Early Predictors for Discharge to Geriatric Rehabilitation after Hip Fracture Treatment of Older Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate early predictors for discharge to a geriatric rehabilitation department at a skilled nursing home in older patients after hospitalization for hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 21,176 patients with hip fracture aged ≥70 years, who were registered in the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit database between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, were included. METHODS: Patients were categorized into 3 discharge groups: home (n=7326), rehabilitation (n=11,738), and nursing home (n=2112). Age, gender, Pre-Fracture Mobility Score (PFMS), premorbid Katz index of independence in Activities of Daily Living (Katz-ADL), history of dementia, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA score), type of anesthesia, fracture type, surgical treatment, and cotreatment by a geriatrician were gathered. Multinomial regression analysis was used to assess for early predictors. RESULTS: Higher age, poor premorbid mobility, lower premorbid Katz-ADL, no history of dementia, ASA score 3-5, general anesthesia, intramedullary implant, and cotreatment by a geriatrician were independent predictors for discharge to geriatric rehabilitation vs discharge home. Identical predictors were found for discharge to a nursing home vs discharge home. History of dementia and premorbid Katz-ADL were distinguishing factors; a higher premorbid Katz-ADL and a history of dementia were associated with a higher risk of discharge to a nursing home vs discharge home. The multinomial regression model correctly predicted 86%, 38.6%, and 2.4% of the patients in the rehabilitation group, home group, and nursing home group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study showed that age, PFMS, premorbid Katz-ADL, surgical treatment, ASA score, type of anesthesia, history of dementia, and cotreatment by a geriatrician were independent early predictors for discharge to geriatric rehabilitation vs discharge home in older patients after hip fracture surgery. Identical predictors were found as predictors for discharge to a nursing home vs discharge home, except for history of dementia and premorbid Katz-ADL.

The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit: evaluation of the quality of multidisciplinary hip fracture care in the Netherlands.

The nationwide Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA) is initiated to improve the quality of hip fracture care by providing insight into the actual quality of hip fracture care in daily practice. The baseline results demonstrate variance in practice, providing potential starting points to improve the quality of care. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to describe the development and initiation of the DHFA. The secondary aim is to describe the hip fracture care in the Netherlands at the start of the audit and to assess whether there are differences in processes at baseline between hospitals. METHODS: Eighty-one hospitals were asked to register their consecutive hip fracture patients since April 2016. In 2017, the first full calendar year, the case ascertainment was determined at audit level. Three quality indicators were used to describe and assess the care process at audit and hospital level: the proportion of completed variables at discharge and at 3 months after operation, time to surgery and orthogeriatric management. RESULTS: Sixty (74%) hospitals documented 14,274 patients in the DHFA by December 2017. In 2017, the case ascertainment was 58% and the average proportion of completed variables was 77%: 91% at discharge and 30% at 3 months. The median time to operation was 18 h (IQR 7-23) for American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) 1-2 patients and 21 h (IQR 13-27) for ASA 3-4 patients. Of patients aged 70 years and older, 78% received orthogeriatric management. At hospital level, all three indicators showed significant practice variance. CONCLUSION: Not all hospitals participate in the DHFA, and the data gathering process needs to be further optimized. However, the baseline results demonstrate an apparent variance in hip fracture practice between hospitals in the Netherlands, providing potential starting points to improve the quality of hip fracture care.

[Assessment instruments in frail older patients; a call for more standardisation]. / Meetinstrumenten bij kwetsbare ouderen: een pleidooi voor meer standaardisatie.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and background of the use of assessment instruments for the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment by clinical geriatricians and internists in geriatric medicine; the secondary aim was to make an inventory of the willingness to standardise the assessment instruments used. DESIGN: A descriptive questionnaire study. METHOD: In December 2016, we sent out a digital questionnaire (Survey Monkey) to all the hospitals in the Netherlands. Respondents were asked which instruments they used for specific domains of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, what their choice of instruments was based on, if these instruments had added value, and if they were prepared to change the instruments they used. RESULTS: We received 66 responses (response: 82%). The most frequently-used instruments were: Mini Mental State Examination in combination with the clock drawing test (21%), Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (45%), Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living-6 (75%), Lawton and Brody (48%), Mini Nutritional Assessment(-short form) (outpatient; 56%) and Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (inpatient: 36%), Experienced Burden Informal Care (46%), Charlson Comorbidity Index (35%), Timed Up and Go (76%), and the Safety Management System (VMS) fall risk question (21%). The most frequently used instruments were used in a large number of hospitals (35-97%).The variation of tests was the greatest in the domains of cognition, malnutrition, and mobility/physical functioning. Many respondents saw the added value of a consensus set of instruments (median: 70%; interquartile range (IQR): 50-86), and most were willing to change the instruments they use (median: 80%; IQR: 65-90). CONCLUSION: This inventory shows that the instruments used in most domains were reasonably uniform. Taking the willingness to change into account, a national set of basis instruments seems to be an achievable aim.

Physical and Pharmacological Restraints in Hospital Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Physical and pharmacological restraints, defined as all measures limiting a person in his or her freedom, are extensively used to handle unsafe or problematic behavior in hospital care. There are increasing concerns as to the extent with which these restraints are being used in hospitals, and whether their benefits outweigh their potential harm. There is currently no comprehensive literature overview on the beneficial and/or adverse effects of the use of physical and pharmacological restraints in the hospital setting. METHODS: A systematic review of the existing literature will be performed on the beneficial and/or adverse effects of physical and pharmacological restraints in the hospital setting. Relevant databases will be systematically searched. A dedicated search strategy was composed. A visualization of similarities (VOS) analysis was used to further specify the search. Observational studies, and if available, randomized controlled trials reporting on beneficial and/or adverse effects of physical and/or pharmacological restraints in the general hospital setting will be included. Data from included articles will be extracted and analyzed. If the data is suitable for quantitative analysis, meta-analysis will be applied. DISCUSSION: This review will provide data on the beneficial and/or adverse effects of the use of physical and pharmacological restraints in hospital care. With this review we aim to guide health professionals by providing a critique of the available evidence regarding their choice to either apply or withhold from using restraints. A limitation of the current review will be that we will not specifically address ethical aspects of restraint use. Nevertheless, the outcomes of our systematic review can be used in the composition of a multidisciplinary guideline. Furthermore, our systematic review might determine knowledge gaps in the evidence, and recommendations on how to target these gaps with future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019116186.

Methodology for senior-proof guidelines: A practice example from the Netherlands.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based guidelines constitute a foundation for medical decision making. It is often unclear whether recommendations in general guidelines also apply to older people. This study aimed to develop a methodology to increase the focus on older people in the development of guidelines. METHODS: The methodology distinguishes 4 groups of older people: (1) relatively healthy older people; (2) older people with 1 additional specific (interfering) comorbid condition; (3) older people with multimorbidity; and (4) vulnerable older people. RESULTS: The level of focus on older people required may be determined by the prevalence of the disease or condition, level of suffering, social relevance, and the expectation that a guideline may improve the quality of care. A specialist in geriatric medicine may be involved in the guideline process via participation, provision of feedback on drafts, or involvement in the analysis of problem areas. Regarding the patient perspective, it is advised to involve organisations for older people or informal carers in the inventory of problem areas, and additionally to perform literature research of patient values on the subject. If the guideline focuses on older people, then the relative importance of the various outcome measures for this target group needs to be explicitly stated. Search strategies for all the 4 groups are suggested. For clinical studies that focus on the treatment of diseases that frequently occur in older people, a check should be made regarding whether these studies produce the required evidence. This can be achieved by verifying if there is sufficient representation of older people in the studies and determining if there is a separate reporting of results applying to this age group.