Long-term outcome collection after hip fracture in Ireland: a systematic review of traditional and grey literature.

This review aimed to describe the methods and results from recent Irish research about post-acute hip fracture outcomes. Meta-analyses estimate the 30-day and 1-year mortality rate at 5% and 24% respectively. There is a need for standardised recommendations about which data should be recorded to aid national and international comparisons. PURPOSE: Over 3700 older adults experience hip fracture in Ireland annually. The Irish Hip Fracture Database national audit records acute hospital data but lacks longer-term outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarise and appraise recent Irish studies that collected long-term hip fracture outcomes and to generate pooled estimates where appropriate. METHODS: Electronic databases and grey literature were searched in April 2022 for articles, abstracts, and theses published from 2005 to 2022. Eligible studies were appraised by two authors and outcome collection details summarised. Meta-analyses of studies with common outcomes were conducted where the sample was generalisable to the broad hip fracture population. RESULTS: In total, 84 studies were identified from 20 clinical sites. Outcomes commonly recorded were mortality (n = 48 studies; 57%), function (n = 24; 29%), residence (n = 20; 24%), bone-related outcomes (n = 20; 24%), and mobility (n = 17; 20%). One year post-fracture was the most frequent time point, and patient telephone contact was the most common collection method used. Most studies did not report follow-up rates. Two meta-analyses were performed. The pooled estimate for one-year mortality was 24.2% (95% CI = 19.1-29.8%, I2 = 93.8%, n = 12 studies, n = 4220 patients), and for 30-day mortality was 4.7% (95% CI = 3.6-5.9%, I2 = 31.3%, n = 7 studies, n = 2092 patients). Reports of non-mortality outcomes were deemed inappropriate for meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Hip fracture long-term outcomes collected in Irish research are broadly in line with international recommendations. Heterogeneity of measures and poor reporting of methods and findings limits collation of results. Recommendations for standard outcome definitions nationally are warranted. Further research should explore the feasibility of recording long-term outcomes during routine hip fracture care in Ireland to enhance national audit.

Enabling public, patient and practitioner involvement in co-designing frailty pathways in the acute care setting.

BACKGROUND: Although not an inevitable part of ageing, frailty is an increasingly common condition in older people. Frail older patients are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of hospitalisation, including deconditioning, immobility and loss of independence (Chong et al, J Am Med Dir Assoc 18:638.e7-638.e11, 2017). The 'Systematic Approach to improving care for Frail older patients' (SAFE) study co-designed, with public and patient representatives, quality improvement initiatives aimed at enhancing the delivery of care to frail older patients within an acute hospital setting. This paper describes quality improvement initiatives which resulted from a co-design process aiming to improve service delivery in the acute setting for frail older people. These improvement initiatives were aligned to five priority areas identified by patients and public representatives. METHODS: The co-design work was supported by four pillars of effective and meaningful public and patient representative (PPR) involvement in health research (Bombard et al, Implement Sci 13:98, 2018; Black et al, J Health Serv Res Policy 23:158-67, 2018). These pillars were: research environment and receptive contexts; expectations and role clarity; support for participation and inclusive representation and; commitment to the value of co-learning involving institutional leadership. RESULTS: Five priority areas were identified by the co-design team for targeted quality improvement initiatives: Collaboration along the integrated care continuum; continence care; improved mobility; access to food and hydration and improved patient information. These priority areas and the responding quality improvement initiatives are discussed in relation to patient-centred outcomes for enhanced care delivery for frail older people in an acute hospital setting. CONCLUSIONS: The co-design approach to quality improvement places patient-centred outcomes such as dignity, identity, respectful communication as well as independence as key drivers for implementation. Enhanced inter-personal communication was consistently emphasised by the co-design team and much of the quality improvement initiatives target more effective, respectful and clear communication between healthcare personnel and patients. Measurement and evaluation of these patient-centred outcomes, while challenging, should be prioritised in the implementation of quality improvement initiatives. Adequate resourcing and administrative commitment pose the greatest challenges to the sustainability of the interventions developed along the SAFE pathways. The inclusion of organisational leadership in the co-design and implementation teams is a critical factor in the success of interventions targeting service delivery and quality improvement.