Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Accelerated discharge and multidisciplinary home-based rehabilitation versus usual inpatient rehabilitation, Outcome 1 'Poor outcome', mortality, institutional care and unable to walk (12 months).. . Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Accelerated discharge and multidisciplinary home-based rehabilitation versus usual inpatient rehabilitation, Outcome 2 SF-36 scores at 12 months

Recurrent and injurious falls are common after hip fracture and are associated with multiple risk factors, many of which are treatable. Interventions should therefore be tailored to alleviating or reversing any nutritional, physiological, and psychosocial risk factors of individual patients.

No abstract

This study measured the prevalence of difficulty experienced by elderly inpatients in opening and removing tablets from a range of common commercial medication packagings and in breaking a bar-scored tablet in half. One hundred and twenty elderly patients admitted to a teaching hospital acute geriatric service were tested for their ability to open the container and remove a tablet from it. They were rated as 'able' or 'unable' to do so. In all, 94 patients (78.3%) were unable to break a tablet or open one or more of the containers. Of the 111 patients taking medication at the time of their admission, 46 (41.4%) were unable to perform one or more tasks necessary to gain access to medications in their own treatment regimen. The factors that were significantly and independently associated with inability to open containers were poor vision, impaired general cognitive function, and female sex. Many of the drug packagings in common use significantly impede access by elderly patients to their medications.

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.

Hip protectors improve falls self-efficacy. As users of hip protectors feel more confident that they can complete tasks safely, they may become more physically active and require less assistance with activities of daily living.

Objectives:To investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of hip protectors in frail community living older women.Design:Randomised controlled trial.Setting:Aged care health services in New South Wales, Australia.Patients:600 women 74 years of age or more (mean age 83 years), who had two or more falls or one fall requiring hospital admission in the previous year, and who lived in their own homes.Intervention:Use of hip protectors.Main outcome measures:Adherence with use of hip protectors, falls, incidence of hip fracture, and adverse effects of use of hip protectors.Results:Adherence was approximately 53% over the duration of the study and hip protectors were worn at the time of 51% of falls in the intervention group. The risk of hip fracture when falling while wearing hip protectors, compared with a fall with no hip protectors in place, was significantly reduced (relative risk (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.67). On an intention to treat analysis, 21 and 22 hip fractures occurred in the intervention and control groups respectively (adjusted RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.68). Three users of hip protectors sustained a hip fracture while wearing properly applied protectors, while 16 hip protector users (5%) developed minor local complications.Conclusions:Hip protectors prevent hip fractures in community dwelling older women if worn at the time of a fall. The overall effectiveness of hip protectors was not established in this study, because of incomplete adherence with use of the protectors, and limited statistical power.

et al. Geriatric rehabilitation following fractures in older people: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(2). Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA web site (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Acute Sector Panel and funded as project number 95/36/02. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph series Reports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work either prioritised by the Standing Group on Health Technology, or otherwise commissioned for the HTA Programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.