Implementation of supplemental physiotherapy following hip fracture surgery: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patient outcomes following low-trauma hip fracture are suboptimal resulting in increased healthcare costs and poor functional outcomes at 1 year. Providing early and intensive in-hospital physiotherapy could help improve patient outcomes and reduce costs following hip fracture surgery. The HIP fracture Supplemental Therapy to Enhance Recovery (HIPSTER) trial will compare usual care physiotherapy to intensive in-hospital physiotherapy for patients following hip fracture surgery. The complex environments in which the intervention is implemented present unique contextual challenges that may impact intervention effectiveness. This study aims to complete a process evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and explore the patient, carer and clinician experience of intensive therapy following hip fracture surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The process evaluation is embedded within a two-arm randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial recruiting 620 participants from eight Australian hospitals who have had surgery for a hip fracture sustained via a low-trauma injury. A theory-based mixed method process evaluation will be completed in tandem with the HIPSTER trial. Patient and carer semi-structured interviews will be completed at 6 weeks following hip fracture surgery. The clinician experience will be explored through online surveys completed pre- and post-implementation of intensive therapy and mapped to domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Translation and behaviour change success will be assessed using the Reach Effectiveness-Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. These data will assist with the development of an Implementation Toolkit aiding future translation into practice.

DISCUSSION

The embedded process evaluation will help understand the interplay between the implementation context and the intensive therapy intervention following surgery for low-trauma hip fracture. Understanding these mechanisms, if effective, will assist with transferability into other contexts and wider translation into practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN 12622001442796.

HIP fracture Supplemental Therapy to Enhance Recovery (HIPSTER): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Hip fractures result in substantial health impacts for patients and costs to health systems. Many patients require prolonged hospital stays and up to 60% do not regain their prefracture level of mobility within 1 year. Physical rehabilitation plays a key role in regaining physical function and independence; however, there are no recommendations regarding the optimal intensity. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of early intensive in-hospital physiotherapy compared with usual care in patients who have had surgery following a hip fracture.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This two-arm randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial will recruit 620 participants who have had surgery following a hip fracture from eight hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual care (physiotherapy according to usual practice at the site) or intensive physiotherapy in the hospital over the first 7 days following surgery (two additional sessions per day, one delivered by a physiotherapist and the other by an allied health assistant). The primary outcome is the total hospital length of stay, measured from the date of hospital admission to the date of hospital discharge, including both acute and subacute hospital days. Secondary outcomes are functional mobility, health-related quality of life, concerns about falling, discharge destination, proportion of patients remaining in hospital at 30 days, return to preadmission mobility and residence at 120 days and adverse events. Twelve months of follow-up will capture data on healthcare utilisation. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will be undertaken, and a process evaluation will document barriers and facilitators to implementation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee has approved this protocol. The trial findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, submitted for presentation at conferences and disseminated to patients and carers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622001442796.

Patient and hospital factors influencing discharge destination following hip fracture

OBJECTIVE

To compare demographics, treatment and health outcomes for individuals hospitalised with a hip fracture and examine predictors of postacute discharge destination.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry of individuals aged ≥50 years hospitalised with a hip fracture from 2015 to 2018 (n = 29 881). Multinominal logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with discharge destination for individuals from private residences.

RESULTS

Advancing age, impaired cognition, reduced walking ability and poorer pre-operative health were predictors for discharge to residential aged care. The odds of discharge to a rehabilitation unit were higher for individuals with extracapsular fractures, treated at major trauma centres or at hospitals with home-based rehabilitation. Individuals in rural areas had higher odds of discharge to another hospital or ward.

CONCLUSION

In addition to well-known demographics, injury and treatment factors, non-clinical factors including geographic area of residence also affect discharge destination.

Patients from residential aged care with hip fractures-Does discharge destination from acute care affect outcomes?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the demographics of patients from residential aged care facilities (RACFs) who underwent fixation of hip fracture and to compare 12-month functional and mortality outcomes for those returning to their RACF with those admitted to a subacute facility (SAF) following their acute hospital stay.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients from a RACF with high-level care needs admitted to Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, for fixation of hip fracture in 2014-2015. Data including demographic and hospital event details, length of stay (LOS), discharge destination and 12-month functional outcomes measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E), were collected. Factors related to discharge destination and outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Ninety patients from a RACF were included in this study, with 68 patients (76%) returning to their RACF and 22 (24%) admitted to a SAF after acute hospital stay. Those discharged to a SAF had an average LOS at this facility of 20.79 days (SD 8.02). The SAF group also had a longer acute LOS (7 days IQR 5-10, compared to 6 days IQR 4-7.5) but there was no difference between groups at 12 months in terms of mortality or function, with 50% of all patients deceased at this time point (n = 40) and the remaining 40 patients (50%) reporting a poor functional outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobility status during acute and subacute stay, and 12-month functional and mortality outcomes were similar in both groups irrespective of discharge destination, with the influence of cognition and concomitant medical issues currently unknown. Further research is required to evaluate the efficacy of current hip fracture models of care, the factors that influence clinician discharge planning decision-making and to interrogate new models of care that support rehabilitation and complex medical management in RACFs.

The Benefits of Streamlined Hip Fracture Management in a Regional Hospital

Introduction:

Hip fracture is an increasingly common injury in the growing elderly population. The morbidity and mortality associated with this injury can be reduced by minimizing delays to surgical treatment. We describe the impact of a regional hospital service redesign project that utilized the principles of smart simplicity, a management strategy that lays emphasis on collaboration to achieve desired goals.

Methods:

Prior to the redesign, patients with hip fractures were taking an average of 72 hours for surgical treatment. A hip fracture working group was created to examine closely the process of hip fracture care, and a single key performance indicator (KPI) of “surgery within 48 hours” was adopted. This allowed identification of processes that could be clarified and streamlined, with the agreement of relevant stakeholders, in the creation of a new hip fracture pathway.

Results:

In the first 3 months of the pathway’s implementation, 16 of 18 patients had surgery within 48 hours of presentation. In a 6-month follow-up audit after 2 years of implementation, 36 of 39 patients were treated within 48 hours. This was significantly different to the time to surgery seen in the 12 months prior to the redesign (P < .001, Student t test). The mean time to surgery was reduced from 72 hours to 36 hours, a saving in an annual acute bed stay cost of A$152 000.

Discussion:

Decreased time to the operating room, the cost savings inherent to this, can be achieved with the introduction of the best standard of care. A redesign that mandates collaboration in achieving a single KPI has allowed a significant culture shift in the treatment of hip fractures in our institution in the months following its institution.

Conclusion:

Collaborative, multidisciplinary collaboration has facilitated a higher standard of care and demonstrated significant cost benefit.