Browse the corpus

Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery. 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.

Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery. BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major fall-related injury which causes significant problems for individuals, their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment, and their outcomes after surgery are poorer than those without dementia. It is not clear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. 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 the effectiveness for people with dementia of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies which 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, up to and including week 1 June 2014 using the terms hip OR fracture OR surgery OR operation OR femur OR femoral. SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness for people with dementia of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We synthesised data only if we considered studies sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with a total of 316 participants. Four trials evaluated models of enhanced interdisciplinary rehabilitation and care, two of these for inpatients only and two for inpatients and at home after discharge. All were compared with usual rehabilitation and care in the trial settings. The fifth trial compared outcomes of geriatrician-led care in hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. All papers analysed subgroups of people with dementia/cognitive impairment from larger RCTs of older people following hip fracture. Trial follow-up periods ranged from acute hospital discharge to 24 months post-discharge.We considered all of the studies to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger studies, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Further, there were some important differences in the baseline characteristics of the participants in experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for all outcomes to 'low' or 'very low'.No study assessed our primary outcome (cognitive function) nor other important dementia-related outcomes including behaviour and quality of life. The effect estimates for most comparisons were very imprecise, so it was not possible to draw firm conclusions from the data. There was low-quality evidence that enhanced care and rehabilitation in hospital led to lower rates of some complications and that enhanced care provided across hospital and home settings reduced the chance of being in institutional care at three months post-discharge (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.95, 2 trials, n = 184), but this effect was more uncertain at 12 months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 2 trials, n = 177). The effect of enhanced care and rehabilitation in hospital and at home on functional outcomes was very uncertain because the quality of evidence was very low from one small trial. Results on functional outcomes from other trials were inconclusive. The effect of geriatrician-led compared to orthopaedic-led management on the cumulative incidence of delirium was very uncertain (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.38, 1 trial, n = 126, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about how effective the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care after hip fracture used in these trials are for people with dementia above active usual care. The current evidence base derives from a small number of studies with quality limitations. This should be addressed as a research priority to determine the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients.