Introduction Patients with hip fractures are almost always operated with quite extensive surgery and are often frail with a high risk of complications, increased dependency, and death. Orthogeriatric interdisciplinary care has shown better results compared with orthopaedic care alone. The best way of delivering orthogeriatric care, however, is still largely unknown. It is believed that a high degree of integration and shared care is better than on-demand consultative services. We aimed to evaluate two different orthogeriatric models for patients with hip fracture. Methods A prospective hip fracture quality database was used to evaluate two coexisting models of care from 2019 to 2021 in our hospital. An ‘integrated care model’ (ICM) was compared with a ‘geriatric consult service’ (GCS). Results 516 patients were available for analysis, 360 from ICM and 156 from GCS. Mean age was 84 years. There were 370 (72%) women. American Society of Anesthesiologists class and prefracture cognitive impairment was similar between the groups. There were more patients with femoral neck fractures in the ICM group, and more patients were living independently prefracture. A logistic regression adjusting for the variables above showed that more patients in the ICM group were given a nerve block preoperatively (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.97); p<0.01), had their urinary catheter removed the first day after surgery (OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.89); p<0.01), were mobilised to standing or seated in a chair beside the bed the first day after surgery (OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.03 to 2.30); p=0.033) and more ICM patients were considered for treatment against osteoporosis (OR 8.58 (95% CI 4.03 to 18.28); p<0.001). There were no significant differences in time to surgery, length of stay, discharge destination or mortality. Conclusion The ICM group performed equally good or better on all quality indicators than the GCS.

Comparing two different orthogeriatric models of care for hip fracture patients: an observational prospective cross-sectional study

The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA), a nationwide hip fracture registry in the Netherlands, registers hip fracture patients and aims to improve quality of care since 2016. This study shows trends in the data quality during the first 5 years of data acquisition within the DHFA, as well as trends over time for designated quality indicators (QI).All patients registered in the DHFA between 1-1-2016 and 31-12-2020 were included. Data quality-registry case coverage and data completeness-and baseline characteristics are reported. Five QI are analysed: Time to surgery < 48 h, assessment for osteoporosis, orthogeriatric co-management, registration of functional outcomes at three months, 30-day mortality. The independent association between QI results and report year was tested using mixed-effects logistic models and in the case of 30-day mortality adjusted for casemix.In 2020, the case capture of the DHFA comprised 85% of the Dutch hip fracture patients, 66/68 hospitals participated. The average of missing clinical values was 7.5% in 2016 and 3.2% in 2020. The 3 months follow-up completeness was 36.2% (2016) and 46.8% (2020). The QI 'time to surgery' was consistently high, assessment for osteoporosis remained low, orthogeriatric co-management scores increased without significance, registration of functional outcomes improved significantly and 30-day mortality rates remained unchanged.The DHFA has successfully been implemented in the past five years. Trends show improvement on data quality. Analysis of several QI indicate points of attention. Future perspectives include lowering the burden of registration, whilst improving (registration of) hip fracture patients outcomes. 

/pdf/trends-in-data-quality-and-quality-indicators-5-years-after-1dn3ffeg.pdf

Trends in data quality and quality indicators 5 years after implementation of the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit

Identifying Quality Indicators for the Care of Hospitalized Injured Older Adults: A Scoping Review of the Literature.

(1) Objective: To identify the assessment tools and outcome measures used to assess older adults for inpatient rehabilitation. (2) Design: Scoping review. (3) Data sources: ProQuest, PEDro, PubMed, CINAHL Plus with full text (EBSCO), Cochrane Library and reference lists from included studies. (4) Review method: The inclusion of studies covering patients aged >60, focusing on rehabilitation assessments delivered in hospitals in community settings. Studies reporting on rehabilitation specifically designed for older adults—testing for at least one domain that affects rehabilitation or assessments for admission to inpatient rehabilitation—were also included. Results were described both quantitatively and narratively. (5) Results: 1404 articles were identified through selected databases and registers, and these articles underwent a filtering process intended to identify and remove any duplicates. This process reduced the number to 1186 articles. These, in turn, were screened for inclusion criteria, as a result of which 37 articles were included in the final review. The majority of assessments for geriatric rehabilitation were carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Multiple studies considered more than one domain during assessment, with a high percentage evaluating a specific outcome measure used in geriatric rehabilitation. The most common domains assessed were function, cognition and medical status—with communication, vision and pain being the least common. A total of 172 outcome measures were identified in this review, with MMSE, BI, FIM and CCI being the most frequent. (6) Conclusions: This review highlights the lack of standardised approaches in existing assessment processes. Generally, older-adult-rehabilitation assessments struggle to capture rehabilitation potential in a holistic manner. Hence, a predictive model of rehabilitation for assessing patients at the initial stages would be useful in planning a patient-specific programme aimed at maximising functional independence and, thus, quality of life.

/pdf/assessment-tools-for-the-admission-of-older-adults-to-d8xbl6iv.pdf

Assessment Tools for the Admission of Older Adults to Inpatient Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the relationship between the complications and clinical outcomes after intertrochanteric femoral fracture surgery, and the Singh index (SI), canal-calcar ratio (CCR), cortical thickness index (CTI), and canal flare index (CFI) – the radiological indices defining proximal femoral morphology in the literature – among patients over 60 years of age. METHODS: The data of 350 patients who were operated between 2015 and 2019 were evaluated retrospectively. The study included patients who underwent dual lag screw proximal femoral nailing and had good intraoperative reduction quality according to Fogagnolo’s criteria. The relationships among radiological indices measured on radiographs acquired after trauma, and post-operative complications, Barthel activity index, and Harris hip score (HHS) were assessed statistically. RESULTS: Among 121 patients who met the study criteria, there were 63 (52.07%) female and 58 (47.93%) male patients. The mean length of follow-up was 37.09 (36–60) months. The patients had a mean age of 79.78 (60–97) years. At least one mechanical complication developed in 32 (26.4%) patients in the study group. No significant relationship could be established between radiological indices and post-operative complications (p>0.05). The relationship between SI and HHS was statistically significant (p<0.05). CCR, CTI, and CFI did not have a statistically significant relationship with and HHS (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant relationship could be established between radiological indices and post-operative complications. It should be considered that SI may be a parameter that affects clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of the effect of proximal femur geometry on results of geriatric intertrochanteric fracture surgery

Even though hip fracture care pathways have evolved, mortality rates have not improved during the last 20 years. This finding together with the increased frailty of hip fracture patients turned hip fractures into a major public health concern. The corresponding development of an indicator labyrinth for hip fractures and the ongoing practice variance in Europe call for a list of benchmarking indicators that allow for quality improvement initiatives for the rapid recovery of fragile hip fractures (RR-FHF). The purpose of this study was to identify quality indicators that assess the quality of in-hospital care for rapid recovery of fragile hip fracture (RR-FHF). A literature search and guideline selection was conducted to identify recommendations for RR-FHF. Recommendations were categorized as potential structure, process, and outcome QIs and subdivided in-hospital care treatment topics. A list of structure and process recommendations that belongs to care treatment topics relevant for RR-FHF was used to facilitate extraction of recommendations during a 2-day consensus meeting with experts (n = 15) in hip fracture care across Europe. Participants were instructed to select 5 key recommendations relevant for RR-FHF for each part of the in-hospital care pathway: pre-, intra-, and postoperative care. In total, 37 potential QIs for RR-FHF were selected based on a methodology using the combination of high levels of evidence and expert opinion. The set consists of 14 process, 13 structure, and 10 outcome indicators that cover the whole perioperative process of fragile hip fracture care. We suggest the QIs for RR-FHF to be practice tested and adapted to allow for intra-hospital longitudinal follow-up of the quality of care and for inter-hospital and cross-country benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.

Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus

Correction to: Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Cedric Slock

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus

Correction to: Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus