Discharge destination following hip fracture in Canada among previously community-dwelling older adults, 2004–2012: database study

  • L. BeaupreEmail author
  • B. Sobolev
  • P. Guy
  • J. D. Kim
  • L. Kuramoto
  • K. J. Sheehan
  • J. M. Sutherland
  • E. Harvey
  • S. N. Morin
  • for The Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures
Original Article



Little is known about post-acute care following hip fracture surgery. We investigated discharge destinations from surgical hospitals for nine Canadian provinces. We identified significant heterogeneity in discharge patterns across provinces suggesting different post-acute recovery pathways. Further work is required to determine the impact on patient outcomes and health system costs.


To examine discharge destinations by provinces in Canada, adjusting for patient, injury, and care characteristics.


We analyzed population-based hospital discharge abstracts from a national administrative database for community-dwelling patients who underwent hip fracture surgery between 2004 and 2012 in Canada. Discharge destination was categorized as rehabilitation, home, acute care, and continuing care. Multinomial logistic regression modeling compared proportions of discharge to rehabilitation, acute care, and continuing care versus home between each province and Ontario. Adjusted risk differences and risk ratios were estimated.


Of 111,952 previously community-dwelling patients aged 65 years or older, 22.5% were discharged to rehabilitation, 31.6% to home, 27.0% to acute care, and 18.2% to continuing care, with significant variation across provinces (p < 0.001). The proportion of discharge to rehabilitation ranged from 2.4% in British Columbia to 41.0% in Ontario while the proportion discharged home ranged from 20.3% in Prince Edward Island to 52.2% in British Columbia. The proportion of discharge to acute care ranged from 15.2% in Ontario to 58.8% in Saskatchewan while the proportion discharged to continuing care ranged from 9.3% in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island to 22.9% in New Brunswick. Adjusting for hospital type changed the direction of the provincial effect on discharge to continuing care in two provinces, but statistical significance remained consistent with the primary analysis.


Discharge destination from the surgical hospital after hip fracture is highly variable across nine Canadian provinces. Further work is required to determine the impact of this heterogeneity on patient outcomes and health system costs.


Discharge destination Health services research Hip fracture Variation 



LB, BS, PG, JDK, LK, and KJS contributed to the conception and design of the study. SB, PG, LK, and KJS arranged the acquisition of data. JDK and LK conducted the statistical analysis. LB, BS, PG, JDK, LK, KJS, JMS, EH, and SNM contributed to the interpretation of data. LB and JDK drafted the manuscript. LB, BS, PG, JDK, LK, KJS, JMS, EH, and SNM critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version for submission.

We gratefully acknowledge the guidance from the Canadian Institute for Health Information experts in understanding the discharge abstracts.

Funding source

This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP 133629). This funder had no role in the design of this study, execution, analyses, data interpretation, or decision to submit results for publication.

Author contributions

The following are members of the Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures: Lauren Beaupre, Eric Bohm, Michael Dunbar, Donald Griesdale, Pierre Guy, Edward Harvey, Erik Hellsten, Susan Jaglal, Hans Kreder, Lisa Kuramoto, Adrian Levy, Suzanne N. Morin, Katie J. Sheehan, Boris Sobolev, Jason M. Sutherland, and James Waddell.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The following competing interests are declared: (1) LB is the David Magee Endowed Chair in Musculoskeletal Research supported by the Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Alberta. (2) PG has received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research related to this work. PG also receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the British Columbia Specialists Services Committee for work around hip fracture care not related to this manuscript. He has also received fees from the BC Specialists Services Committee (for a provincial quality improvement project on redesign of hip fracture care) and from Stryker Orthopedics (as a product development consultant). He is a board member and shareholder in Traumis Surgical Systems Inc. and a board member for the Canadian Orthopedic Foundation. He also serves on the speakers’ bureaus of AO Trauma North America and Stryker Canada. (3) SNM reports research grants from Amgen Canada and from Merck. (4) BS, JDK, LK, KJS, JMS, and EH declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

198_2019_4943_MOESM1_ESM.docx (62 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 62 kb)


