To assess the impact of a specifically designed model of orthopedic-geriatric cocare on hip fracture (HF) outcomes.

Tertiary teaching hospital (level I trauma center).

Prospective observational study with a retrospective (historical) control. Data on 951 consecutive patients 60 years of age or older admitted to the authors' institution with a nonpathologic HF over a 7-year period (1995 to 2002) were analyzed. Between 1995 and 1997, medical problems were managed by a geriatric medicine (GM) consultation-only service (retrospective audit). In 1998, a GM registrar began overseeing daily medical care with weekly geriatrician consultant review (prospective study). Outcomes for 2 time periods were compared: a 3-year period before (no GM; 504 patients) and a 4-year period after (GM; 447 patients) the introduction of GM cocare.

Postoperative medical complications, mortality, length of stay, discharge destination, use of thromboprophylaxis, and antiosteoporotic treatment.

While comparing 2 periods (GM and no GM), significant reductions in postoperative medical complications and comorbid conditions (in total 49.5% vs. 71.0%, P< 0.001) and mortality (4.7% vs. 7.7%, P< 0.01) occurred and rehospitalization to medical wards within 6 months decreased (28% vs. 7.6%). However, no differences were observed in median length of hospital stay (10.8 vs. 11.0 days) or in discharge destination. Antiosteoporotic treatment (12% to 69%) and specific thromboprophylaxis (63% to 94%) increased in the GM period.

Orthopedic-geriatric cocare for the older patients with HF was associated with significant reductions in morbidity and mortality, and increases in optimal postoperative care. Options for further improvement of orthopedic-GM cocare need to be investigated.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
90% Article relates to my practice (10/11)
9% Article does not relate to my practice (1/11)
0% Undecided (0/11)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

90% Yes (10/11)
9% No (1/11)
0% Undecided (0/11)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

9% Yes (1/11)
90% No (10/11)
0% Undecided (0/11)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/11)
18% Level 2 (2/11)
72% Level 3 (8/11)
9% Level 4 (1/11)
0% Level 5 (0/11)