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.
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.
Authors: C Kammerlander; T Roth; S M Friedman; N Suhm; T J Luger; U Kammerlander-Knauer; D Krappinger; M Blauth Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-11-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Julie A Switzer; Ryan E Bennett; David M Wright; Sandy Vang; Christopher P Anderson; Andrea J Vlasak; Steven R Gammon Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Date: 2013-12