Naglie Gary, Tansey Catherine, Kirkland James L, Ogilvie-Harris Darryl J, Detsky Allan S, Etchells Edward, Tomlinson George, O'Rourke Keith, Goldlist Barry
Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
CMAJ. 2002 Jul 9;167(1):25-32.
Hip fractures in elderly people are associated with impaired function and ambulation and high rates of death and admission to institutions. Interventions designed to improve the outcomes of hip fracture (e.g., mobility and discharge to own home) that have incorporated interdisciplinary care have had mixed results. We compared the effectiveness of postoperative interdisciplinary care with that of usual care for elderly patients with hip fracture.
The study population consisted of 279 patients at least 70 years of age from the community and from nursing homes who underwent surgical repair of hip fracture at a university-affiliated acute care hospital. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive postoperative interdisciplinary care (n = 141) or usual care (n = 138) during their hospital stay. Interdisciplinary care included routine assessment and care by an internist-geriatrician, physiotherapist, occupational therapist, social worker and clinical nurse specialist, as well as twice-weekly interdisciplinary rounds to set goals for the patients and to monitor their progress. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients alive with no decline in ambulation or transfers in and out of a chair or bed and no change in place of residence at 6 months after surgery.
At 6 months, 56 patients (39.7%) in the interdisciplinary care group and 47 (34.1%) in the usual care group were alive and had no decline from baseline in terms of ambulation, chair and bed transfers or place of residence (difference 5.6%, 95% confidence interval -5.6% to 17.0%). Multiple logistic regression analysis with adjustment for baseline factors showed no significant difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome measure at 3 months (p = 0.44) or at 6 months (p = 0.67). The initial length of stay in hospital was longer for patients receiving interdisciplinary care: 29.2 (standard deviation [SD] 22.6) v. 20.9 (SD 18.8) days (p < 0.001). However, the mean number of days spent in an institution (including hospital, inpatient rehabilitation and nursing home) over the 6-month follow-up period was similar in the 2 groups (p = 0.84). A subgroup analysis suggested a trend to benefit from interdisciplinary care in patients with mild to moderate cognitive impairment.
Postoperative inpatient interdisciplinary care did not result in significantly better 3- or 6-month outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture.
老年人髋部骨折与功能和活动能力受损以及高死亡率和入住机构的比例相关。旨在改善髋部骨折结局(如活动能力和出院回家)的干预措施,若纳入多学科护理,结果不一。我们比较了术后多学科护理与常规护理对老年髋部骨折患者的有效性。
研究人群包括来自社区和养老院的279名年龄至少70岁的患者,他们在一家大学附属医院接受了髋部骨折手术修复。受试者在住院期间被随机分配接受术后多学科护理(n = 141)或常规护理(n = 138)。多学科护理包括由内科老年病医生、物理治疗师、职业治疗师、社会工作者和临床护理专家进行的常规评估和护理,以及每周两次的多学科查房,为患者设定目标并监测其进展。主要结局指标是术后6个月存活且行走、进出椅子或床的转移能力无下降且居住地点无变化的患者比例。
6个月时,多学科护理组中有56名患者(39.7%),常规护理组中有47名患者(34.1%)存活,且在行走、椅子和床的转移或居住地点方面与基线相比无下降(差异5.6%,95%置信区间-5.6%至17.0%)。对基线因素进行调整的多因素logistic回归分析显示,治疗组在3个月(p = 0.44)或6个月(p = 0.67)时的主要结局指标无显著差异。接受多学科护理的患者最初住院时间更长:29.2(标准差[SD] 22.6)天对20.9(SD 18.8)天(p < 0.001)。然而,在6个月的随访期内,两组在机构(包括医院、住院康复和养老院)度过的平均天数相似(p = 0.84)。亚组分析表明,轻度至中度认知障碍患者从多学科护理中获益有趋势。
术后住院多学科护理并未使老年髋部骨折患者在3个月或6个月时的结局显著改善。