Advertisement

Archives of Osteoporosis

, 13:81 | Cite as

Beyond orthogeriatric co-management model: benefits of implementing a process management system for hip fracture

  • Fátima BrañasEmail author
  • A. Ruiz-Pinto
  • E. Fernández
  • A. del Cerro
  • R. de Dios
  • L. Fuentetaja
  • L. Cebrián
  • R. Larrainzar-Garijo
Original

Abstract

Summary

Hip fracture is a major health care problem worldwide. Business process management systems (PMSs) have made significant contributions in health care environments to improve patient care standards. The effectiveness of PMS applied to hip fracture in older adults in the acute phase has been demonstrated.

Introduction

Fragility fracture is a major health care problem worldwide. Business PMSs have made significant contributions in health care environments to improve patient care standards. It is a new way of management that defines a homogeneous application procedure involving eliminating steps that add no value and developing explicit supervision criteria, in addition to identifying the appropriate managers.

Purpose

The aim of our trial was to assess the effectiveness of the PMS applied to hip fracture versus the orthogeriatric co-management model in the acute phase.

Methods

All consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 who were admitted to Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, for acute hip fracture surgery were included. We compared the effectiveness indicators in the acute phase between the preprocess period (orthogeriatric co-management) and the process period.

Results

One thousand two hundred twenty-two patients were included (76.6% women). Mean age (SD) was 83.9 (6.4) years. Effectiveness management indicators are the following: length of hospital stay, time to admission to the ward from the emergency department, preoperative stay, surgery in < 48 h, and the operating room availability which were all improved in the process period with statistical significance. Effectiveness clinical indicators are the following: the numbers of patients with operated limb loading approved after surgery, discharged to home, and with osteoporosis treatment postfracture at the time of discharge which were statistically significantly higher in the process period, and the number of patients who suffered from delirium was statistically significantly lower in the process period. The number of in-hospital deaths was lower during the process period without statistical significance.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated the effectiveness of the PMS applied to hip fracture in older adults compared with an orthogeriatric co-management model in the acute phase, based on both management indicators and clinical indicators.

