Comprehensive Geriatric Care to Improve Mobility after Hip Fracture: An RCT

Background: Comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) for older adults during hospitalization for hip fracture can improve mobility, but it is unclear whether CGC delivered after a return to community living improves mobility compared with usual post-discharge care. Objective: To determine if an outpatient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gerontology (Basel) 2020-12, Vol.66 (6), p.542-548
Hauptverfasser: Cook, Wendy L., Brasher, Penelope M.A., Guy, Pierre, Bryan, Stirling, Donaldson, Meghan G., Sims-Gould, Joanie, McKay, Heather A., Khan, Karim M., Ashe, Maureen C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) for older adults during hospitalization for hip fracture can improve mobility, but it is unclear whether CGC delivered after a return to community living improves mobility compared with usual post-discharge care. Objective: To determine if an outpatient clinic-based CGC regime in the first year after hip fracture improved mobility performance at 12 months. Methods: A two-arm, 1:1 parallel group, pragmatic, single-blind, single-center, randomized controlled trial at 3 hospitals in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Participants were community-dwelling adults, aged ≥65 years, with a hip fracture in the previous 3–12 months, who had no dementia and walked ≥10 m before the fracture occurred. Target enrollment was 130 participants. Clinic-based CGC was delivered by a geriatrician, physiotherapist, and occupational therapist. Primary outcome was the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB; 0–12) at 12 months. Results: We randomized 53/313 eligible participants with a mean (SD) age of 79.7 (7.9) years to intervention (n = 26) and usual care (UC, n = 27), and 49/53 (92%) completed the study. Mean 12-month (SD) SPPB scores in the intervention and UC groups were 9.08 (3.03) and 8.24 (2.44). The between-group difference was 0.9 (95% CI –0.3 to 2.0, p = 0.13). Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups. Conclusion: The small sample size of less than half our recruitment target precludes definitive conclusions about the effect of our intervention. However, our results are consistent with similar studies on this population and intervention.
ISSN:0304-324X
1423-0003
DOI:10.1159/000510903