Tools
Tools
Smith, Toby 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1673-2954, Gilbert, Anthony, Sreekanta, Ashwini, Sahota, Opinder, Griffin, Xavier, Cross, Jane ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7003-1916, Fox, Chris ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9480-5704 and Lamb, Sarah E.
(2020)
Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery.
The Cochrane Library, 2 (2).
Preview |
PDF (Published_Version)
- Published Version
Download (803kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. Objectives: (a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care. Search methods: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019. Selection criteria: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162). Authors' conclusions: We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | hip,neck of femur,fracture,trauma,cognitive impairment,dementia,rehabilitation,recovery,humans,cognitive impairment,randomized controlled-trial,80 and over,dementia [*complications],quality-of-life,patient care team [organization & administration],form health survey,femoral-neck fracture,older-adults,informant questionnaire,randomized controlled trials as topic,intensive geriatric rehabilitation,hip fractures [*rehabilitation] [surgery],orthopedics,aged,postoperative outcomes,elderly-patients,cognition disorders [*complications],geriatrics,pharmacology (medical) ,/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2700/2736 |
| Faculty \ School: | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School |
| UEA Research Groups: | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Dementia & Complexity in Later Life Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Mental Health Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Health Promotion Faculty of Science > Research Groups > Norwich Epidemiology Centre Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Norwich Epidemiology Centre Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Institute for Volunteering Research Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Population Health Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Lifespan Health |
| Related URLs: | |
| Depositing User: | LivePure Connector |
| Date Deposited: | 11 Feb 2020 05:34 |
| Last Modified: | 17 Dec 2024 01:29 |
| URI: | https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/74083 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/14651858.CD010569.pub3 |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |