Health care services and costs after hip fracture, comparing conventional versus standardised care: A retrospective study with 12-month follow-up

Haugan, Kristin; Halsteinli, Vidar; Døhl, Øystein; Basso, Trude; Johnsen, Lars Gunnar; Foss, Olav A.

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.034

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The post-discharge steps of the Patient Pathway Pharmacist intervention was delayed to 6–12 weeks after discharge. The reason for delay was undocumented, but our experience was that the delay was a consequence of rehabilitation and increased care need for hip fracture patients, which typically lasts 12 weeks if prolonged [ 74 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical pharmacist intervention to improve medication safety for hip fracture patients through secondary and primary care settings: a nonrandomised controlled trial

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hip fracture patients face a patient safety threat due to medication discrepancies and adverse drug reactions when they have a combination of high age, polypharmacy and several care transitions. Consequently, optimised pharmacotherapy through medication reviews and seamless communication of medication information between care settings is necessary. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the impact on medication management and pharmacotherapy. The secondary aim was to evaluate implementation of the novel Patient Pathway Pharmacist intervention for hip fracture patients. Methods Hip fracture patients were included in this nonrandomised controlled trial, comparing a prospective intervention group (n = 58) with pre-intervention controls who received standard care (n = 50). The Patient Pathway Pharmacist intervention consisted of the steps: (A) medication reconciliation at admission to hospital, (B) medication review during hospitalisation, (C) recommendation for the medication information in the hospital discharge summary, (D) medication reconciliation at admission to rehabilitation, and (E) medication reconciliation and (F) review after hospital discharge. The primary outcome measure was quality score of the medication information in the discharge summary (range 0–14). Secondary outcomes were potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) at discharge, proportion receiving pharmacotherapy according to guidelines (e.g. prophylactic laxatives and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy), and all-cause readmission and mortality. Results The quality score of the discharge summaries was significantly higher for the intervention patients (12.3 vs. 7.2, p < 0.001). The intervention group had significantly less PIMs at discharge (− 0.44 (95% confidence interval − 0.72, − 0.15), p = 0.003), and a higher proportion received prophylactic laxative (72 vs. 35%, p < 0.001) and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy (96 vs. 16%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in readmission or mortality 30 and 90 days post-discharge. The intervention steps were delivered to all patients (step A, B, E, F = 100% of patients), except step (C) medication information at discharge (86% of patients) and step (D) medication reconciliation at admission to rehabilitation (98% of patients). Conclusion The intervention steps were successfully implemented for hip fracture patients and contributed to patient safety through a higher quality medication information in the discharge summary, fewer PIMs and optimised pharmacotherapy. Trial registration: NCT03695081.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%