Mortality and locomotion 6 months after hospitalization for hip fracture: risk factors and risk-adjusted hospital outcomes.

CONTEXT: Hip fracture is a common clinical problem that leads to considerable mortality and disability. A need exists for a practical means to monitor and improve outcomes, including function, for patients with hip fracture. OBJECTIVES: To identify and compare the importance of significant prefracture predictors of functional status and mortality at 6 months for patients hospitalized with hip fracture and to compare risk-adjusted outcomes for hospitals providing initial care. DESIGN: Prospective study with data obtained from medical records and through structured interviews with patients and proxies. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 adults aged 50 years or older with hip fracture who were admitted to 4 New York, NY, metropolitan hospitals between August 1997 and August 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In-hospital and 6-month mortality; locomotion at 6 months; and adverse outcomes at 6 months, defined as death or needing assistance to ambulate, compared by hospital, adjusting for patient risk factors. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.6%. At 6 months, the mortality rate was 13.5%, and another 12.8% needed total assistance to ambulate. Laboratory values were strong predictors of mortality but were not significantly associated with locomotion. Age and prefracture residence at a nursing home were significant predictors of locomotion (P =.02 for both) but were not significantly associated with mortality. Adjustment for baseline characteristics either substantially augmented or diminished interhospital differences in outcomes. Two hospitals had 1 outcome (functional status or mortality) that was significantly worse than the overall mean while the other outcome was nonsignificantly better than average. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and functional status ideally should be considered both together and individually to distinguish effects limited to one or the other outcome. Hospital performance for these 2 measures may differ substantially after adjustment, probably because different processes of care are important to each outcome.

Grading the evidence for diabetes performance measures.

CONTEXT: Grading scientific evidence is a critical step in developing practice guidelines and quality performance measures. GENERAL QUESTION: What is the most useful way to grade evidence? SPECIFIC QUESTION: How should we grade the recommended clinical practices for patients with diabetes? STANDARD APPROACH: Hierarchical grading systems (e.g., grades I, II, and III), such as that used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, have traditionally been used to rank the research designs of studies that support a particular clinical practice. POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES: Many studies that support the clinical practices of diabetes care do not clearly conform to the categories traditionally used in hierarchical grading systems. As a result, there is a tendency to inaccurately characterize the level of evidence, leading to the phenomenon of evidence inflation or evidence deflation. To avoid exaggerating the evidence, important sources of information may be excluded, resulting in an understatement of the available supporting evidence. ALTERNATE APPROACH: This paper offers a more descriptive typologic system that uses the study design and an explanatory modifier to grade the evidence supporting the clinical practices of diabetes care. The study grades are randomized, controlled trial (RCT); RCT-embedded component; RCT-treatment only; RCT-different population; observational study-risk factor; and expert opinion. Using this grading system, the authors were able to more accurately describe the best available evidence supporting the clinical practices of diabetes care.

The cause of delirium in patients with hip fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the most common causes of delirium, to establish the initiation and timing of delirium, and to determine the duration of delirium in patients with hip fracture. METHODS: Five hundred seventy-one (88%) of 650 patients with hip fracture admitted to 4 New York City hospitals were prospectively interviewed on a daily basis, 5 days a week, with the Confusion Assessment Method for the presence of delirium. The patients were enrolled within 48 hours of admission. Their medical charts and the data collected by the study staff were reviewed and summarized. Two of us (R.S.M. and A.L.S.) reviewed the case summaries independently and assigned a cause based on a previously developed classification system, estimated the onset of the delirious episode, and determined whether the delirium had cleared, improved, or persisted at discharge. Subsequently, discrepancies in cause, timing of initiation, and mental status on discharge between the 2 physicians reviewers were discussed until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The prevalence of delirium was 9.5% (54/ 571; 95% confidence interval, 7.0-11.9). Seven percent of episodes were assigned a definite cause, 20% a probable cause, 11% a possible cause, and 61% were attributable to 1 or more comorbid conditions. Twenty-eight (53%) of 54 subjects developed delirium after surgery. The delirium had cleared or improved in 40 (74%) of 54 subjects at the time of discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium in patients with hip fracture appears to be a different syndrome from that observed in patients who are otherwise medically ill; it also appears to follow a different clinical course. These results have important implications for the management of delirium in patients with hip fracture.