BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome - 'poor outcome' - was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: The 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below. Inpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. Ambulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Three trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. One trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty. The generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true. Given the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.
BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: (a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.We found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).There is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).It is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.
Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition in elderly people (ie, those aged 65 years or older) that is common, serious, costly, under-recognised, and often fatal. A formal cognitive assessment and history of acute onset of symptoms are necessary for diagnosis. In view of the complex multifactorial causes of delirium, multicomponent non-pharmacological risk factor approaches are the most effective strategy for prevention. No convincing evidence shows that pharmacological prevention or treatment is effective. Drug reduction for sedation and analgesia and non-pharmacological approaches are recommended. Delirium offers opportunities to elucidate brain pathophysiology--it serves both as a marker of brain vulnerability with decreased reserve and as a potential mechanism for permanent cognitive damage. As a potent indicator of patients' safety, delirium provides a target for system-wide process improvements. Public health priorities include improvements in coding, reimbursement from insurers, and research funding, and widespread education for clinicians and the public about the importance of delirium.
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of peri-operative interventions in decreasing the incidence of postoperative delirium. An electronic search of four databases was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to. We included randomised controlled trials of non-cardiac surgery with a peri-operative intervention and that reported postoperative delirium, and identified 29 trials. Meta-analysis revealed that peri-operative geriatric consultation (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.67) and lighter anaesthesia (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.27-5.56) were associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative delirium. For the other interventions, the point estimate suggested possible protection with prophylactic haloperidol (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36-1.05), bright light therapy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.03-1.19) and general as opposed to regional anaesthesia (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47-1.23). This meta-analysis has shown that peri-operative geriatric consultations with multicomponent interventions and lighter anaesthesia are potentially effective in decreasing the incidence of postoperative delirium.
PURPOSE: To highlight the advantages of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) over usual care in the management of elderly patients with fragility hip fractures in terms of reducing the related mortality and disability.
METHOD: An overview of publications on the topic was conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.
RESULTS: Several models of geriatric and orthopedic comanagement have been developed in recent years, all characterized by a variable degree of integration, and they have been shown to reduce complications, disability and mortality in elderly hip-fracture patients. Preoperatively, CGA should identify the comorbidities that need to be treated in view of surgery, so as to reduce the related risks. After surgery, CGA should deal with medical complications and assure patients an early mobilization in order to reduce short-term mortality and contain functional decline. Before discharge, the orthogeriatric team should draw up a tailored program to promote the patient's functional recovery and satisfactory quality of life, also covering the secondary prevention of fragility fractures by improving bone quality and reducing the risk of falls.
CONCLUSIONS: Fragility hip fractures in the elderly people need to be managed by different professionals working in close cooperation and adopting a CGA.
Background: More than 125 000 hip fractures occur in Germany every year, with a one-year mortality of about 25%. To improve treatment outcomes, models of cooperation between trauma surgery and geriatrics have been developed. Their benefit has not yet been unequivocally demonstrated.
Methods: We systematically searched the Medline database and the Cochrane Library for prospective randomized controlled trials in which the treatment of elderly patients with fractures by the trauma surgery service alone was compared with preoperatively initiated collaborative treatment by the trauma surgery and geriatric services ("orthogeriatric" treatment). We investigated three treatment outcome variables-length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and one-year mortality-in a metaanalysis.
Results: The five trials of hip fracture treatment that met the selection criteria all had relatively small study populations and a high risk of bias. The outcomes with respect to hospital stay differed greatly among trials (I2: 88.5%), and geriatric intervention was not found to have any statistically significant effect (0.06 days, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.74 to 3.62 days). The relative risk of dying in the hospital was 0.66 for orthogeriatric treatment (95% CI: 0.28-1.55, p = 0.34), and the hazard ratio for one-year mortality was 0.79 in favor of orthogeriatric treatment (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.10, p = 0.17). A metaanalysis of functional outcomes was not possible.
Conclusion: Only a few randomized controlled trials of early orthogeriatric treatment have been performed, and these trials are of limited quality. Due to low case numbers, a benefit from interdisciplinary orthogeriatric treatment could not clearly be demonstrated. Further trials are needed.
INTRODUCTION: The ideal measures to prevent postoperative delirium remain unestablished. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the significance of potential interventions. METHODS: The PRISMA statement guidelines were followed. Two researchers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English before August 2012. Additional sources included reference lists from reviews and related articles from 'Google Scholar'. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on interventions seeking to prevent postoperative delirium in adult patients were included. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed using predefined data fields and scoring system. Meta-analysis was accomplished for studies that used similar strategies. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative delirium. We further tested whether interventions effective in preventing postoperative delirium shortened the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We identified 38 RCTs with interventions ranging from perioperative managements to pharmacological, psychological or multicomponent interventions. Meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine sedation was associated with less delirium compared to sedation produced by other drugs (two RCTs with 415 patients, pooled risk ratio (RR) = 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16 to 0.95). Both typical (three RCTs with 965 patients, RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.93) and atypical antipsychotics (three RCTs with 627 patients, RR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.50) decreased delirium occurrence when compared to placebos. Multicomponent interventions (two RCTs with 325 patients, RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.86) were effective in preventing delirium. No difference in the incidences of delirium was found between: neuraxial and general anesthesia (four RCTs with 511 patients, RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.50); epidural and intravenous analgesia (three RCTs with 167 patients, RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.43) or acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and placebo (four RCTs with 242 patients, RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.44). Effective prevention of postoperative delirium did not shorten the length of hospital stay (10 RCTs with 1,636 patients, pooled SMD (standard mean difference) = -0.06; 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The included studies showed great inconsistencies in definition, incidence, severity and duration of postoperative delirium. Meta-analysis supported dexmedetomidine sedation, multicomponent interventions and antipsychotics were useful in preventing postoperative delirium.
