Is the Parker Mobility Score in the older patient with a traumatic hip fracture associated with discharge disposition after surgery? A retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The research questions for this study were as follows: (1) is the Parker Mobility Score (PMS) associated with discharge disposition and hospital length of stay (HLOS) of geriatric traumatic hip fracture patients? (2) Can the PMS be incorporated in a decision tree for the prediction of discharge disposition of geriatric traumatic hip fracture patients upon admittance. METHODS: A dual-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at two level II trauma centers. All patients aged 70 years and older with traumatic hip fractures undergoing surgery in 2018 and 2019 were included consecutively (n = 649). A χ2 automatic interaction detection analysis was performed to determine the association of the PMS (and other variables) with discharge disposition and HLOS and predict discharge destination. RESULTS: The decision tree for discharge disposition classified patients with an overall accuracy of 82.1% and a positive predictive value of 91% for discharge to a rehabilitation facility. The PMS had the second most significant effect on discharge disposition (χ2 = 22.409, p < 0.001) after age (χ2 = 79.094, p < 0.001). Regarding the tree analysis of HLOS, of all variables in the analysis, PMS had the most significant association with HLOS (F = 14.891, p < 0.001). Patients who were discharged home had a mean HLOS of 6.5 days (SD 8.0), whereas patients who were discharged to an institutional care facility had a mean HLOS of 9.7 days (SD 6.4; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the PMS was strongly associated with discharge disposition and HLOS. The decision tree for the discharge disposition of geriatric traumatic hip fracture patients offers a practical solution to start discharge planning upon admittance which could potentially reduce HLOS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic.

Efficacy of two integrated geriatric care pathways for the treatment of hip fractures: a cross-cultural comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Many studies have focussed on the implementation and outcomes of geriatric care pathways (GCPs); however, little is known about the possible impact of clinical practices on these pathways. A comparison was made between two traumageriatric care models, one Swiss (CH) and one Dutch (NL), to assess whether these models would perform similarly despite the possible differences in local clinical practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort study included all patients aged 70 years or older with a unilateral hip fracture who underwent surgery in 2014 and 2015. The primary outcomes were mortality and complications. Secondary outcomes were time to surgical intervention, hospital length of stay (HLOS), differences in surgical treatment and the number of patients who needed secondary surgical intervention. RESULTS: A total of 752 patients were included. No differences were seen in mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 1 year post-operatively. In CH, fewer patients had a complicated course (43.5% vs. 51.3%; p = 0.048) and fewer patients were diagnosed with delirium (7.9% vs. 18.3%; p < 0.01). More myocardial infarctions (3.8% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.01) and red blood cell transfusions (27.2% vs. 13.3%; p < 0.01) were observed in CH and HLOS in CH was longer (Mdn difference: - 2; 95% CI - 3 to - 2). Furthermore, a difference in anaesthetic technique was found, CH performed more open reductions and augmentations than NL and surgeons in CH operated more often during out-of-office hours. Also, surgery time was significantly longer in CH (Mdn difference: - 62; 95% CI - 67 to - 58). No differences were seen in the number of patients who needed secondary surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-cultural comparison of GCPs for geriatric hip fracture patients showed that quality of care in terms of mortality was equal. The difference in complicated course was mainly caused by a difference in delirium diagnosis. Differences were seen in surgical techniques, operation duration and timing. These clinical practices did not influence the outcome.