  1. 1.
    Brauer CA, Coca-Perraillon M, Cutler DM, Rosen AB (2009) Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States. JAMA 302:1573–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papadimitropoulos EA, Coyte PC, Josse RG, Greenwood CE (1997) Current and projected rates of hip fracture in Canada. CMAJ 157:1357–1363Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nazrun AS, Tzar MN, Mokhtar SA, Mohamed IN (2014) A systematic review of the outcomes of osteoporotic fracture patients after hospital discharge: morbidity, subsequent fractures, and mortality. Ther Clin Risk Manag 10:937–948Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paksima N, Koval KJ, Aharanoff G, Walsh M, Kubiak EN, Zuckerman JD, Egol KA (2008) Predictors of mortality after hip fracture: a 10-year prospective study. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 66:111–117Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith T, Pelpola K, Ball M, Ong A, Myint PK (2014) Pre-operative indicators for mortality following hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 43:464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS et al (2010) Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med 152:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Alter DA, Guttmann A, Ko DT, Fung K, Wodchis WP, Baxter NN, Earle CC, Lee DS (2012) Association of hospital spending intensity with mortality and readmission rates in Ontario hospitals. JAMA 307:1037–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moja L, Piatti A, Pecoraro V, Ricci C, Virgili G, Salanti G, Germagnoli L, Liberati A, Banfi G (2012) Timing matters in hip fracture surgery: patients operated within 48 hours have better outcomes. A meta-analysis and meta-regression of over 190,000 patients. PLoS One 7:e46175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simunovic N, Devereaux PJ, Sprague S, Guyatt GH, Schemitsch E, DeBeer J, Bhandari M (2010) Effect of early surgery after hip fracture on mortality and complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 182:1609–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bertram M, Norman R, Kemp L, Vos T (2011) Review of the long-term disability associated with hip fractures. Inj Prev 17:365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N et al (2016) A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatr 16:158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gonzalez-Zabaleta J, Pita-Fernandez S, Seoane-Pillado T, Lopez-Calvino B et al (2015) Dependence for basic and instrumental activities of daily living after hip fractures. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 60:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Armstrong JJ, Zhu M, Hirdes JP, Stolee P (2015) Rehabilitation therapies for older clients of the Ontario home care system: regional variation and client-level predictors of service provision. Disabil Rehabil 37:625–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Auais M, Morin S, Nadeau L, Finch L, Mayo N (2013) Changes in frailty-related characteristics of the hip fracture population and their implications for healthcare services: evidence from Quebec, Canada. Osteoporos Int 24:2713–2724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bentler SE, Liu L, Obrizan M, Cook EA, Wright KB, Geweke JF, Chrischilles EA, Pavlik CE, Wallace RB, Ohsfeldt RL, Jones MP, Rosenthal GE, Wolinsky FD (2009) The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality. Am J Epidemiol 170:1290–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blackburn J, Locher JL, Morrisey MA, Becker DJ, Kilgore ML (2016) The effects of state-level expenditures for home- and community-based services on the risk of becoming a long-stay nursing home resident after hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 27:953–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buntin MB, Colla CH, Deb P, Sood N, Escarce JJ (2010) Medicare spending and outcomes after postacute care for stroke and hip fracture. Med Care 48:776–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cary MP Jr, Pan W, Sloane R, Bettger JP, Hoenig H, Merwin EI, Anderson RA (2016) Self-care and mobility following postacute rehabilitation for older adults with hip fracture: a multilevel analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 97:760–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeJong G (2014) Are we asking the right question about postacute settings of care? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95:218–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fisher ES, Wennberg JE (2003) Health care quality, geographic variations, and the challenge of supply-sensitive care. Perspect Biol Med 46:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder ÉL (2003) The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med 138:273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang TT, Liang SH (2005) A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of a discharge planning intervention in hospitalized elders with hip fracture due to falling. J Clin Nurs 14:1193–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nordstrom P, Michaelsson K, Hommel A, Norrman PO et al (2016) Geriatric rehabilitation and discharge location after hip fracture in relation to the risks of death and readmission. J Am Med Dir Assoc 17:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beaupre LA, Wai EK, Hoover DR, Noveck H, Roffey DM, Cook DR, Magaziner JS, Carson JL (2018) A comparison of outcomes between Canada and the United States in patients recovering from hip fracture repair: secondary analysis of the FOCUS trial. Int J Qual Health Care 30:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sutherland JM, Hellsten E, Yu K (2012) Bundles: an opportunity to align incentives for continuing care in Canada? Health Policy 107:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sutherland JM, Busse