Over 95% of hip fractures in older adults are caused by falls, yet only 1% to 2% of falls result in hip fracture. Our current understanding of the types of falls that lead to hip fracture is based on reports by the faller or witness. We analyzed videos of real-life falls in longterm care to provide objective evidence on the factors that separate falls that result in hip fracture from falls that do not. Between 2007 and 2018, we video-captured 2377 falls by 646 residents in two long-term care facilities. Hip fracture was documented in 30 falls. We analyzed each video with a structured questionnaire, and used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to determine relative risk ratios (RRs) for hip fracture associated with various fall characteristics. All hip fractures involved falls from standing height, and pelvis impact with the ground. After excluding falls from lower than standing height, risk for hip fracture was higher for sideways landing configurations (RR = 5.50; 95% CI, 2.36-12.78) than forward or backward, and for falls causing hip impact (3.38; 95% CI, 1.49-7.67). However, hip fracture risk was just as high in falls initially directed sideways as forward (1.14; 95% CI, 0.49-2.67), due to the tendency for rotation during descent. Falling while using a mobility aid was associated with lower fracture risk (0.30; 95% CI, 0.09-1.00). Seventy percent of hip fractures involved impact to the posterolateral aspect of the pelvis. Hip protectors were worn in 73% of falls, and hip fracture risk was lower in falls where hip protectors were worn (0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.99). Age and sex were not associated with fracture risk. There was no evidence of spontaneous fractures. In this first study of video-captured falls causing hip fracture, we show that the biomechanics of falls involving hip fracture were different than nonfracture falls for fall height, fall direction, impact locations, and use of hip protectors.

No abstract

Results may help to address risk of work-related musculoskeletal injury, especially in locations with novel compliant flooring.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundIf worn during a fall, hip protectors substantially reduce risk for hip fracture. However, a major barrier to their clinical efficacy is poor user adherence. In long-term care, adherence likely depends on how committed care providers are to hip protectors, but empirical evidence is lacking due to the absence of a psychometrically valid assessment tool.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey in a convenience sample of 529 paid care providers. We developed the 15-item C-HiP Index to measure commitment, comprised of three subscales: affective, cognitive and behavioural. Responses were subjected to hierarchical factor analysis and internal consistency testing. Eleven experts rated the relevance and clarity of items on 4-point Likert scales. We performed simple linear regression to determine whether C-HiP Index scores were positively related to the question, “Do you think of yourself as a champion of hip protectors”, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. We examined whether the C-HiP Index could differentiate respondents: (i) who were aware of a protected fall causing hip fracture from those who were unaware; (ii) who agreed in the existence of a champion of hip protectors within their home from those who didn’t.ResultsHierarchical factor analysis yielded two lower-order factors and a single higher-order factor, representing the overarching concept of commitment to hip protectors. Items from affective and cognitive subscales loaded highest on the first lower-order factor, while items from the behavioural subscale loaded highest on the second. We eliminated one item due to low factor matrix coefficients, and poor expert evaluation. The C-HiP Index had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96. A one-unit increase in championing was associated with a 5.2-point (p < 0.01) increase in C-HiP Index score. Median C-HiP Index scores were 4.3-points lower (p < 0.01) among respondents aware of a protected fall causing hip fracture, and 7.0-points higher (p < 0.01) among respondents who agreed in the existence of a champion of hip protectors within their home.ConclusionsWe offer evidence of the psychometric properties of the C-HiP Index. The development of a valid and reliable assessment tool is crucial to understanding the factors that govern adherence to hip protectors in long-term care.

No abstract

As the global population of older people increases, policies aimed at improving health care delivery for older people often include supports for ageing in place. Living in the community not only reduces institutionalisation but also improves quality of life and reduces health care costs. For older people, community rehabilitation offers the opportunity to preserve and maximise function while maintaining the ability to live in the community. However, limited research examines the delivery, coordination and integration of community rehabilitation services in health systems. Our case study explored the perspectives of service providers, managers and health system administrators on the strengths, limitations and gaps in community rehabilitation for older people in one Canadian urban health region. Using interpretive description and thematic analysis, we analysed interview data from: 16 service providers, eight managers and five health system administrators. Three themes were identified: (a) Limited Access to Programs and Services; (b) Need to Emphasise Promoting, Maintaining and Restoring Function; and (c) Lack of Flow Across the System. Participants highlighted that restrictive eligibility criteria limited access to services. Services were organised around health conditions that did not address the needs of older people. Long waitlists meant that services were delayed. Transportation costs limited participation of individuals from lower socioeconomic status (SES). Age restrictions did not reflect differences in the ageing process and the health inequities individuals from lower SES groups experienced. There was a lack of emphasis in community rehabilitation programs on maintaining or restoring function in older people, which is the primary focus of rehabilitation. Furthermore, key stakeholders stressed the need for strengthening the integration of service delivery across the continuum of care. The findings underscore the need to develop a conceptual framework for community rehabilitation to promote greater system integration, access and availability of services and to optimise functional outcomes for older people.