Patterns of drug prescriptions in an orthogeriatric ward as compared to orthopaedic ward: results from the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial-a randomised clinical trial.

PURPOSE: In the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial, 397 home-dwelling patients with hip fractures were randomised to comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) in a geriatric ward or traditional orthopaedic care (OC). Patients in the CGC group had significantly better mobility and function 4 months after discharge. This study explores group differences in drug prescribing and possible associations with the outcomes in the main study. METHODS: Drugs prescribed at admission and discharge were registered from hospital records. Mobility, function, fear of falling and quality of life were assessed using specific rating scales. Linear regression was used to analyse association between drug changes and outcomes at 4 months. RESULTS: The mean age was 83 years, and 74% were females. The mean number (± SD) of drugs in the CGC and OC groups was 3.8 (2.8) and 3.9 (2.8) at inclusion and 7.1 (2.8) and 6.2 (3.0) at discharge, respectively (p = 0.003). The total number of withdrawals was 209 and 82 in the CGC and OC groups, respectively (p < 0.0001), and the number of starts was 844 and 526, respectively (p < 0.0001). A significant negative association was found between the number of drug changes during the hospital stay and mobility and function 4 months later in both groups. However, this association disappeared when adjusting for baseline function and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: These secondary analyses suggest that there are significant differences in the pharmacological treatment between geriatric and orthopaedic wards, but these differences could not explain the beneficial effect of CGC in the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial.

Who benefits from orthogeriatric treatment? Results from the Trondheim hip-fracture trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture patients are heterogenous. Certain patient characteristics are associated with poorer prognosis, but less is known about differences in response to treatment among subgroups. The Trondheim Hip Fracture trial found beneficial effects on mobility and function from comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) compared to traditional orthopaedic care (OC). The aim of this study was to explore differences in response to CGC among subgroups in this trial. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the complete dataset from Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial, a randomised controlled trial including 397 home-dwelling older adults (≥70 years) with a hip fracture. Subgroups were age (over/under 80 years), gender, fracture type (intra-/extracapsular), and pre-fracture instrumental ADL (i-ADL) (defined as over/under 45 on the Nottingham Extended ADL scale). Dependent variables were mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery), personal ADL (p-ADL) (Barthel Index), i-ADL (Nottingham Extended ADL scale), cognition (Mini-Mental Status Examination), four and 12 months after hip fracture. Data were analysed by linear mixed models with interactions (treatment, time, and subgroup), reporting treatment effects being clinically and statistically significant within and between subgroups. RESULTS: Analyses within subgroups showed beneficial effects of CGC on mobility and i-ADL either at four or twelve months in all subgroups except for males, extra-capsular fractures and patients with impaired pre-fracture i-ADL. Beneficial effect on p- ADL was found in patients < 80 years, intra-capsular fractures and patients with impaired pre-fracture i-ADL. Effects on cognition were found in patients < 80 years and men. The interaction analyses showed that CGC had statistically significant better treatment effect on i-ADL for younger participants at four months (p = 0.004), on p-ADL both at four (p = 0.037) and twelve months (p = 0.045) and mobility at twelve months (p = 0.021), for participants with intracapsular as compared to extracapsular fractures, and on i-ADL at twelve months for participants with higher pre-fracture function (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Contrary to our hypothesis that the most vulnerable patients would benefit the most from CGC, we found the intervention effect was most pronounced in younger, female participants with higher pre-fracture i-ADL function. TRIAL RIGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00667914.

Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hip fractures are characterised by older age (>70 years), frailty, and functional deterioration, and their long-term outcomes are poor with increased costs. We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of giving these patients comprehensive geriatric care in a dedicated geriatric ward versus the usual orthopaedic care. METHODS: We did a prospective, single-centre, randomised, parallel-group, controlled trial. Between April 18, 2008, and Dec 30, 2010, we randomly assigned home-dwelling patients with hip-fractures aged 70 years or older who were able to walk 10 m before their fracture, to either comprehensive geriatric care or orthopaedic care in the emergency department, to achieve the required sample of 400 patients. Randomisation was achieved via a web-based, computer-generated, block method with unknown block sizes. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was mobility measured with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) 4 months after surgery for the fracture. The type of treatment was not concealed from the patients or staff delivering the care, and assessors were only partly masked to the treatment during follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00667914. FINDINGS: We assessed 1077 patients for eligibility, and excluded 680, mainly for not meeting the inclusion criteria such as living in a nursing home or being aged less than 70 years. Of the remaining patients, we randomly assigned 198 to comprehensive geriatric care and 199 to orthopaedic care. At 4 months, 174 patients remained in the comprehensive geriatric care group and 170 in the orthopaedic care group; the main reason for dropout was death. Mean SPPB scores at 4 months were 5·12 (SE 0·20) for comprehensive geriatric care and 4·38 (SE 0·20) for orthopaedic care (between-group difference 0·74, 95% CI 0·18-1·30, p=0·010). INTERPRETATION: Immediate admission of patients aged 70 years or more with a hip fracture to comprehensive geriatric care in a dedicated ward improved mobility at 4 months, compared with the usual orthopaedic care. The results suggest that the treatment of older patients with hip fractures should be organised as orthogeriatric care. FUNDING: Norwegian Research Council, Central Norway Regional Health Authority, St Olav Hospital Trust and Fund for Research and Innovation, Liaison Committee between Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, the Department of Neuroscience at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the Norwegian Institute of Technology (SINTEF), and the Municipality of Trondheim.