Objectives To describe the Acute Care for Elders ( ACE) model components implemented as part of acute geriatric unit care and explore the association between each ACE component and outcomes of iatrogenic complications, functional decline, length of hospital stay, nursing home discharges, costs, and discharges home. Design Systematic descriptive review of 32 articles, including 14 trials reporting on the implementation of ACE components or the effectiveness of their implementation in improving outcomes. Mean effect sizes ( ESs) were calculated using trial outcome data. Information describing implementation of the ACE components in the trials was analyzed using content analysis. Setting Acute care geriatric units. Participants Acutely ill or injured adults (N = 6,839) with an average age of 81. Interventions Acute geriatric unit care was characterized by the implementation of one or more ACE components: medical review, early rehabilitation, early discharge planning, prepared environment, patient-centered care. Measurements Falls, pressure ulcers, delirium, functional decline, length of hospital stay, discharge destination (home or nursing home), and costs. Results Medical review, early rehabilitation, and patient-centered care, characterized by the implementation of standardized and individualized function-focused interventions, had larger standardized mean ESs (all ES = 0.20) averaged across all outcomes, than did early discharge planning ( ES = 0.17) or prepared environment ( ES = 0.11). Conclusion Specific ACE component interventions of medical review, early rehabilitation, and patient-centered care appear to be optimal for overall positive outcomes. These findings can help service providers design and evaluate the most-effective ACE model within the contexts of their respective institutions to improve outcomes for acutely ill or injured older adults.
Hip fracture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people, and its impact on society is substantial. After surgery, people require rehabilitation to help them recover. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is where rehabilitation is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, supervised by a geriatrician, rehabilitation physician or other appropriate physician. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in either inpatient or ambulatory care settings, for older people with hip fracture.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (October 2020), and two trials registers (November 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of post-surgical care using multidisciplinary rehabilitation of older people (aged 65 years or over) with hip fracture. The primary outcome - 'poor outcome' - was a composite of mortality and decline in residential status at long-term (generally one year) follow-up. The other 'critical' outcomes were health-related quality of life, mortality, dependency in activities of daily living, mobility, and related pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Pairs of review authors independently performed study selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS:
The 28 included trials involved 5351 older (mean ages ranged from 76.5 to 87 years), usually female, participants who had undergone hip fracture surgery. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity in the trial interventions and populations. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items, such as blinding-related performance and detection biases. We summarise the findings for three comparisons below. Inpatient rehabilitation: multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was provided primarily in an inpatient setting in 20 trials. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation probably results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status, generally requiring institutional care) at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.98; 13 studies, 3036 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 347 people with hip fracture with poor outcome in 1000 people followed up between 6 and 12 months, this equates to 41 (95% CI 7 to 69) fewer people with poor outcome after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), 25 patients (95% CI 15 to 100) would need to be treated to avoid one 'poor outcome'. Subgroup analysis by type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention showed no evidence of subgroup differences. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital but the confidence interval does not exclude a small increase in the number of deaths (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.04; 11 studies, 2455 participants; low-certainty evidence). A similar finding applies at 4 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 18 studies, 3973 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer people with poorer mobility at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 5 studies, 1085 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have little confidence in the findings for marginally better quality of life after multidisciplinary rehabilitation (1 study). The same applies to the mixed findings of some or no difference from multidisciplinary rehabilitation on dependence in activities of daily living at 1 to 4 months' follow-up (measured in various ways by 11 studies), or at 6 to 12 months' follow-up (13 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. Ambulatory setting: supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation versus 'usual care' Three trials tested this comparison in 377 people mainly living at home. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of little to no between-group difference in poor outcome (death or move to a higher level of care or inability to walk) at one year (3 studies); quality of life at one year (1 study); in mortality at 4 or 12 months (2 studies); in independence in personal activities of daily living (1 study); in moving permanently to a higher level of care (2 studies) or being unable to walk (2 studies). Long-term hip-related pain was not reported. One trial tested this comparison in 240 nursing home residents. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no or minimal between-group differences at 12 months in 'poor outcome' defined as dead or unable to walk; or in mortality at 4 months or 12 months. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we have very little confidence in the findings of no between-group differences in dependency at 4 weeks or at 12 months, or in quality of life, inability to walk or pain at 12 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
In a hospital inpatient setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery, when delivered by a multidisciplinary team and supervised by an appropriate medical specialist, results in fewer cases of 'poor outcome' (death or deterioration in residential status). There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may result in fewer deaths in hospital and at 4 to 12 months; however, it may also result in slightly more. There is low-certainty evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation may reduce the numbers of people with poorer mobility at 12 months. No conclusions can be drawn on other outcomes, for which the evidence is of very low certainty. The generally very low-certainty evidence available for supported discharge and multidisciplinary home rehabilitation means that we are very uncertain whether the findings of little or no difference for all outcomes between the intervention and usual care is true. Given the prevalent clinical emphasis on early discharge, we suggest that research is best orientated towards early supported discharge and identifying the components of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation to optimise patient recovery within hospital and the components of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including social care, subsequent to hospital discharge.
