Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 134, Issue 9, pp 1261–1269 | Cite as

Orthogeriatric care pathway: a prospective survey of impact on length of stay, mortality and institutionalisation

  • N. SuhmEmail author
  • R. Kaelin
  • P. Studer
  • Q. Wang
  • R. W. Kressig
  • D. Rikli
  • M. Jakob
  • M. Pretto
Trauma Surgery

Abstract

Introduction

Care pathways for elderly hip fracture patients are increasingly implemented but there has been only limited evaluation of their use. Our objective was to investigate the impact of such a care pathway on the use of healthcare resources and on patients’ outcomes.

Materials and methods

The prospective survey covered 493 hip fracture patients 65 years of age or older that were treated either before “Usual Care = (UC)” or after “Co-Managed-Care = (CMC)” implementation of the care pathway. Primary outcome was length of stay (LoS). Secondary outcomes were 1-year mortality and change in residential status from prefracture baseline to 1-year after surgery. Data were analysed by descriptive and interferential statistics and adjustment for baseline differences amongst the two patient groups was done.

Results

Patients in the CMC sample had more preexisting comorbidities (CCI 2.5 versus 2.1). Prior to the fracture, a larger proportion amongst them needed help in ADL (49 versus 26 %), and they were more likely to reside in a nursing home (36 versus 29 %). Prefracture mobility status was equal in both samples. In the CMC sample LoS was significantly shorter (LoS 8.6 versus 11.3 days, p < 0.01) and patients were less likely to experience a complication (59 vs 73 %, p < 0.01) while being in the hospital. There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality or in change of residential status.

Conclusions

A care pathway for elderly hip fracture patients allowed decreased LoS without affecting mortality or change of residential status 1 year after fracture compared to prefracture baseline.

Keywords

Hip fracture program Length of stay Mortality Residential status Orthogeriatric care pathway 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Prof. Suhm reports grants from AO Foundation, grants from Department of Surgery University Hospital Basel, during the conduct of the study; personal fees and non-financial support from Eli Lilly, from Roche, from DePuySynthes, from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Friedman reports personal fees from AO North America, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest was reported on by the other co-authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Friedman SM, Mendelson DA, Bingham KW, Kates SL (2009) Impact of a comanaged Geriatric Fracture Center on short-term hip fracture outcomes. Arch Intern Med 169(18):1712–1717. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.321 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rolland Y, Abellan van Kan G, Benetos A, Blain H, Bonnefoy M, Chassagne P et al (2008) Frailty, osteoporosis and hip fracture: causes, consequences and therapeutic perspectives. J Nutr Health Aging 12(5):335–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tosteson AN, Gottlieb DJ, Radley DC, Fisher ES, Melton LJ (2007) Excess mortality following hip fracture: the role of underlying health status. Osteoporos Int 18(11):1463–1472PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abrahamsen B, van Staa T, Ariely R, Olson M, Cooper C (2009) Excess mortality following hip fracture: a systematic epidemiological review. Osteoporos Int. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-0920-3 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck A, Gebhard F, Arand M, Krischak g, Kinzl L, Bischoff M. (2003) Die Therapie der Schenkelhalsfraktur beim alten Menschen: Komplikationen nach operativer Versorgung. Akt Traumatol;33:103-8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cree M, Soskolne CL, Belseck E, Hornig J, McElhaney JE, Brant R et al (2000) Mortality and institutionalization following hip fracture. J Am GeriatrSoc 48(3):283–288Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLaughlin MA, Orosz GM, Magaziner J, Hannan EL, McGinn T, Morrison RS et al (2006) Preoperative status and risk of complications in patients with hip fracture. J Gen Intern Med 21(3):219–225PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Penrod JD, Litke A, Hawkes WG, Magaziner J, Koval KJ, Doucette JT et al (2007) Heterogeneity in hip fracture patients: age, functional status, and comorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc 55(3):407–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braithwaite RS, Col NF, Wong JB (2003) Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am GeriatrSoc 51(3):364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG)(2004). Osteoporose und Stürze im Alter. Ein Public-Health-Ansatz.Hrsg. Bundesamt für Gesundheit BAG, Bern.http://www.bag.admin.ch/shop/00048/00155/?lang=de. Accessed 04 March 2014
  11. 11.
    Pretto M, Spirig R, Kaelin R, Muri-John V, Kressig RW, Suhm N. (2010) Outcomes of elderly hip fracture patients in the Swiss healthcare system: a survey prior to the implementation of DRGs and prior to the implementation of a Geriatric Fracture Centre. Swiss Med Wkl 140:w13086. doi: 10.4414/smw.2010.13086
  12. 12.
    Pioli G, Giusti A, Barone A (2008) Orthogeriatric care for the elderly with hip fractures: where are we? AgingClinExp Res 20(2):113–122Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kammerlander C, Roth T, Friedman SM, Suhm N, Luger TJ, Kammerlander-Knauer U et al (2010) Ortho-geriatric service–a literature review comparing different models. Osteoporos Int 21(Suppl 4):S637–S646. doi: 10.1007/s00198-010-1396-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts HC, Pickering RM, Onslow E, Clancy M, Powell J, Roberts A et al (2004) The effectiveness of implementing a care pathway for femoral neck fracture in older people: a prospective controlled before and after study. Age Ageing 33(2):178–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cameron ID (2005) Coordinated multidisciplinary rehabilitation after hip fracture. Disabil Rehabil 27(18–19):1081–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitzgerald JF, Fagan LF, Tierney WM, Dittus RS (1987) Changing patterns of hip fracture care before and after implementation of the prospective payment system. JAMA 258(2):218–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman SM, Mendelson DA, Kates SL, McCann RM (2008) Geriatric co-management of proximal femur fractures: total quality management and protocol-driven care result in better outcomes for a frail patient population. J Am Geriatr Soc 56(7):1349–1356. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01770.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, Ghali WA (2004) New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 57(12):1288–1294 Epub 2004/12/25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vidan M, Serra JA, Moreno C, Riquelme G, Ortiz J (2005) Efficacy of a comprehensive geriatric intervention in older patients hospitalized for hip fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 53(9):1476–1482. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53466.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gosch M, Wortz M, Nicholas JA, Doshi HK, Kammerlander C, Lechleitner M (2013) Inappropriate Prescribing as a Predictor for Long-Term Mortality after Hip Fracture. Gerontology. doi: 10.1159/000355327 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naglie G, Tansey C, Kirkland JL, Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Detsky AS, Etchells E et al (2002) Interdisciplinary inpatient care for elderly people with hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 167(1):25–32PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huusko TM, Karppi P, Avikainen V, Kautiainen H, Sulkava R (2000) Randomised, clinically controlled trial of intensive geriatric rehabilitation in patients with hip fracture: subgroup analysis of patients with dementia. BMJ 321(7269):1107–1111PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winograd CH (1991) Targeting strategies: an overview of criteria and outcomes. J Am GeriatrSoc. 39(9 Pt 2):25S–35SGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Suhm
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Kaelin
    • 1
  • P. Studer
    • 1
  • Q. Wang
    • 2
  • R. W. Kressig
    • 3
  • D. Rikli
    • 1
  • M. Jakob
    • 1
  • M. Pretto
    • 4
  1. 1.Traumatology, Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Felix Platter Hospital, University Center for Medicine of Aging BaselBaselSwitzerland
  4. 4.Nursing DepartmentUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations