Search

Background Perioperative interventions could enhance early mobilisation and physical function after hip fracture surgery. Objective Determine the effectiveness of perioperative interventions on early mobilisation and physical function after hip fracture. Methods Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to March 2022. English language experimental and quasi-experimental studies were included if patients were hospitalised for a fractured proximal femur with a mean age 65 years or older and reported measures of early mobilisation and physical function during the acute hospital admission. Data were pooled using a random effect meta-analysis. Results Twenty-eight studies were included from 1,327 citations. Studies were conducted in 26 countries on 8,192 participants with a mean age of 80 years. Pathways and models of care may provide a small increase in early mobilisation (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01–0.39, I 2 = 73%) and physical function (SMD: 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, I 2 = 0%) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation analgesia may provide a moderate improvement in function (SMD: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.24–1.05, I 2 = 96%). The benefit of pre-operative mobilisation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, recumbent cycling and clinical supervision on mobilisation and function remains uncertain. Evidence of no effect on mobilisation or function was identified for pre-emptive analgesia, intraoperative periarticular injections, continuous postoperative epidural infusion analgesia, occupational therapy training or nutritional supplements. Conclusions Perioperative interventions may improve early mobilisation and physical function after hip fracture surgery. Future studies are needed to model the causal mechanisms of perioperative interventions on mobilisation and function after hip fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the relationship between strategies to improve care delivery for older adults in ED and evaluation measures of patient outcomes, patient experience, staff experience, and system performance. Methods: A systematic review of English language studies published since inception to December 2022, available from CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and Scopus was conducted. Studies were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers and included if they met the following criteria: participant mean age of ≥ 65 years; ED setting or directly influenced provision of care in the ED; reported on improvement interventions and strategies; reported patient outcomes, patient experience, staff experience, or system performance. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by pairs of independent reviewers using The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Data were synthesised using a hermeneutic approach. Results: Seventy-six studies were included in the review, incorporating strategies for comprehensive assessment and multi-faceted care (n = 32), targeted care such as management of falls risk, functional decline, or pain management (n = 27), medication safety (n = 5), and trauma care (n = 12). We found a misalignment between comprehensive care delivered in ED for older adults and ED performance measures oriented to rapid assessment and referral. Eight (10.4%) studies reported patient experience and five (6.5%) reported staff experience. Conclusion: It is crucial that future strategies to improve care delivery in ED align the needs of older adults with the purpose of the ED system to ensure sustainable improvement effort and critical functioning of the ED as an interdependent component of the health system. Staff and patient input at the design stage may advance prioritisation of higher-impact interventions aligned with the pace of change and illuminate experience measures. More consistent reporting of interventions would inform important contextual factors and allow for replication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the relationship between strategies to improve care delivery for older adults in ED and evaluation measures of patient outcomes, patient experience, staff experience, and system performance. Methods: A systematic review of English language studies published since inception to December 2022, available from CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and Scopus was conducted. Studies were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers and included if they met the following criteria: participant mean age of ≥ 65 years; ED setting or directly influenced provision of care in the ED; reported on improvement interventions and strategies; reported patient outcomes, patient experience, staff experience, or system performance. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by pairs of independent reviewers using The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Data were synthesised using a hermeneutic approach. Results: Seventy-six studies were included in the review, incorporating strategies for comprehensive assessment and multi-faceted care (n = 32), targeted care such as management of falls risk, functional decline, or pain management (n = 27), medication safety (n = 5), and trauma care (n = 12). We found a misalignment between comprehensive care delivered in ED for older adults and ED performance measures oriented to rapid assessment and referral. Eight (10.4%) studies reported patient experience and five (6.5%) reported staff experience. Conclusion: It is crucial that future strategies to improve care delivery in ED align the needs of older adults with the purpose of the ED system to ensure sustainable improvement effort and critical functioning of the ED as an interdependent component of the health system. Staff and patient input at the design stage may advance prioritisation of higher-impact interventions aligned with the pace of change and illuminate experience measures. More consistent reporting of interventions would inform important contextual factors and allow for replication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Strategies to improve care for older adults who present to the emergency department: a systematic review." The correction addresses an error in the author's name, which was incorrectly written as Felicity Bleckley instead of Felicity Bleckly. The correction has been made to the original article, and the author group has been updated accordingly. The publisher, Springer Nature, maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. The article was authored by Luke Testa, Lieke Richardson, Colleen Cheek, Theresa Hensel, Elizabeth Austin, Mariam Safi, Natália Ransolin, Ann Carrigan, Janet Long, Karen Hutchinson, Magali Goirand, Mia Bierbaum, Felicity Bleckly, Peter Hibbert, Kate Churruca, and Robyn Clay-Williams. [Extracted from the article]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Strategies to improve care for older adults who present to the emergency department: a systematic review." The correction addresses an error in the author's name, which was incorrectly written as Felicity Bleckley instead of Felicity Bleckly. The correction has been made to the original article. The publisher, Springer Nature, remains neutral in terms of jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. The article was authored by Luke Testa, Lieke Richardson, Colleen Cheek, Theresa Hensel, Elizabeth Austin, Mariam Safi, Natália Ransolin, Ann Carrigan, Janet Long, Karen Hutchinson, Magali Goirand, Mia Bierbaum, Felicity Bleckly, Peter Hibbert, Kate Churruca, and Robyn Clay-Williams. [Extracted from the article]