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

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.

Association between clinical frailty, illness severity and post-discharge survival: a prospective cohort study of older medical inpatients in Norway

Aim

To assess impact of frailty screening and two markers of illness severity on survival following discharge from the hospital.

Findings

Independently of age, ward (acute geriatric and general medical) and comorbidity, both higher degree of frailty and illness severity associated with reduced survival probability following discharge. The impact of frailty on survival was higher in those experiencing high clinical and laboratory illness severity.

Message

The prognostic value of frailty screening increased when performed in conjunction with two markers of illness severity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00555-8.

Purpose

Study associations between frailty, illness severity and post-discharge survival in older adults admitted to medical wards with acute clinical conditions.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of 195 individuals (mean age 86; 63% females) admitted to two medical wards with acute illness, followed up for all-cause mortality for 20 months after discharge. Ward physicians screened for frailty and quantified its degree from one to eight using Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), while clinical illness severity was estimated by New Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and laboratory illness severity was calculated by a frailty index (FI-lab) using routine blood tests.

Results

CFS, NEWS2 and FI-lab scores were independently associated with post-discharge survival in an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with age, ward category (acute geriatric and general medical) and comorbidity as covariates. Adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were 1.54 (1.24–1.91) for CFS, 1.12 (1.03–1.23) for NEWS2, and 1.02 (1.00–1.05) for FI-lab. A frailty × illness severity category interaction effect (p = 0.003), suggested that the impact of frailty on survival was greater in those experiencing higher levels of illness severity. Among patients with at least moderate frailty (CFS six to eight) and high illness severity according to both NEWS2 and FI-lab, two (13%) were alive at follow-up.

Conclusion

Frailty screening aided prognostication of survival following discharge in older acutely ill persons admitted to medical wards. The prognostic value of frailty increased when combined with readily available illness severity markers acquired during admission.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-021-00555-8.