Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend fall risk assessment and intervention for older adults who sustain a fall-related injury to prevent future injury and mobility decline. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe how often Medicare beneficiaries with upper extremity fracture receive evaluation and treatment for fall risk. Design: Observational cohort. Methods: Participants were fee-for-service beneficiaries age 66 to 99 treated as outpatients for proximal humerus or distal radius/ulna ("wrist") fragility fractures. -Participants were studied using Carrier and Outpatient Hospital files. The proportion of patients evaluated or treated for fall risk up to 6 months after proximal humerus or wrist fracture from 2007-2009 was examined based on evaluation, treatment, and diagnosis codes. Time to evaluation and number of treatment sessions were calculated. Logistic regression was used to analyze patient characteristics that predicted receiving evaluation or treatment. Narrow (gait training) and broad (gait training or therapeutic exercise) definitions of service were used. Results: There were 309,947 beneficiaries who sustained proximal humerus (32%) or wrist fracture (68%); 10.7% received evaluation or treatment for fall risk or gait issues (humerus: 14.2%; wrist: 9.0%). Using the broader definition, the percentage increased to 18.5% (humerus: 23.4%; wrist: 16.3%). Factors associated with higher likelihood of services after fracture were: evaluation or treatment for falls or gait prior to fracture, more comorbidities, prior nursing home stay, older age, humerus fracture (vs wrist), female sex, and white race. Limitations: Claims analysis may underestimate physician and physical therapist fall assessments, but it is not likely to qualitatively change the results. Conclusions: A small proportion of older adults with upper extremity fracture received fall risk assessment and treatment. Providers and health systems must advance efforts to provide timely evidence-based management of fall risk in this population.
Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend fall risk assessment and intervention for older adults who sustain a fall-related injury to prevent future injury and mobility decline. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe how often Medicare beneficiaries with upper extremity fracture receive evaluation and treatment for fall risk. Design: Observational cohort. Methods:Participants were fee-for-service beneficiaries age 66 to 99 treated as outpatients for proximal humerus or distal radius/ulna ("wrist") fragility fractures. -Participants were studied using Carrier and Outpatient Hospital files. The proportion of patients evaluated or treated for fall risk up to 6 months after proximal humerus or wrist fracture from 2007-2009 was examined based on evaluation, treatment, and diagnosis codes. Time to evaluation and number of treatment sessions were calculated. Logistic regression was used to analyze patient characteristics that predicted receiving evaluation or treatment. Narrow (gait training) and broad (gait training or therapeutic exercise) definitions of service were used. Results: There were 309,947 beneficiaries who sustained proximal humerus (32%) or wrist fracture (68%); 10.7% received evaluation or treatment for fall risk or gait issues (humerus: 14.2%; wrist: 9.0%). Using the broader definition, the percentage increased to 18.5% (humerus: 23.4%; wrist: 16.3%). Factors associated with higher likelihood of services after fracture were: evaluation or treatment for falls or gait prior to fracture, more comorbidities, prior nursing home stay, older age, humerus fracture (vs wrist), female sex, and white race. Limitations: Claims analysis may underestimate physician and physical therapist fall assessments, but it is not likely to qualitatively change the results. Conclusions: A small proportion of older adults with upper extremity fracture received fall risk assessment and treatment. Providers and health systems must advance efforts to provide timely evidence-based management of fall risk in this population.
Authors: Neil S Wenger; Carol P Roth; Paul G Shekelle; Roy T Young; David H Solomon; Caren J Kamberg; John T Chang; Rachel Louie; Takahiro Higashi; Catherine H MacLean; John Adams; Lillian C Min; Kurt Ransohoff; Marc Hoffing; David B Reuben Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Patrick Haentjens; Philippe Autier; John Collins; Brigitte Velkeniers; Dirk Vanderschueren; Steven Boonen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Laurence Z Rubenstein; David H Solomon; Carol P Roth; Roy T Young; Paul G Shekelle; John T Chang; Catherine H MacLean; Caren J Kamberg; Debra Saliba; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sarah P Chu; Jennifer L Kelsey; Theresa H M Keegan; Barbara Sternfeld; Mila Prill; Charles P Quesenberry; Stephen Sidney Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mary E Tinetti; Dorothy I Baker; Mary King; Margaret Gottschalk; Terrence E Murphy; Denise Acampora; Bradley P Carlin; Linda Leo-Summers; Heather G Allore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Svenhjalmar van Helden; Caroline E Wyers; Pieter C Dagnelie; Martien C van Dongen; Gittie Willems; Peter R G Brink; Piet P Geusens Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jennifer L Vincenzo; Susan Kane Patton; Leanne L Lefler; Jason R Falvey; Pearl A McElfish; Geoffrey Curran; Jeanne Wei Journal: J Geriatr Phys Ther Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 3.190