Background: while hip fractures are an important cause of disability, dependency and death in older adults, the benefit of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for people who have sustained hip fracture has not been demonstrated. Methods: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials which compare co-ordinated multi-disciplinary rehabilitation with usual orthopaedic care in older people who had sustained a hip fracture. Outcome measures included: mortality, return home, "poor outcome", total length of hospital stay, readmissions and level of function. Results: We identified 11 trials including 2177 patients. Patients who received multi-disciplinary rehabilitation were at a lower risk (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96) of a "poor outcome" -that is dying or admission to a nursing home at discharge from the programme, and showed a trend towards higher levels of return home (Risk Ratio 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.15). Pooled data for mortality did not demonstrate any difference between multi-disciplinary rehabilitation and usual orthopaedic care. Conclusion: This is the first review of randomized trials to demonstrate a benefit from multi-disciplinary rehabilitation; a 16% reduction in the pooled outcome combining death or admission to a nursing home. this result supports the routine provision of organized care for patients following hip fracture, as is current practice for patients after stroke.

A survey, which achieved a 54% response rate, was completed to assess the availability and type of rehabilitation health services in Australia. 1044 surveys were sent out and 561 were returned. The details of a total of 346 rehabilitation services were obtained. There were more services in metropolitan compared with rural areas, more services in New South Wales and Victoria than in the other states, and a higher proportion of services led by health care workers other than rehabilitation physicians in rural compared with metropolitan areas.

No abstract

Background: Following her review of health systems and structures Dwyer [1] suggested that there is a need to evaluate models of care for individuals with chronic diseases. Rehabilitation services aim to optimise the activity and participation of individuals with restrictions due to both acute and chronic conditions. Assessing and optimising the standard of these services is one method of assuring the quality of service delivered to these individuals. Knowledge of baseline standards allows evaluation of the impact of health care reforms in this area of need. The aim of this article is to compare the currently available rehabilitation service standards in Australia with those used in the USA and the UK.