Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 23, Issue 5–6, pp 431–436 | Cite as

A comparison between two co-managed geriatric programmes for hip fractured elderly patients

  • Paolo Mazzola
  • Francesco De Filippi
  • Giuseppe Castoldi
  • Paola Galetti
  • Giovanni Zatti
  • Giorgio Annoni
Original Article


Background and aims: Hip fracture in older people is an event associated with a high incidence of morbidity and mortality. In this study we compared the clinical outcomes of two groups of orthogeriatric patients in an orthogeriatric care (OC) programme. The OC course, developed into the GeriatricWard, starts from the Emergency Department (OC-1, n=174) or from the Orthopaedic Department after surgery (OC-2, n=87). Methods: For this purpose, OC patients were prospectively enrolled from March 2007 to June 2009, following OC criteria. Door-to-bed time, time to surgery, mobilisation time, length of stay, and post-operative complications were compared between the OC groups. Results: OC-1 patients differ from OC-2 ones only for residence at admission (14.4% vs 4.6% lived in nursing homes, p=0.02). Concerning outcomes, in the OC-1 group only mobilization time was significantly lower (p=0.01). No differences were observed in post-operative complications. Conclusions: In frail older people, hip fracture co-management, with the geriatrician as primary attendant, leads to satisfying outcomes. The OC-1 and OC-2 courses exhibit similar clinical results. An improvement in several organisational aspects, including coordination between hospital and rehabilitation services, is warranted.

Key words

Co-management hip fracture older people orthogeriatric section 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wiktirowicz ME, Goeree R, Papaioannou A et al. Economic implications of hip fracture: Health service use, institutional care and cost in Canada. Osteoporos Int 2001; 12: 271–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morris AH, Zuckerman JD. National consensus conference on improving the continuum of care for patients with hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84A: 670–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuckerman JD. Hip fracture. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1519–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cummings SR, Rubin SM, Black D. The future of hip fractures in the United States. Number, costs, and potential effects of postmenopausal estrogen. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 252: 163–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Piscitelli P, Iolascon G, Gimigliano F et al. Incidence and costs of hip fractures compared to acute myocardial infarction in the Italian population: a 4-year survey. Osteoporos Int 2007; 18: 211–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braithwaite RS, Col NF, Wong JB. Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leibson CL, Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE et al. Mortality, disability, and nursing home use for persons with and without hip fracture: a population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 1644–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Magaziner J, Hawkes W, Hebel JR. Recovery from hip fracture in eight areas of function. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M498–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adunsky A, Arad M, Levi R. Five-year experience with the ‘Sheba’ model of comprehensive orthogeriatric care for elderly hip fracture patients. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 1123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman SM, Mendelson DA, Kates SL, McCann RM. 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 2008; 56: 1349–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antonelli Incalzi R, Gemma A, Capparella O. Orthogeriatric Unit: a thinking process and a working model. Aging Clin Exp Res 2008; 20: 109–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 373–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katz TF. A.D.L. Activities of Daily Living. JAMA 1963; 185: 914–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 179–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed 4, Text Revision, Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioral disorders: diagnostic criteria for research. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA et al. Clarifying confusion: the Confusion Assessment Method: a new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 941–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dennison E, Mohamed MA, Cooper C. Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2006; 32: 617–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. 2008 Older Americans: key indicators of well-being. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Todd CJ, Freeman CJ, Camilleri-Ferrante C. Differences in mortality after fracture of hip: the East Anglian audit. BMJ 1995; 310: 904–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forsen L, Soogard AJ, Meyer HE. Survival after hip fracture: short- and long-term excess mortality according to age and gender. Osteoporos Int 1999; 10: 73–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    SIGN: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vidán M, Serra JA, Moreno C, Riquelme G, Ortiz J. Efficacy of a comprehensive geriatric intervention in older patients hospitalized for hip fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 1476–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pioli G, Giusti A, Barone A. Orthogeriatric care for the elderly with hip fractures: where are we? Aging Clin Exp Res 2008; 20: 113–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bottle A, Aylin P. Mortality associated with delay in operation after hip fracture: observational study. BMJ 2006; 332: 947–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Al-Ani AN, Samuelsson B, Tidermark J, Norling et al. Early operation on patients with hip fracture improved the ability to return to independent living. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1436–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Friedman SM, Mendelson DA, Bingham RN, Kates SL. Impact of a comanaged Geriatric Fracture Center on short-term hip fracture outcomes. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1712–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sharma G, Kuo YF, Freeman J, Zhang DD, Goodwin JS. Comanagement of hospitalized surgical patients by Medicine Physicians in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 363–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Internal Publishing Switzerland 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Mazzola
    • 1
  • Francesco De Filippi
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Castoldi
    • 2
  • Paola Galetti
    • 1
  • Giovanni Zatti
    • 2
  • Giorgio Annoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Geriatric Clinic, S. Gerardo HospitalUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMonzaItaly
  2. 2.Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, S. Gerardo HospitalUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMonzaItaly

Personalised recommendations