[Comparison between the short program and the long program of post-operative rehabilitation of hip fracture for making the critical path]

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome - 'poor outcome' - was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below. Inpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. Ambulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Three trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. One trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty. The generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true. Given the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.

The Clinical Pathway with Regional Alliance (CPRA) system for proximal femoral fractures in the southern region of Ibaraki prefecture: comparison of the proportion of patients who return to living at home from acute care and rehabilitation (kaihukuki) hospitals

Objective: We investigated whether elderly patients treated for a proximal femoral fracture would be able to return home.

Patients and Methods: The subjects of this study were 834 patients. We defined the acute care hospital group as patients who returned home from the acute care hospital and the kaihukuki group as patients who were transferred from an acute care hospital to a rehabilitation hospital. We recorded the proportion of patients who returned home. We also analyzed walking ability and the Barthel index (BI) of patients.

Results: After 2013, the proportion of patients who returned home from the acute care hospital fell below 20%. The proportion of patients who returned home from the kaihukuki hospital stayed within the 75–85% range. The BI before injury and at discharge was 86 and 76 points, respectively, in the acute care hospital group. The acute care hospital group included patients who walked without an aid before the injury or when leaving the hospital. In the kaihukuki group, the BI before an injury, at admission, and at discharge from the rehabilitation hospital was 85, 56, and 74 points, respectively. In the kaihukuki group, the ability of patients to walk recovered more slowly than that of patients in the acute care hospital group.

Conclusion: Walking ability and BI are important factors for determining whether patients with a proximal femoral fracture are able to return home.

The quality of the evidence base for clinical pathway effectiveness: room for improvement in the design of evaluation trials

Background

The purpose of this article is to report on the quality of the existing evidence base regarding the effectiveness of clinical pathway (CPW) research in the hospital setting. The analysis is based on a recently published Cochrane review of the effectiveness of CPWs.

Methods

An integral component of the review process was a rigorous appraisal of the methodological quality of published CPW evaluations. This allowed the identification of strengths and limitations of the evidence base for CPW effectiveness. We followed the validated Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria for randomized and non-randomized clinical pathway evaluations. In addition, we tested the hypotheses that simple pre-post studies tend to overestimate CPW effects reported.

Results

Out of the 260 primary studies meeting CPW content criteria, only 27 studies met the EPOC study design criteria, with the majority of CPW studies (more than 70 %) excluded from the review on the basis that they were simple pre-post evaluations, mostly comparing two or more annual patient cohorts. Methodologically poor study designs are often used to evaluate CPWs and this compromises the quality of the existing evidence base.

Conclusions

Cochrane EPOC methodological criteria, including the selection of rigorous study designs along with detailed descriptions of CPW development and implementation processes, are recommended for quantitative evaluations to improve the evidence base for the use of CPWs in hospitals.

Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs

BACKGROUND

Clinical pathways are structured multidisciplinary care plans used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem. They aim to link evidence to practice and optimise clinical outcomes whilst maximising clinical efficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, NHS EED and Global Health. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted relevant professional organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies comparing stand alone clinical pathways with usual care as well as clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles to assess eligibility and methodological quality. Studies were grouped into those comparing clinical pathways with usual care and those comparing clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies involving 11,398 participants met the eligibility and study quality criteria for inclusion. Twenty studies compared stand alone clinical pathways with usual care. These studies indicated a reduction in in-hospital complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.94) and improved documentation (OR 13.65: 95%CI 5.38 to 34.64). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospital or in-hospital mortality. Length of stay was the most commonly employed outcome measure with most studies reporting significant reductions. A decrease in hospital costs/ charges was also observed, ranging from WMD +261 US$ favouring usual care to WMD -4919 US$ favouring clinical pathways (in US$ dollar standardized to the year 2000). Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis of length of stay and hospital cost results. An assessment of whether lower hospital costs contributed to cost shifting to another health sector was not undertaken.Seven studies compared clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. No evidence of differences were found between intervention and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people and its impact on society is substantial.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older patients with hip fracture.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (April 2009), The Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE (both to April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older patients (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome, 'poor outcome' was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection was by consensus. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

