Sushila Murthy1,2,3, Justin T Clapp1,2,3, Randall C Burson4, Lee A Fleisher1,2,5, Mark D Neuman1,2,3. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Center for Perioperative Outcomes Research and Transformation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy. RESULTS: Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting. CONCLUSION: Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values.
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy. RESULTS: Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting. CONCLUSION: Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values.
Authors: Kristen E Pecanac; Jacqueline M Kehler; Karen J Brasel; Zara Cooper; Nicole M Steffens; Martin F McKneally; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Christine S Ritchie; Amy S Kelley; Irena Stijacic Cenzer; Alexander K Smith; Margaret L Wallhagen; Kenneth E Covinsky Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: John J You; James Downar; Robert A Fowler; François Lamontagne; Irene W Y Ma; Dev Jayaraman; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Patricia H Strachan; Roy Ilan; Aman P Nijjar; John Neary; John Shik; Kevin Brazil; Amen Patel; Kim Wiebe; Martin Albert; Anita Palepu; Elysée Nouvet; Amanda Roze des Ordons; Nishan Sharma; Amane Abdul-Razzak; Xuran Jiang; Andrew Day; Daren K Heyland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Angel Cronin; Nancy L Keating; Nathan Taback; Haiden A Huskamp; Jennifer L Malin; Craig C Earle; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Victoria L Tang; Rebecca Sudore; Irena Stijacic Cenzer; W John Boscardin; Alex Smith; Christine Ritchie; Margaret Wallhagen; Emily Finlayson; Laura Petrillo; Kenneth Covinsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gabriel S Tajeu; Elizabeth Delzell; Wilson Smith; Tarun Arora; Jeffrey R Curtis; Kenneth G Saag; Michael A Morrisey; Huifeng Yun; Meredith L Kilgore Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 6.053