Optimal management of older people with frailty non-weight bearing after lower limb fracture: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lower limb fractures who are non-weight bearing are at risk of the complications of the associated immobility and disability, particularly people with frailty, but there is lack of clarity about what constitutes optimal care for such patients. A scoping literature review was conducted to explore what evidence is available for the management of this patient group. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed) CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases of published literature and the HMIC and SIGLE sites for grey literature were searched for primary research studies and expert reports, using an iterative approach initially including the key term 'non-weight bearing'. All study types were included. Analysis was by narrative synthesis. RESULTS: No papers were identified from a search using the key phrase 'non-weight bearing'. With this term removed, 11 indirectly relevant articles on lower limb fractures were retrieved from the searches of the electronic databases comprising three observational studies, five non-systematic review articles, a systematic review, an opinion piece and a survey of expert opinion that had relevance to restricted weight bearing patients. The observational studies indicated depression, cognition and nutrition affect outcome and hence have indirect relevance to management. The non-systematic reviews articles emphasised the importance of maintaining strength and range of movement during immobilisation and advised an orthogeriatric model of care. Fourteen UK and 97 non-UK guidelines relevant to fragility fractures, falls and osteoporosis management were found in the grey literature, but none made specific recommendations regarding the management of any period of non-weight bearing. DISCUSSION: These findings provide a summary of the evidence base that can be used in the development of a clinical guideline for these patients but is not sufficient. We propose that, a guideline should be developed for these patients using an expert consensus process.

The modified functional comorbidity index performed better than the Charlson index and original functional comorbidity index in predicting functional outcome in geriatric rehabilitation: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: In the inpatient rehabilitation of older patients, estimating to what extent the patient may functionally recover (functional prognosis), is important to plan the rehabilitation programme and aid discharge planning. Comorbidity is very common in older patients. However, the role of comorbidity in making a functional prognosis is not clearly defined. The aim of this study was to investigate a modified and weighted Functional Comorbidity Index (w-FCI) in relation to functional recovery and compare its predictive performance with that of the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and the original Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI). METHODS: The COOPERATION study (Comorbidity and Outcomes of Older Patients Evaluated in RehabilitATION) is a prospective observational cohort study. Data of patients that were admitted in an inpatient geriatric rehabilitation facility in the UK between January and September 2017, were collected. The outcome measures were: the Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS) and Barthel index (BI) at discharge, EMS gain/day and BI gain/day. Baseline comorbidity was assessed using the CCI, the FCI and the w-FCI. Correlations, receiver operating curves (ROC), and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. The models were adjusted for age, gender and EMS or BI on admission. RESULTS: In total, 98 patients (mean age 82 years; 37% male) were included. The areas under the ROC curves of the w-FCI (EMS at discharge: 0.72, EMS gain/day: 0.72, BI at discharge: 0.66 and BI gain/day: 0.60) were higher than for the CCI (0.50, 0.53, 0.49, 0.44 respectively) and FCI (0.65, 0.55, 0.60, 0.49 respectively). The w-FCI was independently associated with EMS at discharge (20.7% of variance explained (PVE), p < 0.001), EMS gain/day (11.2PVE, p < 0.001), and BI at discharge (18.3 PVE, p < 0.001). The FCI was only associated with EMS gain/day (3.9 PVE, p < 0.05). None of the comorbidity indices contributed significantly to BI gain/day (w-FCI: 2.4 PVE, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The w-FCI was predictive of mobility & function at discharge and mobility gain per day, and outperformed the original FCI and the CCI. The w-FCI could be useful in assessing comorbidity in a personalised way and aid functional prognosis at the start of rehabilitation.