PurposeAfter acute hospital admission, patients with a hip fracture are frequently discharged to skilled nursing homes providing geriatric rehabilitation (GR). There are few evidence-based studies... Show morePurposeAfter acute hospital admission, patients with a hip fracture are frequently discharged to skilled nursing homes providing geriatric rehabilitation (GR). There are few evidence-based studies regarding specific treatment times and assessments during GR. This study aims to provide a description of care for hip fracture patients during GR in the Netherlands.MethodsDescriptive study analyzing the care pathways from GR facilities, regarding healthcare professionals involved, allocated treatment time per profession, total length of rehabilitation stay, and assessment instruments. Based on the reimbursement algorithm (diagnostic treatment combination = DBCs), of 25 patients, the registered actual treatment time per profession was calculated.ResultsThe care pathways pivoted on three groups of health care professionals: medical team (MT), physiotherapy (PT), and occupational therapy (OT). There was some discrepancy between the allocated time in the care pathways and the calculated mean actual treatment time from the DBCs. First week: MT 120-180 min, DBC 120 (SD: 59) minutes; PT 120-230 min, DBC 129 (SD: 58) minutes; and OT 65-165 min, DBC 93 (SD: 61) minutes. From week two onwards, MT 15-36 min, DBC 49 (SD: 29) minutes; PT 74-179 min, DBC 125 (SD: 50) minutes; and OT 25-60 min, DBC 47 (SD: 44) minutes. Dieticians, psychologists, and social workers were sporadically mentioned. There was heterogeneity in the assessment and screening tools.ConclusionsIt is difficult to define current standard care in GR after hip fracture in the Netherlands due to the diversity in care pathways and large practice variation. This is a problem in conducting randomized effectiveness research with care provided as control.Trial register and date of registrationNL7491 04-02-2019.Key summary pointsAimTo describe the care provided in the Netherlands in geriatric rehabilitation (GR) after a hip fracture, using care pathways and diagnosis treatment combinations from various geriatric rehabilitation facilities.FindingsCare provided in GR after hip fracture is difficult to define due to the diversity in care pathways and large practice variation.MessageFurther research is needed to investigate whether a standardized care pathway is effective for GR. Show less
To compare hospitals' hip fracture patient mortality in a quality of care registry, correction for patient characteristics is needed. This study evaluates in 39,374 patients which characteristics... Show moreTo compare hospitals' hip fracture patient mortality in a quality of care registry, correction for patient characteristics is needed. This study evaluates in 39,374 patients which characteristics are associated with 30 and 90-day mortality, and showed how using these characteristics in a case mix-model changes hospital comparisons within the Netherlands. Purpose: Mortality rates after hip fracture surgery are considerable and may be influenced by patient characteristics. This study aims to evaluate hospital variation regarding patient demographics and disease burden, to develop a case-mix adjustment model to analyse differences in hip fracture patients' mortality to calculate case-mix adjusted hospital-specific mortality rates. Methods: Data were derived from 64 hospitals participating in the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA). Adult hip fracture patients registered in 2017-2019 were included. Variation of case-mix factors between hospitals was analysed, and the association between case-mix factors and mortality at 30 and 90 days was determined through regression models. Results: There were 39,374 patients included. Significant variation in case-mix factors amongst hospitals was found for age >= 80 (range 25.8-72.1% p < 0.001), male gender (12.0-52.9% p < 0.001), nursing home residents (42.0-57.9% p < 0.001), pre-fracture mobility aid use (9.9-86.7% p < 0,001), daily living dependency (27.5-96.5% p < 0,001), ASA-class >= 3 (25.8-83.3% p < 0.001), dementia (3.6-28.6% p < 0.001), osteoporosis (0.0-57.1% p < 0.001), risk of malnutrition (0.0-29.2% p < 0.001) and fracture types (all p < 0.001). All factors were associated with 30- and 90-day mortality. Eight hospitals showed higher and six showed lower 30-day mortality than expected based on their case-mix. Six hospitals showed higher and seven lower 90-day mortality than expected. The specific outlier hospitals changed when correcting for case-mix factors. Conclusions: Dutch hospitals show significant case-mix variation regarding hip fracture patients. Case-mix adjustment is a prerequisite when comparing hospitals' 30-day and 90-day hip fracture patients' mortality. Adjusted mortality may serve as a starting point for improving hip fracture care. Show less
Purpose The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA), a nationwide hip fracture registry in the Netherlands, registers hip fracture patients and aims to improve quality of care since 2016. This study shows... Show morePurpose The Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA), a nationwide hip fracture registry in the Netherlands, registers hip fracture patients and aims to improve quality of care since 2016. This study shows trends in the data quality during the first 5 years of data acquisition within the DHFA, as well as trends over time for designated quality indicators (QI). Methods All patients registered in the DHFA between 1-1-2016 and 31-12-2020 were included. Data quality-registry case coverage and data completeness-and baseline characteristics are reported. Five QI are analysed: Time to surgery < 48 h, assessment for osteoporosis, orthogeriatric co-management, registration of functional outcomes at three months, 30-day mortality. The independent association between QI results and report year was tested using mixed-effects logistic models and in the case of 30-day mortality adjusted for casemix. Results In 2020, the case capture of the DHFA comprised 85% of the Dutch hip fracture patients, 66/68 hospitals participated. The average of missing clinical values was 7.5% in 2016 and 3.2% in 2020. The 3 months follow-up completeness was 36.2% (2016) and 46.8% (2020). The QI 'time to surgery' was consistently high, assessment for osteoporosis remained low, orthogeriatric co-management scores increased without significance, registration of functional outcomes improved significantly and 30-day mortality rates remained unchanged. Conclusion The DHFA has successfully been implemented in the past five years. Trends show improvement on data quality. Analysis of several QI indicate points of attention. Future perspectives include lowering the burden of registration, whilst improving (registration of) hip fracture patients outcomes. Show less
Background The Dynamic Locking Blade Plate (DLBP) was recently introduced for fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) and has been well received. Although the results of this implant in... Show moreBackground The Dynamic Locking Blade Plate (DLBP) was recently introduced for fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) and has been well received. Although the results of this implant in young patients are promising, the DLBP has not yet been compared to a standard device such as the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS). The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcome and costs of displaced FNF treated with internal fixation by means of either the DLBP or the DHS in patients up to 65 years of age. We hypothesize that the DLBP is superior compared to the DHS in terms of revision surgery rate, union rate, incidence of avascular necrosis and implant related failure. Methods The DEFENDD (DisplacEd Femoral Neck fractures Dlbp versus Dhs) trial is a multicentre randomized controlled trial that will include 266 patients of 18-65 years with a displaced FNF. Patients will be randomized to receive either a DLBP or a DHS with a 1:1 allocation using a random block size, stratified for centre. Clinical follow up will last 1 year and questionnaires will be obtained up to 2 years. The main outcome parameter is the incidence of revision surgery within 1 year, due to either non-union, avascular necrosis (AVN) or cut out of the implant. Secondary study parameters are the incidence of avascular necrosis, non-union, (implant related) complications, functional outcome, elective removal of the implant and health-related quality of life and costs. Discussion The outcome of the DEFENDD trial will provide high-level evidence of which implant is favourable for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in young patients (<= 65 years). Show less
FoF is possibly one of the most important factors in patients after hip fracture, with a substantial impact on the final results of the rehabilitation process. Moreover, patients with hip fracture... Show moreFoF is possibly one of the most important factors in patients after hip fracture, with a substantial impact on the final results of the rehabilitation process. Moreover, patients with hip fracture who rehabilitate in a SNF with high rates of comorbidity and complications, may have even worse outcomes as a result of FoF. Unfortunately, the role of FoF in the rehabilitation of these older persons has not yet been investigated. The overall aim of the work in this thesis is to study FoF in vulnerable older people with hip fractures who rehabilitate in a SNF. To gain more insight into FoF in older patients with hip fracture, the following research questions are addressed:. 1. What is the prevalence of FoF in older patients with a hip fracture rehabilitating in a SNF? 2. Which factors are related to FoF in older patients with a hip fracture? 3. What is the course of FoF after a hip fracture? 4. Is the FES-I a suitable instrument to measure FoF after a hip fracture? 5. Which interventions reduce FoF after hip fracture? 6. What is the prevalence and what are the consequences of FoF in other patient groups who rehabilitate in a SNF? Show less
