Search

Background Patients with lower limb fractures who are non-weight bearing are at risk of the complications of the associated immobility and disability, particularly people with frailty, but there is lack of clarity about what constitutes optimal care for such patients. A scoping literature review was conducted to explore what evidence is available for the management of this patient group. Methods MEDLINE (PubMed) CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases of published literature and the HMIC and SIGLE sites for grey literature were searched for primary research studies and expert reports, using an iterative approach initially including the key term 'non-weight bearing'. All study types were included. Analysis was by narrative synthesis. Results No papers were identified from a search using the key phrase 'non-weight bearing'. With this term removed, 11 indirectly relevant articles on lower limb fractures were retrieved from the searches of the electronic databases comprising three observational studies, five non-systematic review articles, a systematic review, an opinion piece and a survey of expert opinion that had relevance to restricted weight bearing patients. The observational studies indicated depression, cognition and nutrition affect outcome and hence have indirect relevance to management. The non-systematic reviews articles emphasised the importance of maintaining strength and range of movement during immobilisation and advised an orthogeriatric model of care. Fourteen UK and 97 non-UK guidelines relevant to fragility fractures, falls and osteoporosis management were found in the grey literature, but none made specific recommendations regarding the management of any period of non-weight bearing. Discussion These findings provide a summary of the evidence base that can be used in the development of a clinical guideline for these patients but is not sufficient. We propose that, a guideline should be developed for these patients using an expert consensus process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the prevalence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitalised older patients, their clinical presentations, causative drugs, severity, preventability and measurable outcomes are unclear, ADRs being an increasing challenge to older patient safety. Methods we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCO-CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, 'rey' literature and relevant systematic review bibliographies, published from database inception to March 2020. We included any study reporting occurrence of in-hospital ADRs as primary or secondary outcomes in hospitalised older adults (mean age ≥ 65 years). Two authors independently extracted relevant information and appraised studies for bias. Study characteristics, ADR clinical presentations, causative drugs, severity, preventability and clinical outcomes were analysed. Study estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analytic models. Results from 2,399 abstracts, we undertook full-text screening in 286, identifying 27 studies (29 papers). Final analysis yielded a pooled ADR prevalence of 16% (95%CI 12–22%, I 2 98%, τ 2 0.8585), in a population of 20,153 hospitalised patients aged ≥65 years of whom 2,479 patients experienced ≥ one ADR. ADR ascertainment was highly heterogeneous. Almost 48.3% of all ADRs involved five presentations: fluid/electrolyte disturbances (17.3%), gastrointestinal motility/defaecation disorders (13.3%), renal disorders (8.2%), hypotension/blood pressure dysregulation disorders/shock (5.5%) and delirium (4.1%). Four drug classes accounted for 57.8% of causative medications i.e. diuretics (19.8%), anti-bacterials (14.8%), antithrombotic agents (12.2%) and analgesics (10.9%). Pooled analysis of severity was not feasible. Four studies reported the majority of ADRs as preventable (55–95%). Conclusions on average, 16% of hospitalised older patients experience significant ADRs, varying in severity and mostly preventable, with commonly prescribed drug classes accounting for most ADRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: the worldwide population is ageing. One expected consequence of this is an increase in morbidity and an associated increased demand for long-term care. Physical rehabilitation is beneficial in older people, but relatively little is known about effects in residents of long-term care facilities.Objective: to examine the effects of physical rehabilitation on activities of daily living (ADL) in elderly residents of long-term care facilities.Methods: systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. We included studies that compared the effect of a physical rehabilitation intervention on independence in ADL with either no intervention or an alternative intervention in older people (over 60 years) living in long-term care facilities. We searched 19 databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. Two researchers independently screened papers and extracted data. Outcomes of included studies were combined in a standardised mean difference random-effects meta-analysis.Results: thirteen of 14 studies identified were included in the meta-analysis. Independence in ADL was improved by 0.24 standard units (95% CI: 0.11–0.38; P = 0.0005). This is equivalent to 1.3 points on the Barthel Index (0–20 scale). No significant differences in effect were found based on participant or intervention characteristics. Larger sample size and low attrition were associated with smaller estimates of effect. All studies were assessed to be at risk of bias.Conclusions: physical rehabilitation may improve independence for elderly long-term care facility residents, but mean effects are small. It is unclear which interventions are most appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]