Orthogeriatric care pathway: a prospective survey of impact on length of stay, mortality and institutionalisation
- 1.1k Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsHip fracture program Length of stay Mortality Residential status Orthogeriatric care pathway
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.
- 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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 24.Winograd CH (1991) Targeting strategies: an overview of criteria and outcomes. J Am GeriatrSoc. 39(9 Pt 2):25S–35SGoogle Scholar