Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Bone Joint J ; 106-B(4): 394-400, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38555952

ABSTRACT

Aims: The aims of this study were to assess quality of life after hip fractures, to characterize respondents to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to describe the recovery trajectory of hip fracture patients. Methods: Data on 35,206 hip fractures (2014 to 2018; 67.2% female) in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register were linked to data from the Norwegian Patient Registry and Statistics Norway. PROMs data were collected using the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) scoring instrument and living patients were invited to respond at four, 12, and 36 months post fracture. Multiple imputation procedures were performed as a model to substitute missing PROM data. Differences in response rates between categories of covariates were analyzed using chi-squared test statistics. The association between patient and socioeconomic characteristics and the reported EQ-5D-3L scores was analyzed using linear regression. Results: The median age was 83 years (interquartile range 76 to 90), and 3,561 (10%) lived in a healthcare facility. Observed mean pre-fracture EQ-5D-3L index score was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.803 to 0.810), which decreased to 0.66 at four months, to 0.70 at 12 months, and to 0.73 at 36 months. In the imputed datasets, the reduction from pre-fracture was similar (0.15 points) but an improvement up to 36 months was modest (0.01 to 0.03 points). Patients with higher age, male sex, severe comorbidity, cognitive impairment, lower income, lower education, and those in residential care facilities had a lower proportion of respondents, and systematically reported a lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The response pattern of patients influenced scores significantly, and the highest scores are found in patients reporting scores at all observation times. Conclusion: Hip fracture leads to a persistent reduction in measured HRQoL, up to 36 months. The patients' health and socioeconomic status were associated with the proportion of patients returning PROM data for analysis, and affected the results reported. Observed EQ-5D-3L scores are affected by attrition and selection bias mechanisms and motivate the use of statistical modelling for adjustment.


Subject(s)
Hip Fractures , Quality of Life , Humans , Male , Female , Aged, 80 and over , Quality of Life/psychology , Hip Fractures/surgery , Hip Fractures/complications , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Norway/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Bone Joint J ; 104-B(7): 884-893, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35775181

ABSTRACT

AIMS: This study aimed to identify risk factors (patient, healthcare system, and socioeconomic) for mortality after hip fractures and estimate their relative importance. Further, we aimed to elucidate mortality and survival patterns following fractures and the duration of excess mortality. METHODS: Data on 37,394 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked to data from the Norwegian Patient Registry, Statistics Norway, and characteristics of acute care hospitals. Cox regression analysis was performed to estimate risk factors associated with mortality. The Wald statistic was used to estimate and illustrate relative importance of risk factors, which were categorized in modifiable (healthcare-related) and non-modifiable (patient-related and socioeconomic). We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) comparing deaths among hip fracture patients to expected deaths in a standardized reference population. RESULTS: Mean age was 80.2 years (SD 11.4) and 67.5% (n = 25,251) were female. Patient factors (male sex, increasing comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and Charlson Comorbidity Index)), socioeconomic factors (low income, low education level, living in a healthcare facility), and healthcare factors (hip fracture volume, availability of orthogeriatric services) were associated with increased mortality. Non-modifiable risk factors were more strongly associated with mortality than modifiable risk factors. The SMR analysis suggested that cumulative excess mortality among hip fracture patients was 16% in the first year and 41% at six years. SMR was 2.48 for the six-year observation period, most pronounced in the first year, and fell from 10.92 in the first month to 3.53 after 12 months and 2.48 after six years. Substantial differences in median survival time were found, particularly for patient-related factors. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic, patient-, and healthcare-related factors all contributed to excess mortality, and non-modifiable factors had stronger association than modifiable ones. Hip fractures contributed to substantial excess mortality. Apparently small survival differences translate into substantial disparity in median survival time in this elderly population. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):884-893.


Subject(s)
Hip Fractures , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Norway/epidemiology , Risk Factors
3.
Bone Jt Open ; 2(9): 710-720, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34472378

ABSTRACT

AIMS: This study aimed to describe preoperative waiting times for surgery in hip fracture patients in Norway, and analyze factors affecting waiting time and potential negative consequences of prolonged waiting time. METHODS: Overall, 37,708 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked with data in the Norwegian Patient Registry. Hospitals treating hip fractures were characterized according to their hip fracture care. Waiting time (hours from admission to start of surgery), surgery within regular working hours, and surgery on the day of or on the day after admission, i.e. 'expedited surgery' were estimated. RESULTS: Mean waiting time was 22.6 hours (SD 20.7); 36,652 patients (97.2%) waited less than three days (< 72 hours), and 27,527 of the patients (73%) were operated within regular working hours (08:00 to 16:00). Expedited surgery was given to 31,675 of patients (84%), and of these, 19,985 (53%) were treated during regular working hours. Patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes 4 and 5 were more likely to have surgery within regular working hours (odds ratio (OR) 1.59; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive expedited surgery than ASA 1 patients (OR 0.29; p < 0.001). Low-volume hospitals treated a larger proportion of patients during regular working hours than high volume hospitals (OR 1.26; p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had less expedited surgery and significantly longer waiting times than low and intermediate-low volume hospitals. Higher ASA classes and Charlson Comorbidity Index increased waiting time. Patients not receiving expedited surgery had higher 30-day and one-year mortality rates (OR 1.19; p < 0.001) and OR 1.13; p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: There is inequality in waiting time for hip fracture treatment in Norway. Variations in waiting time from admission to hip fracture surgery depended on both patient and hospital factors. Not receiving expedited surgery was associated with increased 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):710-720.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...