Search

Introduction Patients with hip fracture and depression are less likely to recover. This review aimed to identify prognostic factors of depression up to one year after hip fracture surgery in adults. Secondary aims were to determine whether identified factors are modifiable or non-modifiable and describe proposed underlying mechanisms for their association with depression. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection databases for published studies as well as grey literature. We did not impose any date, geographical, or language limitations. Two reviewers independently screened studies against predefined eligibility criteria to identify relevant papers. We included observational studies investigating prognostic factors of depression up to one year after surgery in adults surgically managed for non-pathological hip fracture. Two reviewers independently extracted data (Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies, adapted for use with prognostic factors studies Checklist) and completed quality appraisal (using Quality in Prognosis Studies tool). Results 3,402 studies were identified; 2,915 studies were excluded leaving 13 studies included in this review. 3,769 patients were included across all studies with a mean age ranging from 76.21–81.82 years. A total of 39 prognostic factors were investigated and most studies failed to identify a primary prognostic factor of interest. Most of these factors were patient factors with only a few being process or structure factors. Conclusion Various potential prognostic factors of depression after hip fracture were identified however, Methodological quality and heterogeneity between studies limited the certainty of which prognostic factors were the strongest. High-quality research investigating prognostic factors using the same study design, Methodology and measurements is warranted to allow for comparisons of the predictive power of factors. As well as future research into the underlying mechanisms of prognostic factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To explore physiotherapists' perceptions of mechanisms to explain observed variation in early postoperative practice after hip fracture surgery demonstrated in a national audit. Methods A qualitative semi-structured interview study of 21 physiotherapists working on orthopaedic wards at 7 hospitals with different durations of physiotherapy during a recent audit. Thematic analysis of interviews drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to aid interpretation of findings. Results Four themes were identified: achieving protocolised and personalised care; patient and carer engagement; multidisciplinary team engagement across the care continuum; and strategies for service improvement. Most expressed variation from protocol was legitimate when driven by what is deemed clinically appropriate for a given patient. This tailored approach was deemed essential to optimise patient and carer engagement. Participants reported inconsistent degrees of engagement from the multidisciplinary team attributing this to competing workload priorities, interpreting 'postoperative physiotherapy' as a single professional activity rather than a care delivery approach, plus lack of integration between hospital and community care. All participants recognised changes needed at both structural and process levels to improve their services. Conclusion Physiotherapists highlighted an inherent conflict between their intention to deliver protocolised care while allowing for an individual patient-tailored approach. This conflict has implications for how audit results should be interpreted, how future clinical guidelines are written, and how physiotherapists are trained. Physiotherapists also described additional factors explaining variation in practice which may be addressed through increased engagement of the multidisciplinary team and resources for additional staffing and advanced clinical roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recovery is multidimensional highlighted by a wealth of qualitative evidence published on patient perspectives of recovery after hip fracture. The purpose of the current review is to synthesize this evidence of patients' perspectives of recovery after hip fracture across the care continuum. Methods A systematic search was conducted, focusing on qualitative data from hip fracture patients. Two authors independently screened title and abstracts, full texts, completed extraction, and quality appraisal. Themes for this review were generated using a thematic synthesis of data from original studies. Results Fourteen qualitative studies were included in this review. The overall quality of included studies was high. We identified four review themes: defining recovery, feelings of vulnerability, driving recovery, and reliance on support. Patients considered recovery as a return to prefracture activities or 'normal' enabling independence. Feelings of vulnerability were observed for patients irrespective of the time since hip fracture and only diminished when recovery of function and activities enabled participation in valued activities e.g. outdoor mobility. Participants expressed a desire to actively engage in recovery with realistic expectations and benefits of meaningful feedback reported. Reliance on healthcare support varied by time since fracture with patients highlighting a greater reliance on professional support in the early versus late stages of recovery. Reliance on social support persisted until recovery was perceived to have been achieved and was highlighted more for participants who were living alone. Conclusion Patient perspectives of recovery enhance previous understanding of recovery domains. Patient perspectives highlighted hip fracture as a major life event which requires health professional and social support to overcome feelings of vulnerability and enable active engagement in recovery. Future research should investigate the recovery perspective of patients with cognitive impairment, and further consider perspectives on recovery from carers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]