatric (OG)- and nurse-led fracture liaison service (FLS) models of post-hip fracture care compared with usual care. Analyses were conducted from a health care and personal social services payer perspective, using a Markov model to estimate the lifetime impact of the models of care. The base-case population consisted of men and women aged 83 years with a hip fracture. The risk and costs of hip and non-hip fractures were derived from large primary and hospital care data sets in the UK. Utilities were informed by a meta-regression of 32 studies. In the base-case analysis, the orthogeriatric-led service was the most effective and cost-effective model of care at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY). For women aged 83 years, the OG-led service was the most cost-effective at £22,709/QALY. If only health care costs are considered, OG-led service was cost-effective at £12,860/QALY and £14,525/QALY for women and men aged 83 years, respectively. Irrespective of how patients were stratified in terms of their age, sex, and Charlson comorbidity score at index hip fracture, our results suggest that introducing an orthogeriatrician-led or a nurse-led FLS is cost-effective when compared with usual care. Although considerable uncertainty remains concerning which of the models of care should be preferred, introducing an orthogeriatrician-led service seems to be the most cost-effective service to pursue. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
| S-EPMC5321497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAn aging population in developed countries has increased the number of osteoporotic hip fractures and will continue to grow over the next decades. Previous studies have investigated the effect of integrated orthogeriatric trauma units and care model on outcomes of hip fracture patients. Although all of the models perform better than usual care, there is no conclusive evidence which care model is superior. More confirmative studies reporting the efficacy of orthogeriatric trauma units are needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of hip fracture patients admitted to the hospital before and after implementation of an orthogeriatric trauma unit.Materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at a level 2 trauma center between 2016 and 2018. Patients aged 70 years or older with a hip fracture undergoing surgery were included to evaluate the implementation of an orthogeriatric trauma unit. The main outcomes were postoperative complications, patient mortality, time spent at the emergency department, time to surgery, and hospital length of stay.ResultsA total of 806 patients were included. After implementation of the orthogeriatric trauma unit, there was a significant decrease in postoperative complications (42% vs. 49% in the historical cohort, p = 0.034), and turnaround time at the emergency department was reduced by 38 minutes. Additionally, there was significantly less missing data after implementation of the orthogeriatric trauma unit. After correcting for covariates, patients in the orthogeriatric trauma unit cohort had a lower chance of complications (OR 0.654, 95% CI 0.471-0.908, p = 0.011) and a lower chance of 1-year mortality (OR 0.656, 95% CI 0.450-0.957, p = 0.029).ConclusionsThis study showed that implementation of an orthogeriatric trauma unit leads to a decrease in postoperative complications, 1-year mortality, and time spent at the emergency department, while also improving the quality of data registration for clinical studies.Level of evidenceLevel III.
| S-EPMC7430081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hip fracture patients often display an acute confusional state (delirium) which is associated with worse outcomes. In this observational study, we found that co-management of hip fracture patients by a multidisciplinary team including a geriatrician and an orthopaedic surgeon could reduce the incidence of delirium.IntroductionDelirium after hip fracture is common and is associated with negative outcomes. We investigated if orthogeriatric co-management reduced the incidence of delirium in hip fracture patients.MethodsIn this single-centre, prospective observational study, we compared the incidence of delirium and subsyndromal delirium (SSD) before (usual care group, n = 94) and after (orthogeriatric group, n = 103) the introduction of orthogeriatric co-management as an integrated care model. The outcome measure 'no delirium/SSD/delirium' was treated as an ordinal variable and analysed using the chi-squared test and multivariable ordinal logistic regression.ResultsThe groups had similar baseline characteristics except for a higher proportion of patients with pre-existing cognitive impairment in the usual care group (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.045). Fewer patients in the orthogeriatric group developed SSD or delirium (no delirium: 59% vs. 40%/SSD: 6% vs. 13%/delirium: 35% vs. 47%; p = 0.021). The number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one case of SSD or delirium was 5.3 (95% CI: 3.1 to 19.7). In a multivariable analysis adjusted for age, sex, ASA class, pre-existing cognitive impairment, time to surgery, type of surgery, and medical or surgical complications, the odds ratio for the development of SSD/delirium was lower in the orthogeriatric group (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23-0.89, p = 0.023).ConclusionOrthogeriatric co-management as an integrated care model reduced the incidence of SSD/delirium in hip fracture patients.
