Literature review of outcome parameters used in studies of Geriatric Fracture Centers.

INTRODUCTION: A variety of multidisciplinary treatment models have been described to improve outcome after osteoporotic hip fractures. There is a tendency toward better outcomes after implementation of the most sophisticated model with a shared leadership for orthopedic surgeons and geriatricians; the Geriatric Fracture Center. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the use of outcome parameters in published literature on the Geriatric Fracture Center evaluation studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using Medline and the Cochrane Library to identify Geriatric Fracture Center evaluation studies. The outcome parameters used in the included studies were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 16 outcome parameters were used in 11 studies to evaluate patient outcome in 8 different Geriatric Fracture Centers. Two of these outcome parameters are patient-reported outcome measures and 14 outcome parameters were objective measures. CONCLUSION: In-hospital mortality, length of stay, time to surgery, place of residence and complication rate are the most frequently used outcome parameters. The patient-reported outcomes included activities of daily living and mobility scores. There is a need for generally agreed upon outcome measures to facilitate comparison of different care models.

Identifying a standard set of outcome parameters for the evaluation of orthogeriatric co-management for hip fractures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Osteoporotic fractures are an increasing problem in the world due to the ageing of the population. Different models of orthogeriatric co-management are currently in use worldwide. These models differ for instance by the health-care professional who has the responsibility for care in the acute and early rehabilitation phases. There is no international consensus regarding the best model of care and which outcome parameters should be used to evaluate these models. The goal of this project was to identify which outcome parameters and assessment tools should be used to measure and compare outcome changes that can be made by the implementation of orthogeriatric co-management models and to develop recommendations about how and when these outcome parameters should be measured. It was not the purpose of this study to describe items that might have an impact on the outcome but cannot be influenced such as age, co-morbidities and cognitive impairment at admission. METHODS: Based on a review of the literature on existing orthogeriatric co-management evaluation studies, 14 outcome parameters were evaluated and discussed in a 2-day meeting with panellists. These panellists were selected based on research and/or clinical expertise in hip fracture management and a common interest in measuring outcome in hip fracture care. RESULTS: We defined 12 objective and subjective outcome parameters and how they should be measured: mortality, length of stay, time to surgery, complications, re-admission rate, mobility, quality of life, pain, activities of daily living, medication use, place of residence and costs. We could not recommend an appropriate tool to measure patients' satisfaction and falls. We defined the time points at which these outcome parameters should be collected to be at admission and discharge, 30 days, 90 days and 1 year after admission. CONCLUSION: Twelve objective and patient-reported outcome parameters were selected to form a standard set for the measurement of influenceable outcome of patients treated in different models of orthogeriatric co-managed care.

Development of a score set to measure function and quality of life in patients suffering from elbow pathology.

INTRODUCTION: Daily function plays an important role in the quality of life for patients suffering from pathology of the upper extremity. The recovery of functions of daily living determines the success or failure of the treatment for the patient. The goal of this study was to establish and validate a score set measuring quality of life, and objective and subjective function in general elbow pathologies. METHODS: A literature review was performed, in order to find a patient-based elbow specific questionnaire. The score set was tested and validated in a cross-sectional setting. RESULTS: The patient-rated elbow evaluation (PREE) was chosen as the patient-based elbow specific questionnaire. For measuring general health and subjective arm function, the short form-36 mental health (SF-36 MH) and the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (quick DASH) were chosen, respectively. To measure objective function, several clinical tests were implemented. The score set was tested in 66 patients, of which 56.1% had function restrictions due to pain. The correlation between the PREE-function and quick DASH was found to be the highest (r = 0.74*). Between the PREE and quick DASH, the correlation was good (r = 0.70*) and between the PREE-pain and quick DASH, the correlation was moderate (r = 0.58*). The lowest correlation (r = 0.18) was found between the PREE and SF-36 MH (*p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: General health, subjective and objective function can be measured in elbow pathology patients using a score set containing the SF-36 MH, quick DASH, PREE, and several clinical tests. Further testing of the score set needs to be executed in a prospective study.