Development and delivery of patient treatment in the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial. A new geriatric in-hospital pathway for elderly patients with hip fracture.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are common among frail elderly persons and often have serious consequences on function, mobility and mortality. Traditional treatment of these patients is performed in orthopedic departments without additional geriatric assessment. However, studies have shown that interdisciplinary geriatric treatment may be beneficial compared to traditional treatment. The aim of the present study is to investigate whether treatment of these patients in a Department of Geriatrics (DG) during the entire hospital stay gives additional benefits as compared to conventional treatment in a Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (DOS). FINDINGS: A new clinical pathway for in-hospital treatment of hip fracture patients was developed. In this pathway patients were treated pre-and postoperatively in DG. Comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed as an interdisciplinary, multidimensional, systematic assessment of all patients focusing on each patient's capabilities and limitations as recommended in guidelines and systematic reviews. Identification and treatment of co-morbidities, pain relief, hydration, oxygenation, nutrition, elimination, prevention and management of delirium, assessment of falls and osteoporosis were emphasized. Discharge planning started as early as possible. Initiation of rehabilitation with focus on early mobilisation and development of individual plans was initiated in hospital and continued after discharge from hospital. Fracture specific treatment was based upon standard treatment for the hospital, expert opinions and a review of the literature. CONCLUSION: A new treatment program for old hip fracture patients was developed, introduced and run in the DG, the potential benefits of which being compared with traditional care of hip fracture patients in the DOS in a randomised clinical trial.

Effect of in-hospital comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older people with hip fracture. The protocol of the Trondheim Hip Fracture trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures in older people are associated with high morbidity, mortality, disability and reduction in quality of life. Traditionally people with hip fracture are cared for in orthopaedic departments without additional geriatric assessment. However, studies of postoperative rehabilitation indicate improved efficiency of multidisciplinary geriatric rehabilitation as compared to traditional care. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to investigate whether an additional comprehensive geriatric assessment of hip fracture patients in a special orthogeriatric unit during the acute in-hospital phase may improve outcomes as compared to treatment as usual in an orthopaedic unit. METHODS/DESIGN: The intervention of interest, a comprehensive geriatric assessment is compared with traditional care in an orthopaedic ward. The study includes 401 home-dwelling older persons >70 years of age, previously able to walk 10 meters and now treated for hip fracture at St. Olav Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. The participants are enrolled and randomised during the stay in the Emergency Department. Primary outcome measure is mobility measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) at 4 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes measured at 1, 4 and 12 months postoperatively are place of residence, activities of daily living, balance and gait, falls and fear of falling, quality of life and depressive symptoms, as well as use of health care resources and survival. DISCUSSION: We believe that the design of the study, the randomisation procedure and outcome measurements will be of sufficient strength and quality to evaluate the impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment on mobility and other relevant outcomes in hip fracture patients. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00667914.

[Coding practice in fatal poisonings]. / Kodepraksis ved forgiftningsdødsfall.

BACKGROUND: Each year, nearly 100 deaths and more than 10,000 admissions to Norwegian hospitals can be attributed to acute poisoning from non-medical substances and drugs in supra-therapeutic doses. The aim of this study was to evaluate hospitals' routines for coding of acute poisoning deaths and to provide information on the toxic agents involved. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medical records of deaths (at 6 Norwegian hospitals in the period 1.1.1999 -31.12.2005) due to acute poisoning were re-examined to assess accuracy of diagnosis codes. RESULTS: Acute poisoning was registered as the cause of 225 deaths in the study period. The re-evaluation concluded that 45 of these deaths had other causes. In 125 of the remaining 180 deaths, acute poisoning was only registered as a side diagnosis, although re-examination revealed it was the major contribution to death in 66 % (83 of 125) of cases. The hospitals had classified the drugs according to ATC codes in 16 % (28 of 180) of patients with acute poisoning. INTERPRETATION: The present Norwegian coding practice does not document acute poisoning deaths in hospital correctly, and registry studies based on diagnosis codes should be interpreted with care. Current registration of poisoning agents' ATC-codes is insufficient and the Norwegian version of ICD-10 alone is not suitable for classification of acute drug poisoning. Replacement of the Norwegian ICD-10 version by the original international version should be considered and/or the routines for registration of ATC-codes should be improved.