Defining the characteristics of intermediate care models including transitional care: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Although there is growing utilisation of intermediate care to improve the health and well-being of older adults with complex care needs, there is no international agreement on how it is defined, limiting comparability between studies and reducing the ability to scale effective interventions. AIM: To identify and define the characteristics of intermediate care models. METHODS: A scoping review, a modified two-round electronic Delphi study involving 27 multi-professional experts from 13 countries, and a virtual consensus meeting were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-six records were included in the scoping review, which identified four main themes: transitions, components, benefits and interchangeability. These formed the basis of the first round of the Delphi survey. After Round 2, 16 statements were agreed, refined and collapsed further. Consensus was established for 10 statements addressing the definitions, purpose, target populations, approach to care and organisation of intermediate care models. DISCUSSION: There was agreement that intermediate care represents time-limited services which ensure continuity and quality of care, promote recovery, restore independence and confidence at the interface between home and acute services, with transitional care representing a subset of intermediate care. Models are best delivered by an interdisciplinary team within an integrated health and social care system where a single contact point optimises service access, communication and coordination. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified key defining features of intermediate care to improve understanding and to support comparisons between models and studies evaluating them. More research is required to develop operational definitions for use in different healthcare systems.

Osteoporosis assessment and treatment in older patients who have sustained a hip fracture.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently fracture sufferers are not being assessed or treated for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis guidelines differ in their secondary prevention recommendations, with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) advocating bone densitometry in all fracture patients and anti-resorptive treatment only if evidence-based criteria are confirmed, but the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal recommends treatment for all older females without this bone densitometry confirmation. We aimed to determine the rate of referral for bone densitometry, the numbers achieving SIGN criteria for anti-resorptive therapy, and the rate of osteoporosis treatment in patients with hip fracture METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients older than 65 years who had sustained a hip fracture in Tayside between April 2003 and July 2005 was performed RESULTS: Only 8.6% of hip fracture patients underwent bone densitometry, of which 90.6% of females older than 75 years met SIGN criteria for anti-resorptive treatment. 74.3% of all patients referred for bone densitometry were treated with an anti-resorptive agent, compared to only to 12.7% of the large majority group who were not assessed for osteoporosis CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis investigation and therefore treatment remains sub-optimal in hip fracture patients. Almost all females, older than 75 years, with a hip fracture met evidence-based criteria for anti-resorptive treatment. NICE guidance, recommending anti-resorptive treatment without bone densitometry confirmation of reduced bone mineral density, should maybe be implemented for this specific group of patients in an attempt to increase osteoporosis treatment rates.