Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), The University of Melbourne and Western Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Department of Medicine-Western Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Dec 11;21(1):837. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03834-w.
Care pathways are generally paper-based and can cause communication failures between multidisciplinary teams, potentially compromising the safety of the patient. Computerized care pathways may facilitate better communication between clinical teams. This study aimed to investigate whether an electronic care pathway (e-pathway) reduces delays in surgery and hospital length of stay compared to a traditional paper-based care pathway (control) in hip fracture patients.
A single-centre evaluation with a retrospective control group was conducted in the Orthogeriatric Ward, Nepean Hospital, New South Wales, Australia. We enrolled patients aged > 65 years that were hospitalized for a hip fracture in 2008 (control group) and 2012 (e-pathway group). The e-pathway provided the essential steps in the care of patients with hip fracture, including examinations and treatment to be carried out. Main outcome measures were delay in surgery and hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and discharge location.
A total of 181 patients were enrolled in the study (129 control; 54 e-pathway group). There was a significant reduction in delay to surgery in the e-pathway group compared to control group in unadjusted (OR = 0.19; CI 0.09-0.39; p < 0.001) and adjusted (OR = 0.22; CI 0.10-0.49; p < 0.001) models. There were no significant differences between groups for length of stay (median 11 vs 12 days; p = 0.567), in-hospital mortality (1 vs 7 participants; p = 0.206) or discharge location (p = 0.206).
This pilot study suggests that, compared to a paper-based care pathway, implementation of an e-pathway for hip fracture patients results in a reduction in total number of delays to surgery, but not hospital length of stay. Further evaluation is warranted using a larger cohort investigating both clinical and patient-reported outcome measures.
护理路径通常是纸质的,可能导致多学科团队之间沟通失败,从而危及患者安全。计算机化的护理路径可能有助于改善临床团队之间的沟通。本研究旨在探讨电子护理路径(e 路径)是否比传统纸质护理路径(对照组)在髋部骨折患者中减少手术延迟和住院时间。
在澳大利亚新南威尔士州尼平医院骨科病房进行了一项单中心评估,采用回顾性对照组。我们招募了 2008 年(对照组)和 2012 年(e 路径组)因髋部骨折住院的年龄>65 岁的患者。e 路径提供了髋部骨折患者护理的基本步骤,包括要进行的检查和治疗。主要结局指标是手术延迟和住院时间;次要结局指标是住院死亡率和出院地点。
共有 181 名患者入组研究(对照组 129 例,e 路径组 54 例)。与对照组相比,e 路径组手术延迟显著减少(未调整 OR=0.19;95%CI 0.09-0.39;p<0.001;调整 OR=0.22;95%CI 0.10-0.49;p<0.001)。两组间住院时间(中位数 11 天与 12 天;p=0.567)、住院死亡率(1 例与 7 例患者;p=0.206)或出院地点(p=0.206)无显著差异。
本初步研究表明,与纸质护理路径相比,为髋部骨折患者实施电子护理路径可减少手术总延迟次数,但不会减少住院时间。需要使用更大的队列进一步评估,包括临床和患者报告的结果测量。