Rehabilitation after surgery for hip fracture - the impact of prompt, frequent and mobilisation-focused physiotherapy on discharge outcomes: an observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: To determine the relationship between three postoperative physiotherapy activities (time to first postoperative walk, activity on the day after surgery, and physiotherapy frequency), and the outcomes of hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge destination after hip fracture. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted on 437 hip fracture surgery patients aged ≥ 50 years across 36 participating hospitals from the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry Acute Rehabilitation Sprint Audit during June 2022. Study outcomes included hospital LOS and discharge destination. Generalised linear and logistic regressions were used respectively, adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 437 patients, 62% were female, 56% were aged ≥ 85 years, 23% were previously living in a residential aged care facility, 48% usually walked with a gait aid, and 38% were cognitively impaired prior to their injury. The median acute and total LOS were 8 (IQR 5-13) and 20 (IQR 8-38) days. Approximately 71% (n = 179/251) of patients originally living in private residence returned home and 29% (n = 72/251) were discharged to a residential aged care facility. Previously mobile patients had a higher total LOS if they walked day 2-3 (10.3 days; 95% CI 3.2, 17.4) or transferred with a mechanical lifter or did not get out of bed day 1 (7.6 days; 95% CI 0.6, 14.6) compared to those who walked day 1 postoperatively. Previously mobile patients from private residence had a reduced odds of return to private residence if they walked day 2-3 (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.17, 0.87), day 4 + (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.15, 0.96), or if they only sat, stood or stepped on the spot day 1 (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.13, 0.62) when compared to those who walked day 1 postoperatively. Among patients from private residence, each additional physiotherapy session per day was associated with a -2.2 (95% CI -3.3, -1.0) day shorter acute LOS, and an increased log odds of return to private residence (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.02, 3.02). CONCLUSION: Hip fracture patients who walked earlier, were more active day 1 postoperatively, and/or received a higher number of physiotherapy sessions were more likely to return home after a shorter LOS.

Patient, surgical and hospital factors predicting actual first-day mobilisation after hip fracture surgery: An observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patient, surgical and hospital factors associated with Day-1 postoperative mobility after hip fracture surgery in older adults. METHODS: A cohort study using Australia and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry was conducted. Participants were aged older than 50 years and underwent hip fracture surgery between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 inclusive. The outcome was standing and step transferring out of bed onto a chair and/or walking Day-1 after hip fracture surgery. RESULTS: Mean age was 82 years and 68% were women. Of 12,318 patients with hip fracture, 5981 (49%) actually mobilised Day-1. Odds of actual first-day mobilisation were lower for individuals usually walking with either stick or crutch (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.82) or two aids or frame (OR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52-0.64) or wheelchair/bed bound (OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.17-0.33); who had impaired cognition preadmission (OR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.51-0.64); from aged care facilities (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.67); had an American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade 2 (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.97), 3 (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.47) or 4 or 5 (OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.14-0.32); surgery delay >48 h (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.91); and restricted/non-weight-bearing status immediately postoperatively (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Both non-modifiable and modifiable patient and surgical factors influence first-day mobilisation after hip fracture surgery. Reducing time to surgery might assist future quality improvement efforts to increase Day-1 postoperative mobility.

Improving hip fracture care: A five-year review of the early contributors to the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine temporal trends (2016-2020) in hip fracture care in Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) hospitals that started providing patient-level data to the ANZ Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) on/before 1 January 2016 (early contributors). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of early contributor hospitals (n = 24) to the ANZHFR. The study cohort included patients aged ≥50 years admitted with a low trauma hip fracture between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 (n = 26,937). Annual performance against 11 quality indicators and 30- and 365-day mortality were examined. RESULTS: Compared to 2016/2017, year-on-year improvements were demonstrated for preoperative cognitive assessment (2020: OR 3.57, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.29-3.87) and nerve block use prior to surgery (2020: OR 4.62, 95% CI 4.17-5.11). Less consistent improvements over time from 2016/2017 were demonstrated for emergency department (ED) stay of <4 h (2017; 2020), pain assessment ≤30 min of ED presentation (2020), surgery ≤48 h (2020) and bone protection medication prescribed on discharge (2017-2020; 2020 OR 2.22, 95% CI 2.03-2.42). The odds of sustaining a hospital-acquired pressure injury increased in 2019-2020 compared to 2016. The odds of receiving an orthogeriatric model of care and being offered the opportunity to mobilise on Day 1 following surgery fluctuated. There was a reduction in 365-day mortality in 2020 compared to 2016 (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.98), whereas 30-day mortality did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Several quality indicators improved over time in early contributor hospitals. Indicators that did not improve may be targets for future care improvement activities, including considering incentivised hip fracture care, which has previously been shown to improve care/outcomes. COVID-19 and reporting practices may have impacted the study findings.

Two-country comparison of the prescription of bone protection medication before and early after hip fracture.