The 13 included trials involved 2498 older, usually female, patients who had undergone hip fracture surgery. Though generally well conducted, some trials were at risk of bias such as from imbalances in key baseline characteristics.There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 11 trials. Pooled results showed no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups for poor outcome (risk ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.01), mortality (risk ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.07) or hospital readmission. Individual trials found better results, often short-term only, in the intervention group for activities of daily living and mobility. There was considerable heterogeneity in length of stay and cost data. Three trials reporting carer burden showed no evidence of detrimental effect from the intervention. Overall, the evidence indicates that multidisciplinary rehabilitation is not harmful.The trial comparing primarily home-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation with usual inpatient care found marginally improved function and a clinically significantly lower burden for carers in the intervention group. Participants of this group had shorter hospital stays, but longer periods of rehabilitation. One trial found no significant effect from doubling the number of weekly contacts at the patient's home from a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While there was a tendency to a better overall result in patients receiving multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation, these results were not statistically significant.Future trials of multidisciplinary rehabilitation should aim to establish both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation overall, rather than evaluate its components.

WITHDRAWN: Co-ordinated multidisciplinary approaches for inpatient rehabilitation of older patients with proximal femoral fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people and its impact, both on the individual and to society, is substantial.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of co-ordinated multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation, compared with usual (orthopaedic) care, for older patients with hip fracture.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group specialised register (December 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2002), conference proceedings and reference lists of articles and books. We also contacted colleagues and trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using specialised rehabilitation of mainly older patients (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial assignment to included, excluded and awaiting assessment categories, was by consensus. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Limited additional information was sought from most trialists. As well as pooling data from primary outcomes, supplementary analyses were performed to combine clinically relevant outcomes and investigate possible explanatory factors.

MAIN RESULTS

In this minor update, new data for two already included trials have been incorporated, resulting in only slight changes to the pooled results.The nine included trials involved 1887 patients. The combined outcomes of death or requiring institutional care showed no significant difference between intervention and control groups (relative risk 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.05). There was considerable heterogeneity in length of stay and cost data. Using death and deterioration in function as a further combined outcome variable yielded a relative risk of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.01). This should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity. No quality of life measures were reported and the two trials investigating carer burden showed no evidence of detrimental effect from the intervention. The review update did not result in any new data for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available trials reviewed had different aims, interventions and outcomes. Combined outcome measures (e.g. death or institutional care) tended to be better for patients receiving co-ordinated inpatient rehabilitation, but the results were heterogeneous and not statistically significant.Future trials of post-surgical care involving inpatient rehabilitation, or other models such as 'early supported discharge' and 'hospital at home' schemes, should aim to establish both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation overall, rather than attempt to evaluate its components.

Co-ordinated multidisciplinary approaches for inpatient rehabilitation of older patients with proximal femoral fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity in older people and its impact, both on the individual and to society, is substantial.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of co-ordinated multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation, compared with usual orthopaedic care, for older patients with hip fracture.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register, Medline (up to April 1998), and reference lists of published papers and books. We also contacted colleagues and trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of postsurgical care using specialised rehabilitation of mainly older patients (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial assignment to included, excluded and awaiting assessment categories, was by consensus. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Limited additional information was sought from most trialists. As well as pooling of data from primary outcomes, supplementary analyses were performed to combine clinically relevant outcomes and investigate possible explanatory factors.

MAIN RESULTS

In this minor update, one new trial is identified and has been placed in "studies awaiting assessment". Of another three trials previously pending assessment, one has now been excluded. The five included trials involved 1068 patients. The combined outcomes of death or requiring institutional care at final follow-up showed no significant difference between intervention and control groups (Peto odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.18). There was considerable heterogeneity in length of stay and cost data. Using death and deterioration in function as a further combined outcome variable yielded a Peto odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1. 07). This should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity. No quality of life measures were reported and the two trials investigating carer burden showed no detrimental effect from the intervention. The review update did not result in any new data for these outcomes.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The trials reviewed had different aims, interventions and outcomes. As a consequence, results were heterogeneous and the question of effectiveness of different types of co-ordinated inpatient rehabilitation after hip fracture cannot be answered conclusively. There is a trend to effectiveness when combined outcome variables (death and institutional care, death and deterioration in function) are considered. Future trials of postsurgical care involving inpatient rehabilitation, or other models such as 'early supported discharge' and 'hospital at home' schemes, should aim to establish both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation overall, rather than attempt to evaluate its components.