| S-EPMC8563591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWith an aging population and advances in medicine, more research focuses on health and longevity in geriatric adults. Recently, frailty has gradually emerged to assess physical conditions. Frailty can be generally described as a multi-dimensional situation of increased vulnerabilities to both endogenous and exogenous stressors. The objective of the review was to evaluate the predictive value of frailty on adverse outcomes in geriatric hip fracture patients.Materials and methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library for relevant literature about the connection between frailty and poor outcomes in hip fracture elders.ResultsEleven studies involving a total of 45,979 participants were selected in our study. Our results indicated that frailty could significantly predict postoperative and in-patient complications (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.90; I 2 = 77.4%). Frail elders had higher risk of inpatient mortality (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.26-2.25; I 2 = 0.0%), 6-month mortality (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.72; I 2 = 0.0%) and ≥1-year mortality (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.66-3.04; I 2 = 91.3%). Furthermore, the risk of prolonged hospital stays was 1.15 times more likely in frail patients (95% CI, 1.03-1.28; I 2 = 14.8%).ConclusionFrailty can predict adverse outcomes effectively in geriatric hip fracture patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
| S-EPMC9280195 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hip fracture patients are heterogenous. Certain patient characteristics are associated with poorer prognosis, but less is known about differences in response to treatment among subgroups. The Trondheim Hip Fracture trial found beneficial effects on mobility and function from comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) compared to traditional orthopaedic care (OC). The aim of this study was to explore differences in response to CGC among subgroups in this trial.Secondary analysis of the complete dataset from Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial, a randomised controlled trial including 397 home-dwelling older adults (?70 years) with a hip fracture. Subgroups were age (over/under 80 years), gender, fracture type (intra-/extracapsular), and pre-fracture instrumental ADL (i-ADL) (defined as over/under 45 on the Nottingham Extended ADL scale). Dependent variables were mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery), personal ADL (p-ADL) (Barthel Index), i-ADL (Nottingham Extended ADL scale), cognition (Mini-Mental Status Examination), four and 12 months after hip fracture. Data were analysed by linear mixed models with interactions (treatment, time, and subgroup), reporting treatment effects being clinically and statistically significant within and between subgroups.Analyses within subgroups showed beneficial effects of CGC on mobility and i-ADL either at four or twelve months in all subgroups except for males, extra-capsular fractures and patients with impaired pre-fracture i-ADL. Beneficial effect on p- ADL was found in patients?<?80 years, intra-capsular fractures and patients with impaired pre-fracture i-ADL. Effects on cognition were found in patients?<?80 years and men. The interaction analyses showed that CGC had statistically significant better treatment effect on i-ADL for younger participants at four months (p?=?0.004), on p-ADL both at four (p?=?0.037) and twelve months (p?=?0.045) and mobility at twelve months (p?=?0.021), for participants with intracapsular as compared to extracapsular fractures, and on i-ADL at twelve months for participants with higher pre-fracture function (p?=?0.012).Contrary to our hypothesis that the most vulnerable patients would benefit the most from CGC, we found the intervention effect was most pronounced in younger, female participants with higher pre-fracture i-ADL function.ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00667914.
| S-EPMC4761133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Care bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.In total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).Very low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.PROSPERO, CRD42016033175.
| S-EPMC5707820 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous meta-analyses assessing anesthetic techniques in adult patients undergoing hip fractures surgery are available. However, whether the anesthetic technique is associated with risk of mortality and complications in geriatric patients with hip fractures remains unclear. This study was conducted to assess postoperative outcomes of anesthesia technique in geriatric patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. METHODS:Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CNKI, and CBM were searched from inception up to May 25, 2018. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the perioperative outcomes of technique of anesthesia (general or regional [epidural/spinal/neuraxial]) in geriatric patients (?60 years old) undergoing hip fracture surgery were included. Two investigators independently screened studies for inclusion and performed data extraction. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I and Chi-square tests. The odds ratio (OR) of the dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) of continuous data, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the pooled data. RESULTS:Eleven retrospective and 2 RCTs were included. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (OR?=?0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.08; P?=?.51) between the general and regional anesthesia groups. In-hospital mortality (OR?=?1.26; 95% CI 1.17-1.36; P?<?.001), acute respiratory failure (OR?=?2.66; 95% CI 2.34-3.02; P?<?.001), length of hospital stay (MD?=?0.33; 95% CI 0.24-0.42; P?<?.001), and readmission (OR?=?1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.18; P?=?.03) were significantly reduced in the regional anesthesia group. Pneumonia (OR?=?0.99; 95% CI 0.91-1.07; P?=?.79), heart failure (OR?=?0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.09; P?=?.62), acute myocardial infraction (OR?=?1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.16; P?=?.10), acute renal failure (OR?=?1.32; 95% CI 0.97-1.79; P?=?.07), cerebrovascular accident (OR?=?1.08; 95% CI 0.82-1.42; P?=?.58), postoperative delirium (OR?=?1.51; 95% CI 0.16-13.97; P?=?.72), and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (OR?=?1.42; 95% CI 0.84-2.38; P?=?.19) were similar between the two anesthetic techniques. CONCLUSION:General anesthesia is associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality, acute respiratory failure, longer hospital stays, and higher readmission. There is evidence to suggest that regional anesthesia is associated with improved perioperative outcomes. Large RCTs are needed to explore the most optimal anesthetic techniques for geriatric patients with hip fractures before drawing final conclusions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018093582.
| S-EPMC6919429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe elderly population is highly susceptible to develop post-operative complications after major surgeries. It is not clear whether the comprehensive geriatric care models are effective in reducing adverse events. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether the comprehensive geriatric care models improved clinical outcomes, particularly in decreasing the prevalence of delirium and length of hospital stay (LOS) in elderly surgical patients.MethodWe searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Emcare Nursing, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials. Gov, and ICTRP between 2009 to January 23, 2020. We included studies on geriatric care models in elderly patients (≥60 years) undergoing elective, non-cardiac high-risk surgery. The outcomes were the prevalence of delirium, LOS, rates of 30-days readmission, and 30-days mortality. We used the Cochrane Review Manager Version 5.3. to estimate the pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) using random effect model analysis.ResultsEleven studies were included with 2672 patients [Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): 4; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials (Non-RCTs): 7]. Data pooled from six studies showed that there was no significant difference in the prevalence of delirium between the intervention and control groups: 13.8% vs 15.9% (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.30-1.96; p = 0.57). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the LOS (MD: -0.55; 95% CI: - 2.28, 1.18; p = 0.53), 30-day readmission (12.1% vs. 14.3%; OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.67-1.77; p = 0.73), and 30-day mortality (3.2% vs. 2.1%; OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.66-2.69; p = 0.42). The quality of evidence was very low.ConclusionsThe geriatric care models involved pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment, and intervention tools to address cognition, frailty, and functional status. In non-cardiac high-risk surgeries, these care models did not show any significant difference in the prevalence of delirium, LOS, 30-days readmission rates, and 30-day mortality in geriatric patients. Further RCTs are warranted to evaluate these models on the postoperative outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number - CRD42020181779 .
| S-EPMC8061210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHip fractures are a significant health risk in older adults and a major cause of morbidity, functional decline and mortality. Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes of older patients hospitalized in an ortho-geriatric (OG) unit to those hospitalized in an orthopedic department (OD) for surgical treatment of a hip fracture.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of hip fractured patients hospitalized between 2015-2016 in a single tertiary university-affiliated medical center. Included were patients aged 65 and older who had undergone hip fracture surgery and were admitted to either a geriatric or orthopedic ward.Results441 patients met the inclusion criteria (195 in the OG unit, 246 in the OD); 257 were transferred to an affiliated geriatric center hospital (107 from the OG unit and 127 from the OD) for rehabilitation. Patients in the OG unit were older, more cognitively and functionally impaired and with more comorbidities. The 1-year mortality rate was significantly lower in the OD group (OR 0.32, CI 95% 0.19-0.53, p < 0.001), however, after propensity matching, the 30-day and 1 year mortality rates were similar in both groups. No difference was found in the rehabilitation length of stay between the groups. The functional independence measure improvement was similar in both groups, with a non-significant trend toward better functional improvement among OG unit patients.ConclusionsDespite the higher complexity of patients, worse baseline functional capacity in the OG unit, improvement after rehabilitation was similar in both groups. These results demonstrate the advantages of the OG unit in treating and stabilizing frail older adults, thus maximizing their chances for a successful recovery after hip fractures.Level of evidenceLevel IV.
| S-EPMC7804357 | biostudies-literature