Pharmacological management of bone health warrants investigation into factors influencing initiation of bone protection medication (BPM) at discharge after a hip fracture. This sprint audit identified reasons attributed to low BPM treatment levels at hospital discharge which can guide improvement in the prevention of future fractures. PURPOSE: To compare patient characteristics and Australian and New Zealand approaches to prescribing bone protection medication (BPM) pre- or post-hip fracture, determine reasons why BPM was not prescribed earlier post-fracture, and assess the generalisability of sprint audit and the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) patient cohorts. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of hip fracture patients from the ANZHFR aged ≥ 50 years (2016-2020) and consecutive patients from the 2021 BPM sprint audit. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with not prescribing BPM. RESULTS: Of 55,618 patients admitted with a hip fracture in the ANZHFR, less than 10% of patients in Australia and New Zealand were taking BPM on admission, increasing to 22.4% in Australia and 27.8% in New Zealand on discharge. Registry patients who were younger (50-69 years), healthy (ASA grade 1), lived in a residential aged care facility, had impaired cognition, delirium identified, or were awaiting a specialist falls assessment were less likely to take BPM. Within the audit, 46.2% of patients in Australia and 39.2% in New Zealand did not have BPM in their discharge prescription. The most common reason for not prescribing BPM in Australia was low level of vitamin D (13.3%), and in New Zealand, renal impairment (14.8%). Sprint and registry patient characteristics were comparable in terms of patient age, sex, usual place of residence, and ASA grade. CONCLUSIONS: BPM prescription early after hip fracture is low. Opportunities exist to increase the rate of prescription of medications known to prevent future fractures in this high-risk population.

Experience of a systematic approach to care and prevention of fragility fractures in New Zealand.

This narrative review describes efforts to improve the care and prevention of fragility fractures in New Zealand from 2012 to 2022. This includes development of clinical standards and registries to benchmark provision of care, and public awareness campaigns to promote a life-course approach to bone health. PURPOSE: This review describes the development and implementation of a systematic approach to care and prevention for New Zealanders with fragility fractures, and those at high risk of first fracture. Progression of existing initiatives and introduction of new initiatives are proposed for the period 2022 to 2030. METHODS: In 2012, Osteoporosis New Zealand developed and published a strategy with objectives relating to people who sustain hip and other fragility fractures, those at high risk of first fragility fracture or falls and all older people. The strategy also advocated formation of a national fragility fracture alliance to expedite change. RESULTS: In 2017, a previously informal national alliance was formalised under the Live Stronger for Longer programme, which includes stakeholder organisations from relevant sectors, including government, healthcare professionals, charities and the health system. Outputs of this alliance include development of Australian and New Zealand clinical guidelines, clinical standards and quality indicators and a bi-national registry that underpins efforts to improve hip fracture care. All 22 hospitals in New Zealand that operate on hip fracture patients currently submit data to the registry. An analogous approach is ongoing to improve secondary fracture prevention for people who sustain fragility fractures at other sites through nationwide access to Fracture Liaison Services. CONCLUSION: Widespread participation in national registries is enabling benchmarking against clinical standards as a means to improve the care of hip and other fragility fractures in New Zealand. An ongoing quality improvement programme is focused on eliminating unwarranted variation in delivery of secondary fracture prevention.

Patient and hospital factors influencing discharge destination following hip fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To compare demographics, treatment and health outcomes for individuals hospitalised with a hip fracture and examine predictors of postacute discharge destination. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry of individuals aged ≥50 years hospitalised with a hip fracture from 2015 to 2018 (n = 29 881). Multinominal logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with discharge destination for individuals from private residences. RESULTS: Advancing age, impaired cognition, reduced walking ability and poorer pre-operative health were predictors for discharge to residential aged care. The odds of discharge to a rehabilitation unit were higher for individuals with extracapsular fractures, treated at major trauma centres or at hospitals with home-based rehabilitation. Individuals in rural areas had higher odds of discharge to another hospital or ward. CONCLUSION: In addition to well-known demographics, injury and treatment factors, non-clinical factors including geographic area of residence also affect discharge destination.

Implementing a 'Safe Recovery' fall prevention program: Refining intervention theory using realist methods.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to explain how the Safe Recovery Programme (SRP) may best work to reduce falls in older adults undergoing rehabilitation in four wards in an older person's health and rehabilitation service. METHODS: Qualitative realist methods were used, including surveys completed by patients and staff, and qualitative interviews or focus groups exploring views of patients, ward staff and SRP educators. RESULTS: Emphasising different types of information for patients with different pre-existing understandings may facilitate their responses to SRP messaging. Consistency and coherence of SRP messaging within ward routines varied in response to staff SRP training and ongoing feedback mechanisms from SRP educators. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored individualised approaches for patients with specific characteristics may lead to patients being less likely to engage in risky behaviours. Staff training and processes for facilitating ongoing feedback between patients, SRP and ward staff are required to ensure consistency and coherence of SRP messaging.