| Literature DB >> 20011097 |
Julie Glowacki1, Mitchel B Harris, Josef Simon, John Wright, Nikheel S Kolatkar, Thomas S Thornhill, Meryl S Leboff.
Abstract
We designed, implemented, and revised the Brigham Fracture Intervention Team (B-FIT) initiatives to improve in-hospital care of fracture (Fx) patients. Effectiveness was evaluated for 181 medical records of 4 cohorts in four successive years of consecutive patients who were admitted with a fragility hip Fx. The Discharge Initiative (DI) (computer-based) includes 1200 mg calcium and 1000 IU vitamin D(3) daily. The Admission Initiative (AI) was introduced one year later with reminders for serum 25OHD measurement, initiation of daily calcium (1200 mg) and vitamin D (800 IU), and an order for Endocrinology consultation, with an amendment for a computer-assisted reminder and a dose of D(2) (50 000 IU). Initially, the computer-based DI was more effective (67%) than the surgeon-driven AI (33%, P < .001). After introduction of a computer-assisted reminder, AI effectiveness increased to 68%. The marked prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency reaffirms the importance of incorporating vitamin D recommendations in Fx care pathways.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20011097 PMCID: PMC2778190 DOI: 10.1155/2010/590751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Endocrinol ISSN: 1687-8337 Impact factor: 3.257
Comparison of effectiveness of B-FIT admission and discharge initiatives in subjects admitted with hip fragility fracture. (i) Admission initiative was introduced early in Year 1; (ii) admission initiative was modified early in Year 2 with a computer-assisted reminder; (iii) discharge initiative was introduced one year before Year 1 with computer-based directives.
| Year 1 cohort | Year 2 cohort | Year 3 cohort | Year 4 cohort | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects | 57 | 41 | 42 | 41 |
|
| ||||
| Age (years, mean ± SD, median) | 77.5 ± 11.0 | 73.9 ± 12.8 | 79.2 ± 10.7 | 79.1 ± 11.8 |
| 81 | 74 | 82 | 81 | |
|
| ||||
| Percent, number women | 74%, 42 | 71%, 29 | 76%, 32 | 78%, 32 |
|
| ||||
| Effectiveness of admission initiative | 33% (19/57) | 41% (17/41) | 57% (24/42) | 68% (28/41) |
|
| ||||
| Analysis of effectiveness of admission initiative; |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Effectiveness of discharge initiative | 67% (38/57) | 82% (32/39) | 83% (35/42) | 80% (32/40) |
|
| ||||
| Analysis of effectiveness of discharge initiative; |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||