R (2016) Canada: focus on a country’s health system with provincial diversity. Health Policy 120:729–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hellsten E, Chu S, Crump RT, Yu K, Sutherland JM (2016) New pricing approaches for bundled payments: leveraging clinical standards and regional variations to target avoidable utilization. Health Policy 120:316–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ali AM, Gibbons CE (2017) Predictors of 30-day hospital readmission after hip fracture: a systematic review. Injury 48:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pitzul KB, Wodchis WP, Carter MW, Kreder HJ, Voth J, Jaglal SB (2016) Post-acute pathways among hip fracture patients: a system-level analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 16:275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pitzul KB, Wodchis WP, Kreder HJ, Carter MW, Jaglal SB (2017) Discharge destination following hip fracture: comparative effectiveness and cost analyses. Arch Osteoporos 12:87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder ÉL (2003) The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann Intern Med 138:288–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ireland AW, Kelly PJ, Cumming RG (2015) Total hospital stay for hip fracture: measuring the variations due to pre-fracture residence, rehabilitation, complications and comorbidities. BMC Health Serv Res 15:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jung HY, Trivedi AN, Grabowski DC, Mor V (2016) Does more therapy in skilled nursing facilities lead to better outcomes in patients with hip fracture? Phys Ther 96:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sheehan KJ, Sobolev B, Guy P, Bohm E, Hellsten E, Sutherland JM, Kuramoto L, Jaglal S, for the Canadian Collaborative Study on Hip Fractures (2016) Constructing an episode of care from acute hospitalization records for studying effects of timing of hip fracture surgery. J Orthop Res 34:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sobolev B, Guy P, Sheehan KJ et al (2016) Time trends in hospital stay after hip fracture in Canada, 2004-2012: database study. Arch Osteoporos 11:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sheehan KJ, Filliter C, Sobolev B et al (2018) Time to surgery after hip fracture across Canada by timing of admission. Osteoporos Int 29:653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Canadian institutes for Health Information (2009) CIHI data quality study of the 2007-2008 discharge abstract database. Canadian Institutes for Health Information. Accessed 9 May 2018
  40. 40.
    Canadian institutes for Health Information. (2013) Canadian Institutes for Health Information (2013) Canadian Hospital Reporting Project Technical Notes - Clinical Indicators. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  41. 41.
    Nikkel LE, Fox EJ, Black KP, Davis C, Andersen L, Hollenbeak CS (2012) Impact of comorbidities on hospitalization costs following hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guy P, Sheehan KJ, Morin SN, Waddell J, Dunbar M, Harvey E, Sirett S, Sobolev B, Kuramoto L, Tang M, Canadian Collaborative Study on Hip Fractures (2017) Feasibility of using administrative data for identifying medical reasons to delay hip fracture surgery: a Canadian database study. BMJ Open 7:e017869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wu H, Gao L, Zhang Z (2014) Analysis of crash data using quantile regression for counts. J Transport Eng 140:04013025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    StataCorp (2017) Statistical Software: Release 15. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sobolev B, Guy P, Sheehan KJ, Bohm E, Beaupre L, Morin SN, Sutherland JM, Dunbar M, Griesdale D, Jaglal S, Kuramoto L, Canadian Collaborative Study on Hip Fractures (2017) Hospital mortality after hip fracture surgery in relation to length of stay by care delivery factors: a database study. Medicine 96:e6683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sheehan KJ, Sobolev B, Guy P, Kuramoto L, Morin SN, Sutherland JM, Beaupre L, Griesdale D, Dunbar M, Bohm E, Harvey E (2016) In-hospital mortality after hip fracture by treatment setting. CMAJ 188:1219–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ireland AW, Kelly PJ (2013) Total length of stay, costs and outcomes at final discharge for admitted patients with hip fracture: linked episode data for Australian veterans and war widows. Int Med J 43:1280–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) (2018) Recovering after a hip fracture: helping people understand physiotherapy in the NHS. Physiotherapy ‘Hip Sprint’ audit report 2017. Royal College of Physicians, editor. London. Accessed 23 Apr 2018
  49. 49.
    Beaupre LA, Cinats JG, Jones CA, Scharfenberger AV, William C. Johnston D, Senthilselvan A, Saunders LD (2007) Does functional recovery in elderly hip fracture patients differ between patients admitted from long-term care and the community? J Gerontol A-Bio Sci Med Sci 62:1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Beaupre
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. Sobolev
    • 2
  • P. Guy
    • 3
  • J. D. Kim
    • 2
  • L. Kuramoto
    • 4
  • K. J. Sheehan
    • 5
  • J. M. Sutherland
    • 3
  • E. Harvey
    • 6
  • S. N. Morin
    • 6
  • for The Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures
  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.School of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Hip Health and MobilityUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  4. 4.Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and EvaluationVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Academic Department of Physiotherapy, Division of Health and Social Care ResearchKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  6. 6.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations