Skip to main content

The effect of care pathways for hip fractures: a systematic overview of secondary studies

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology volume 23, pages 737–745 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to perform a systematic overview of secondary literature studies on care pathways (CPs) for hip fracture (HF). The online databases MEDLINE–PubMed, Ovid–EMBASE, CINAHL–EBSCO–host, and The Cochrane Library were searched. A total of six papers, corresponding to six secondary studies, were included but only four secondary studies were HF-specific and thus assessed. Secondary studies were evaluated for patients’ clinical outcomes. There were wide differences among the studies that assessed the effects of CPs on HF patients, with some contrasting clinical outcomes reported. Secondary studies that were non-specific for CPs and included other multidisciplinary care approaches as well showed, in some cases, a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) compared to usual care; studies that focused on promoting early mobilization showed better outcomes of mortality, morbidity, function, or service utilization; CPs mainly based on intensive occupational therapy and/or physical therapy exercises improved functional recovery and reduced LOS, with patients also discharged to a more favorable discharge destination; CPs principally focused on early mobilization improved functional recovery. A secondary study specifically designed for CPs showed lower odds of experiencing common complications of hospitalization after HF. In conclusion, although our overview suggests that CPs can reduce significantly LOS and can have a positive impact on different outcomes, data are insufficient for formal recommendations. To properly understand the effects of CPs for HF, a systematic review is needed of primary studies that specifically examined CPs for HF.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA (1997) World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 7:407–413

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Parker MJ, Anand JK (1991) What is the true mortality of hip fractures? Public Health 105:443–446

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colón-Emeric CS, Vanderschueren D, Milisen K, Velkeniers B, Boonen S (2010) Meta-analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med 152(6):380–390

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosell PAE, Parker MJ (2003) Functional outcome after hip fracture: a 1-year prospective outcome study of 275 patients. Injury 34:529–532

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Boonen S, Autier P, Barette M, Vanderschueren D, Lips P, Haentjens P (2004) Functional outcome and quality of life following hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective controlled study. Osteoporos Int 15:87–94

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilkins K (1999) Health care consequences of falls for seniors. Health Rep 10:47–55

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. AHRQ News and Numbers, January 4, (2006) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/nn/nn010406.htm

  8. Brainsky A, Glick H, Lydick E et al (1997) The economic cost of hip fractures in community-dwelling older adults: a prospective study. J Am Geriatr Soc 45:281–287

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Haentjens P, Autier P, Barette M, Boonen S (2001) The economic cost of hip fractures among elderly women: a one-year, prospective, observational cohort study with matched-pair analysis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83:493–500

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wiktorowicz ME, Goeree R, Papaioannou A, Adachi JD, Papadimitropoulos E (2001) Economic implications of hip fracture: health service use, institutional care and cost in Canada. Osteoporos Int 12:271–278

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D et al (2000) Framework for the design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 321:694–696

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J et al (2007) Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 334:455–459

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Medical Research Council (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. MRC. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/complexinterventionsguidance

  14. Pearson SD, Goulart-Fisher D, Lee TH (1995) Critical pathways as a strategy for improving care: problems and potential. Ann Intern Med 123:941–948

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Panella M, Marchisio S, Di Stanislao F (2003) Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways: do pathways work? Int J Qual Health Care 15:509–521

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vanhaecht K, Ovretveit J, Elliott MJ, Sermeus W, Ellershaw JE, Panella M (2011) have we drawn the wrong conclusions about the value of care pathways? Is a Cochrane review appropriate? Eval Health Prof [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1177/0163278711408293

  17. Hindle D, Yazbeck AM (2005) Clinical pathways in 17 European Union countries: a purposive survey. Aust Health Rev 29:94–104

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vanhaecht K, Bollmann M, Bower K, Gallagher C, Gardini A, Guezo J, Jansen U, Massoud R, Moody K, Sermeus W, Van Zelm RT, Whittle CL, Yazbeck AM, Zander K, Panella M (2006) Prevalence and use of clinical pathways in 23 countries—an international survey by the European Pathway Association E-P-A.org. J Integr Care Pathw 10:28–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chilov MN, Cameron ID, March LM (2003) Evidence-based guidelines for fixing broken hips: an update. Med J Aust 179:489–493

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. New Zealand Guidelines Group (2003) Acute management and immediate rehabilitation after hip fracture amongst people aged 65 years and over. New Zealand Guidelines Group, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  21. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2006) Prevention and management of hip fracture in older people. SIGN guideline 56. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Edinburgh

  22. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2009) Management of hip fracture in older people. SIGN guideline no. 111. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Edinburgh

  23. Mak JC, Cameron ID, March LM, National Health and Medical Research Council (2010) Evidence-based guidelines for the management of hip fractures in older persons: an update. Med J Aust 192(1):37–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2011) Hip fracture the management of hip fracture in adults. NICE clinical guideline 124. Developed by the National Clinical Guideline Centre

  25. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. [Overviews of Reviews (Chapter 22, Section 3)]. The Cochrane collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org

  26. Vanhaecht K, De Witte K, Sermeus W (2007) The impact of clinical pathways on the organisation of care processes. ACCO, Leuven; https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/252816/1/PhD+Kris+Vanhaech

  27. Rotter T, Kugler J, Koch R, Gothe H, Twork S, van Oostrum JM, Steyerberg EW (2008) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of clinical pathways on length of stay, hospital costs and patient outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res 8:265

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rotter T, Koch R, Kugler J, Gothe H, Kinsman L, James E (2010) Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3). Art no CD006632. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006632.pub2

  29. Cameron I, Crotty M, Currie C, Finnegan T, Gillespie L, Gillespie W et al (2000) Geriatric rehabilitation following fractures in older people: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 4(2):1–110. http://www.hta.ac.uk

    Google Scholar 

  30. Beaupre LA, Jones CA, Saunders LD, Johnston DWC, Buckingham J, Majumdar SR (2005) Best practices for elderly hip fracture patients. J Gen Intern Med 20:1019–1025

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chudyk AM, Jutai JW, Petrella RJ, Speechley M (2009) Systematic review of hip fracture rehabilitation practices in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90(2):246–262

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Neuman MD, Archan S, Karlawish JH, Schwartz JS, Fleisher LA (2009) The relationship between short-term mortality and quality of care for hip fracture: a meta-analysis of clinical pathways for hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc 57(11):2046–2054

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Botsford DJ, Hawker RW (1993) Elderly patients with hip fractures: improved outcome with the use of care maps with high-quality medical and nursing protocols. J Orthop Trauma 7(5):428–437

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pachter S, Flics SS (1987) Integrated care of patients with fractured hip by nursing and physical therapy. NLN Publ (20–2191):441–443

  35. Tallis G, Balla JI (1995) Critical path analysis for the management of fractured neck of femur. Aust J Public Health 19(2):155–159

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cameron ID, Lyle DM, Quine S (1993) Accelerated rehabilitation after proximal femoral fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil 15(1):29–34

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Galvard H, Samuelsson SM (1995) Orthopedic or geriatric rehabilitation of hip fracture patients: a prospective, randomized, clinically controlled study in Malmo, Sweden. Aging 7:11–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Swanson CE, Day GA, Yelland CE et al (1998) The management of elderly patients with femoral fractures. A randomised controlled trial of early intervention versus standard care. Med J Aust 169:515–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. March LM, Cameron ID, Cumming RG, Chamberlain AC, Schwarz JM, Brnabic AJ, O’Meara P, Taylor TF, Riley S, Sambrook PN (2000) Mortality and morbidity after hip fracture: can evidence based clinical pathways make a difference? J Rheumatol 27(9):2227–2231

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Cameron I, Handoll H, Finnegan T, Madhok R, Langhorne P (2001) Co-ordinated multidisciplinary approaches for inpatient rehabilitation of older patients with proximal femoral fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3). Art no CD000106. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000106

  41. Huusko TM, Karppi P, Avikainen V, Kautiainen H, Sulkava R (2002) Intensive geriatric rehabilitation of hip fracture patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Acta Orthop Scand 73:425–431

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Naglie G, Tansey C, Kirkland JL et al (2002) Interdisciplinary inpatient care for elderly people with hip fracture: a randomized control trial. Can Med Assoc J 167:25–32

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hagsten B, Svensson O, Gardulf A (2004) Early individualized postoperative occupational therapy training in 100 patients improves ADL after hip fracture: a randomized trial. Acta Orthop Scand 75:177–183

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Roberts HC, Pickering RM, Onslow E, Clancy M, Powell J, Roberts A, Hughes K, Coulson D, Bray J (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):178–184

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Choong PF, Langford AK, Dowsey MM, Santamaria NM (2000) Clinical pathway for fractured neck of femur: a prospective, controlled study. Med J Aust 172(9):423–426

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 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(34 ref):1107–1111

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Jette AM, Harris BA, Cleary PD, Campion EW (1987) Functional recovery after hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 68:735–740

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Swanson CE, Yelland CE, Day GA (2000) Clinical pathways and fractured neck of femur. Med J Aust 172(9):415–416

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Koval KJ, Chen AL, Aharonoff GB, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD (2004) Clinical pathway for hip fractures in the elderly: the hospital for joint diseases experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res (425):72–81

  50. Beaupre LA, Cinats JG, Senthilselvan A, Scharfenberger A, Johnston DW, Saunders LD (2005) Does standardized rehabilitation and discharge planning improve functional recovery in elderly patients with hip fracture? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86(12):2231–2239

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Beaupre LA, Cinats JG, Senthilselvan A, Lier D, Jones CA, Scharfenberger A, Johnston DWD, Saunders LD (2006) Reduced morbidity for elderly patients with a hip fracture after implementation of a perioperative evidence-based clinical pathway. Qual Saf Health Care 15(5):375–940

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Rasmussen S, Kristensen B, Foldager S et al (2003) Accelereret operationsforlob efter hofterfraktur. Ugeskr Laeger 165:29–33

    Google Scholar 

  53. Khasraghi FA, Christmas C, Lee EJ et al (2005) Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team approach to hip fracture management. J Surg Orthop Adv 14:27–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Olsson LE, Karlsson J, Ekman I (2006) The integrated care pathway reduced the number of hospital days by half: a prospective comparative study of patients with acute hip fracture. J Orthop Surg Res 1:3

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hommel A, Bjorkelund KB, Thorngren K, Ulander K (2007) A study of a pathway to reduce pressure ulcers for patients with a hip fracture. J Orthop Nurs 11(3–4):151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Moran WP, Chen GJ, Watters C et al (2006) Using a collaborative approach to reduce postoperative complications for hip-fracture patients: a three-year follow-up. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 32:16–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gotzsche PC (2000) Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. BMJ 321:585–586

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 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):281–296 (Epub review)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the European Pathway Association (www.E-P-A.org) through an unrestricted educational grant from PFIZER. We hereby acknowledge PFIZER BELGIUM, PFIZER ITALY, PFIZER IRELAND, AND PFIZER PORTUGAL for providing the unrestricted educational grant. The funding sources played no role in the design, execution, and evaluation of the present study. Fabrizio Leigheb got from European Pathway Association an unrestricted educational grant of about € 16,000 granted for 3 consecutive years of PhD course (2009–2011) at the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (from year 2012 established and renamed as the Department of Translational Medicine) of the University of Eastern Piedmont “Amedeo Avogadro,” Novara, Italy.

Conflict of interest

The authors of the present manuscript, Fabrizio Leigheb, Kris Vanhaecht, Walter Sermeus, Cathy Lodewijckx, Svin Deneckere, Steven Boonen, Paulo A Boto, Rita Veloso Mendes, and Massimiliano Panella, declare that they have not proprietary interest or conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Translational Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont “Amedeo Avogadro”, Via Solaroli 17, 28100, Novara, NO, Italy

    Fabrizio Leigheb & Massimiliano Panella

  2. School of Public Health, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Kris Vanhaecht & Massimiliano Panella

  3. European Pathway Association, Leuven, Belgium

    Fabrizio Leigheb, Kris Vanhaecht, Walter Sermeus, Cathy Lodewijckx, Svin Deneckere, Steven Boonen, Paulo A. Boto, Rita Veloso Mendes & Massimiliano Panella

  4. Western Norway Research Network on Integrated Health Care, Helse Fonna, Haugesund, Norway

    Kris Vanhaecht

  5. Center for Health Services and Nursing Research, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Walter Sermeus, Cathy Lodewijckx & Svin Deneckere

  6. Leuven University Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases, Leuven, Belgium

    Steven Boonen

  7. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Leuven University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium

    Steven Boonen

  8. National School of Public Health, Lisbon, Portugal

    Paulo A. Boto & Rita Veloso Mendes

  9. Piedmont Region, Local Health District of Vercelli, Vercelli, Italy

    Massimiliano Panella

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Leigheb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kris Vanhaecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walter Sermeus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cathy Lodewijckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Svin Deneckere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steven Boonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paulo A. Boto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rita Veloso Mendes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Massimiliano Panella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Leigheb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leigheb, F., Vanhaecht, K., Sermeus, W. et al. The effect of care pathways for hip fractures: a systematic overview of secondary studies. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23, 737–745 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1085-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1085-x

Keywords

  • Clinical pathway
  • Care pathway
  • Critical pathway
  • Hip fractures
  • Outcome assessment
  • Overview