Keywords

Hip fracture Older adults Process management system Effectiveness indicators 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Giversen IM (2007) Time trends of mortality after first hip fractures. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 18(6):721–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tanner DA, Kloseck M, Crilly RG, Chesworth B, Gilliland J (2010) Hip fracture types in men and women change differently with age. BMC Geriatr 10:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ortiz-Alonso FJ, Vidan-Astiz M, Alonso-Armesto M, Toledano-Iglesias M, Alvarez-Nebreda L, Branas-Baztan F et al (2012) The pattern of recovery of ambulation after hip fracture differs with age in elderly patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 67(6):690–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grigoryan KV, Javedan H, Rudolph JL (2014) Orthogeriatric care models and outcomes in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 28(3):e49–e55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casey JT, Brinton TS, Gonzalez CM (2009) Utilization of lean management principles in the ambulatory clinic setting. Nat Clin Pract Urol 6(3):146–153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hummer J, Daccarett C (2009) Improvement in prescription renewal handling by application of the Lean process. Nursing economic$ 27(3):197–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merrill DG, Laur JJ (2010) Management by outcomes: efficiency and operational success in the ambulatory surgery center. Anesthesiol Clin 28(2):329–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andellini M, Fernandez Riesgo S, Morolli F, Ritrovato M, Cosoli P, Petruzzellis S, Rosso N (2017) Experimental application of business process management technology to manage clinical pathways: a pediatric kidney transplantation follow up case. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 17(1):151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassan MMD (2017) An application of business process management to health care facilities. The Health Care Manag 36(2):147–163Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yarmohammadian MH, Ebrahimipour H, Doosty F (2014) Improvement of hospital processes through business process management in Qaem Teaching Hospital: a work in progress. Journal of Education and Health Promotion 3:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L (1984) Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther 64(1):35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 14:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI (1990) Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 113(12):941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):1476–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 21(Suppl 4):S637–S646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leung AH, Lam TP, Cheung WH, Chan T, Sze PC, Lau T et al (2011) An orthogeriatric collaborative intervention program for fragility fractures: a retrospective cohort study. J Trauma 71(5):1390–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adunsky A, Lerner-Geva L, Blumstein T, Boyko V, Mizrahi E, Arad M (2011) Improved survival of hip fracture patients treated within a comprehensive geriatric hip fracture unit, compared with standard of care treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc 12(6):439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bhattacharyya R, Agrawal Y, Elphick H, Blundell C (2013) A unique orthogeriatric model: a step forward in improving the quality of care for hip fracture patients. Int J Surg 11(10):1083–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zeltzer J, Mitchell RJ, Toson B, Harris IA, Ahmad L, Close J (2014) Orthogeriatric services associated with lower 30-day mortality for older patients who undergo surgery for hip fracture. Med J Aust 201(7):409–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suhm N, Kaelin R, Studer P, Wang Q, Kressig RW, Rikli D, Jakob M, Pretto M (2014) Orthogeriatric care pathway: a prospective survey of impact on length of stay, mortality and institutionalisation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(9):1261–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sabharwal S, Wilson H (2015) Orthogeriatrics in the management of frail older patients with a fragility fracture. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 26(10):2387–2399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henderson CY, Ryan JP (2015) Predicting mortality following hip fracture: an analysis of comorbidities and complications. Ir J Med Sci 184(3):667–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henderson CY, Shanahan E, Butler A, Lenehan B, O’Connor M, Lyons D, et al. 2016 Dedicated orthogeriatric service reduces hip fracture mortality. Ir J Med Sci.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ, Belenguer-Varea A, Rovira E, Cuesta-Peredo D (2016) Orthogeriatric care: improving patient outcomes. Clin Interv Aging 11:843–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giusti A, Barone A, Razzano M, Pizzonia M, Pioli G (2011) Optimal setting and care organization in the management of older adults with hip fracture. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 47(2):281–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moja L, Piatti A, Pecoraro V, Ricci C, Virgili G, Salanti G et al (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(10):e46175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simunovic N, Devereaux PJ, Sprague S, Guyatt GH, Schemitsch E, Debeer J et al (2010) Effect of early surgery after hip fracture on mortality and complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne 182(15):1609–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Inacio MC, Weiss JM, Miric A, Hunt JJ, Zohman GL, Paxton EW (2015) A community-based hip fracture registry: population, methods, and outcomes. The permanente journal 19(3):29–36PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme (FFFAP). National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) extended report 2016. Available at: http://web1.crownaudit.org/Report2016/NHFD2016Report.pdf Accesed September 16, 2016
  30. 30.
    Bruce AJ, Ritchie CW, Blizard R, Lai R, Raven P (2007) The incidence of delirium associated with orthopedic surgery: a meta-analytic review. Int Psychogeriatr 19(2):197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krogseth M, Wyller TB, Engedal K, Juliebo V (2011) Delirium is an important predictor of incident dementia among elderly hip fracture patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 31(1):63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saito T, Sterbenz JM, Malay S, Zhong L, MacEachern MP, Chung KC (2017) Effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs to prevent secondary fragility fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 28(12):3289–3300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hajcsar EE, Hawker G, Bogoch ER (2000) Investigation and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne 163(7):819–822PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bessette L, Ste-Marie LG, Jean S, Davison KS, Beaulieu M, Baranci M, Bessant J, Brown JP (2008) The care gap in diagnosis and treatment of women with a fragility fracture. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 19(1):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Metge CJ, Leslie WD, Manness LJ, Yogendran M, Yuen CK, Kvern B (2008) Postfracture care for older women: gaps between optimal care and actual care. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 54(9):1270–1276PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gehlbach SH, Avrunin JS, Puleo E, Spaeth R (2007) Fracture risk and antiresorptive medication use in older women in the USA. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 18(6):805–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jennings LA, Auerbach AD, Maselli J, Pekow PS, Lindenauer PK, Lee SJ (2010) Missed opportunities for osteoporosis treatment in patients hospitalized for hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc 58(4):650–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fátima Brañas
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. Ruiz-Pinto
    • 3
  • E. Fernández
    • 4
  • A. del Cerro
    • 5
  • R. de Dios
    • 6
  • L. Fuentetaja
    • 7
  • L. Cebrián
    • 8
  • R. Larrainzar-Garijo
    • 4
  1. 1.Geriatrics DepartmentInfanta Leonor University HospitalMadridSpain
  2. 2.Hospital Universitario Infanta LeonorMadridSpain
  3. 3.Geriatrics UnitTajo’s HospitalMadridSpain
  4. 4.Orthopedic and Trauma DepartmentInfanta Leonor University HospitalMadridSpain
  5. 5.Nurses DepartmentInfanta Leonor University HospitalMadridSpain
  6. 6.Rehabilitation DepartmentInfanta Leonor University HospitalMadridSpain
  7. 7.Anaesthesia and Resuscitation DepartmentInfanta Leonor University HospitalMadridSpain
  8. 8.Social Workers DepartmentInfanta Leonor University HospitalMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations