The value of a prognostic scoring system in the rehabilitation of elderly patients with proximal femoral fractures

Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

(a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.

Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR)

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral fracture is a major health problem in old age, with annual UK health and social care costs of £2.3B. Rehabilitation has the potential to maximise functional recovery and maintain independent living, but evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an enhanced community-based rehabilitation package following surgical treatment for proximal femoral fracture and to assess acceptability and feasibility for a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation.

DESIGN

Phase I - realist review, survey and focus groups to develop the rehabilitation package. Phase II - parallel-group, randomised (using a dynamic adaptive algorithm) feasibility study with focus groups and an anonymised cohort study.

SETTING

Recruitment was from orthopaedic wards of three acute hospitals in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, North Wales. The intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who had received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by the clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). Usual care was variable and consisted of multidisciplinary rehabilitation delivered by the acute hospital, community hospital and community services depending on need and availability. The intervention was designed to enhance rehabilitation by improving patients' self-efficacy and increasing the amount and quality of patients' practice of physical exercise and activities of daily living. It consisted of a patient-held information workbook, a goal-setting diary and six additional therapy sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL) index. The secondary outcome measures included the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I), Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and service use measures. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers.

RESULTS

Sixty-two participants were recruited (23% of those who were eligible), 61 were randomised (control, n = 32; intervention, n = 29) and 49 (79%) were followed up at 3 months. Compared with the cohort study, a younger, healthier subpopulation was recruited. There were minimal differences in most outcomes between the two groups, including the BADL index, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.5 (Cohen's d = 0.29). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement on the NEADL scale relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d = 0.63). There was a trend for greater improvement in FES-I and HADS in the intervention group, but with small effect sizes, with an adjusted mean difference of 4.2 (Cohen's d = 0.31) and 1.3 (Cohen's d = 0.20), respectively. The cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a possible small relative increase in quality-adjusted life-years in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention, although recruitment was challenging. The NEADL scale was more responsive than the BADL index, suggesting that the intervention could enable participants to regain better levels of independence compared with usual care. This should be tested in a definitive Phase III RCT. There were two main limitations of the study: the feasibility study lacked power to test for differences between the groups and a ceiling effect was observed in the primary measure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22464643.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.

Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major fall-related injury which causes significant problems for individuals, their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment, and their outcomes after surgery are poorer than those without dementia. It is not clear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people.

OBJECTIVES

(a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.(b) To assess the effectiveness for people with dementia of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies which are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, up to and including week 1 June 2014 using the terms hip OR fracture OR surgery OR operation OR femur OR femoral.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness for people with dementia of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We synthesised data only if we considered studies sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with a total of 316 participants. Four trials evaluated models of enhanced interdisciplinary rehabilitation and care, two of these for inpatients only and two for inpatients and at home after discharge. All were compared with usual rehabilitation and care in the trial settings. The fifth trial compared outcomes of geriatrician-led care in hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. All papers analysed subgroups of people with dementia/cognitive impairment from larger RCTs of older people following hip fracture. Trial follow-up periods ranged from acute hospital discharge to 24 months post-discharge.We considered all of the studies to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger studies, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Further, there were some important differences in the baseline characteristics of the participants in experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for all outcomes to 'low' or 'very low'.No study assessed our primary outcome (cognitive function) nor other important dementia-related outcomes including behaviour and quality of life. The effect estimates for most comparisons were very imprecise, so it was not possible to draw firm conclusions from the data. There was low-quality evidence that enhanced care and rehabilitation in hospital led to lower rates of some complications and that enhanced care provided across hospital and home settings reduced the chance of being in institutional care at three months post-discharge (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.95, 2 trials, n = 184), but this effect was more uncertain at 12 months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 2 trials, n = 177). The effect of enhanced care and rehabilitation in hospital and at home on functional outcomes was very uncertain because the quality of evidence was very low from one small trial. Results on functional outcomes from other trials were inconclusive. The effect of geriatrician-led compared to orthopaedic-led management on the cumulative incidence of delirium was very uncertain (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.38, 1 trial, n = 126, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about how effective the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care after hip fracture used in these trials are for people with dementia above active usual care. The current evidence base derives from a small number of studies with quality limitations. This should be addressed as a research priority to determine the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients.

External validation of the discharge of hip fracture patients score

PURPOSE

This paper reports the external validation of a recently developed instrument, the Discharge of Hip fracture Patients score (DHP) that predicts discharge location on admission in patients living in their own home prior to hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

The DHP (maximum score 100 points) was applied to 125 hip fracture patients aged 50 or more years admitted to an academic centre in the northern part of The Netherlands (Groningen cohort). The characteristics of this cohort, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of the DHP for discharge to an alternative location (DAL) were calculated and compared with the original cohort of hip fracture patients from the western part of The Netherlands (Delft cohort). Scoring 30 points or higher indicated DAL.

RESULTS

The Groningen cohort was younger compared to the Delft cohort, (mean age 75.4 vs. 78.5 years, P = 0.005) but was more often classified ASA III/IV (46.4% vs. 25.2%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity of the DHP for DAL in the Groningen cohort was 75% (vs. 83.8%), specificity of 66.7% (vs. 64.7%) and a PPV of 86.3% (vs. 79.2%), compared to the Delft cohort.

CONCLUSION

External validation of the DHP was successful; it predicted discharge location of hip fracture patients accurately in another Dutch cohort, the sensitivity for DAL was somewhat lower but the PPV higher. Therefore, the DHP score is a useful valid and easily applied instrument for general hip fracture populations.

A prognostic model predicting recovery of walking independence of elderly patients after hip-fracture surgery. An experiment in a rehabilitation unit in Northern Italy

A score for identifying post-hip-fracture surgery patients at various levels (high, medium, and low) of risk for unsuccessful recovery of pre-fracture walking ability was developed. Three hundred ninety-eight HF patients were enrolled in the study. The score significantly and independently predicted failure to walk independently at discharge, failure to walk independently after 12 months, and death after 12 months. The score may be useful for clinicians and healthcare administrators to target populations for rehabilitative programs.

INTRODUCTION

To develop a model predicting at the time that elderly hip-fracture (HF) patients undergo rehabilitation if they will have recovered walking independence at discharge.

METHODS

Data from all patients admitted to a Department of Rehabilitation in Italy between January 2001 and June 2008 after HF surgery were used. Variables concerning cognitive, clinical, functional, and social parameters were evaluated. Predominant measures were identified through correspondence analysis, and a variable score was defined. Three risk classes (minimum, moderate, and high) were identified and univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess the model's predictivity and risk classes for the various outcomes.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-eight HF patients were enrolled. The variables selected to construct the score were age, gender, body mass index, number of drugs being taken, the Mini Mental State Examination, the Instrumental Activity of Daily Living, and the pre-fracture Barthel index. According to univariate analysis, the score was not better than the pre-fracture Barthel's index, but, according to multivariate analysis, it was an independent predictor for all the outcomes, while the pre-fracture Barthel index predicted only outcomes at discharge. In particular, the score significantly predicted failure to walk independently at discharge, failure to walk independently after 12 months, and death after 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A method of identifying post-HF surgery patients at various levels (high-, medium-, and low-) of risk for unsuccessful recovery of pre-fracture walking ability has been designed. The method may be useful for clinicians and healthcare administrators to target populations for rehabilitative programs.

Predicting discharge location of hip fracture patients; the new discharge of hip fracture patients score

Purpose

This paper reports on the development and validity of a new instrument, called the discharge of hip fracture patients score (DHP), that predicts at admission the discharge location in patients living in their own home prior to hip fracture surgery.

Methods

A total of 310 patients aged 50 years and above were included. Risk factors for discharge to an alternative location (DAL) were analysed with a multivariable regression analysis taking the admission variables into account with different weights based on the estimates. The score ranged from 0–100 points. The cut-off point for DAL was calculated using a ROC analysis. Reliability of the DHP was evaluated.

Results

Risk factors for DAL were higher age, female gender, dementia, absence of a partner and a limited level of mobility. The cut-off point was set at 30 points, with a sensitivity of 83.8%, a specificity of 64.7% and positive predictive value of 79.2%.

Conclusion

The DHP is a valid, simple and short instrument to be used at admission to predict discharge location of hip fracture patients.

Risk factors for failure to return to the pre-fracture place of residence after hip fracture: a prospective longitudinal study of 444 patients

INTRODUCTION

Long-term place of residence after hip fracture is not often described in literature. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors, known at admission, for failure to return to the pre-fracture place of residence of hip fracture patients in the first year after a hip fracture.

METHODS

This is a prospective longitudinal study of 444 consecutive admissions of hip fracture patients aged ≥ 65 years. Place of residence prior to admission, at discharge, after 3 and 12 months was registered. Patients admitted from a nursing home (n = 49) were excluded from statistical analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, using age, gender, presence of a partner, ASA-score, dementia, anaemia at admission, type of fracture, pre-fracture level of mobility and level of activities of daily living (ADL) as possible risk factors.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-nine patients lived in their own home, 31.8% returned at discharge, 72.9% at 3 months and 72.8% at 12 months. Age, absence of a partner, dementia, and a lower pre-fracture level of ADL or mobility were independent contributors to failure to return to their own home at discharge, 3 or 12 months. 106 patients lived in a residential home; 33.3% returned at discharge, 68.4% at 3 months and 64.4% at 12 months. Age was an independent contributor to failure to return to a residential home.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, dementia and a lower pre-fracture level of ADL were the main significant risk factors for failure to return to the pre-fracture residence. As the 3- and 12-month return-rates were similar, 3-month follow-up might be used as an endpoint in future research.

Morbid RANKIN score strongly predicts in-patient mortality within 90 days in older people in both acute and community care settings independently of FANGG (fracture, acquired neurological deficit or any geriatric giants) and acute illness markers (AIMs)

Understanding the relative impact of factors that are associated with poor outcome of older people admitted either to an acute or a rehabilitation setting is essential to further our knowledge in provision of appropriate care. We conducted a prospective study to examine whether FANGG and AIMs are important prognostic indicators of mortality outcome in hospitalised older people when patients' morbid functional status is considered. Participants were two consecutive series of 200 patients admitted to care of the elderly wards in an acute teaching hospital and a community hospital in Birmingham, UK during April to August 2004 and the same months in 2005. The association with the outcome of mortality was examined in a univariate analysis, and then multiple logistic regression models. A total of 400 patients (men 116, 29.2%) were included in this study (mean age=85.3 years, range 64-104 years). There were 72 in-hospital deaths (18.0%). The prevalence of FANGG is low in this series; the majority (89.3%) had none or only one factor. The adjusted analysis showed that only age (p=0.05), gender (p=0.01) and morbid Rankin score (p<0.001) were predictive of outcome. The morbid Rankin score of 5 had over threefold higher likelihood of dying as in-patient (OR=3.31; 95% CI=1.48-7.40, p=0.003) independently of age, gender, site, FANGG, Rankin×AIMs interaction and AIMs. The morbid Rankin score strongly predicts the in-patient mortality over and above of age, gender, FANGG and AIMs in this patient population.

A simple scoring system to predict ambulation prognosis after hip fracture in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a study on elderly patients with hip fracture to examine whether it is possible to predict the ambulation status of these patients upon hospital discharge.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and eighty six patients with femoral neck or trochanteric fracture, who were ambulant prior to fracture, were studied. Thirteen factors that may affect walking ability were selected and subjected to multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of 186 patients, 145 regained walking ability at discharge. Factors significantly affecting walking ability at discharge were (1) anemia, (2) dementia and (3) abnormal chest X-ray. Each patient was scored on the basis of the above factors (1 = yes, 0 = no), and the total was used as the predictive score.

CONCLUSION

A simple scoring system composed of these three factors was useful for the prediction of [corrected] the ambulation status upon hospital discharge.

Prediction of ambulation prognosis in the elderly after hip fracture

We investigated the factors influencing ambulation prognosis after hip fracture in the elderly patient and examined whether it is possible to predict the ambulation status upon hospital discharge at the time of admission. Two hundred and five patients aged 60 or older with a hip fracture who were ambulant before injury were studied. The patients were divided into two groups according to their ability to walk at the time of discharge from hospital: the ambulatory group and the non-ambulatory group. We assessed the value of various predictive factors. At discharge, 136 patients (66.3%) were ambulatory while 69 patients (33.7%) were non-ambulatory. Factors significantly affecting walking ability at discharge were: (1) age, (2) dementia, (3) residence before injury, (4) anaemia, (5) electrolyte abnormality, (6) abnormal chest X-ray, and (7) chronic systemic disease. Each patient was scored on the basis of the above factors (1=yes, 0=no), and the total was used as the predictive score. The mean score was significantly higher (p<0.0005) in the non-ambulatory group. It is possible to predict ambulation prognosis after hip fracture using our scoring system at the time of admission.