Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Orthogeriatric Approach: Progress Worldwide

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Orthogeriatrics

Part of the book series: Practical Issues in Geriatrics ((PIG))

Abstract

The role of geriatricians in the rehabilitation phase after surgical treatment of fragility fractures, particularly hip fractures, has been accepted for many years, although it has not been widespread in the world because there are many countries where the discipline of geriatric medicine is not yet strongly established. However, it is only in the last 10 years that their role in the acute, perioperative phase has begun to be established. This began in the United Kingdom and has spread, particularly in Europe and Australasia, though there have also been a few important centres of development in the USA, Israel and Singapore. There is an exponentially increasing published evidence base suggesting that orthogeriatric co-management can be both better quality and more cost-effective. It is therefore desirable that this format of service delivery, or a variation of it, should become established in the emerging economies, where the expected rise in fragility fracture incidence will be most severe. Two organisations are actively pursuing that goal: the Fragility Fracture Network and AOTrauma.

The UK experience was that continuous, patient-level audit of hip fracture management, with nearly real-time feedback to participants, was a powerful driver of orthogeriatric co-management. That model is being closely followed in Ireland, Australasia and the German-speaking European countries. The Fragility Fracture Network is offering it globally and a pilot in Europe was successful. However, that mechanism has to follow a process of consensus on guidelines and standards that is led by orthopaedics and geriatrics (or its equivalent) but also includes anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, rehabilitationists and osteoporosis specialists. The audit, or an equivalent performance indicator, then measures compliance with those standards and that is one proven driver of positive change. However, the consensus process is the essential first step and is powerful in raising fragility fracture care up the policy agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Irvine RE, Devas MB (1967) The geriatric orthopaedic unit. J Bone Joint Surg 49B:186–187

    Google Scholar 

  2. Devas M (1976) Geriatric orthopaedics. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 58(1):16–21

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Irvine RE (1982) A geriatric orthopaedic unit. In: Coakley D (ed) Establishing a geriatric service. Croom Helm, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sainsbury R (1991) Hip fracture. Rev Clin Gerontol 1(1):67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Parker MJ, Todd CJ, Palmer CR et al (1998) Inter-hospital variations in length of hospital stay following hip fracture. Age Ageing 27(3):333–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cameron I, Crotty M, Currie C et al (2000) Geriatric rehabilitation following fractures in older people: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 4(2):i–iv

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Wright RJ, Resnick NM (2001) Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 49(5):516–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Congresso Nazionale AITOG (2016) La fragilità scheletrica nell’anziano: approccio multidisciplinare [Online]. Available: http://www.igea.it/sites/default/files/news_events_press/files_allegati/congressoaitogprogrammamilano20-21maggio2016-igea.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2016

  9. Pioli G, Giusti A, Barone A (2008) Orthogeriatric care for the elderly with hip fractures: where are we? Aging Clin Exp Res 20:113–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Giusti A, Barone A, Razzano M, Pizzonia M, Pioli G (2011) Optimal setting and care organization in the management of older adults with hip fracture. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 47:281–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pioli G, GIOG et al (2014) The management of hip fracture in the older population. Joint position statement by Gruppo Italiano Ortogeriatria (GIOG). Aging Clin Exp Res 26(5):547–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pioli G, Pellicciotti F, Davoli ML, Pignedoli P, Sabetta E, Ferrari A (2010) Hip fracture management and outcomes in Italy. Eur Geriatr Med 1:104–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fornia S, Pierallib F, Alessandro Sergia A et al (2016) Mortality after hip fracture in the elderly: the role of a multidisciplinary approach and time to surgery in a retrospective observational study on 23,973 patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 66:13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Álvarez-Nebreda ML, Vidán MT, Serra JA (2010) Hip fracture management and outcomes in Spain. Eur Geriatr Med 1:108–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vidán M, Serra JA, Moreno C, Riquelme G, Ortiz J (2005) Efficacy of a comprehensive geriatric intervention in older patients hospitalized for hip fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:1476–1482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. González-Montalvo JI, Teresa Alarcón T, Mauleón JL, Gil-Garay E, Gotor P, Martín-Vega A (2010) The orthogeriatric unit for acute patients: a new model of care that improves efficiency in the management of patients with hip fracture. Hip Int 20(2):229–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kammerlander C, Gosch M, Blauth M, Lechleitner M, Luger TJ, Roth T (2011) The Tyrolean Geriatric Fracture Center. Z Gerontol Geriatr 44:363–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kammerlander C, Roth T, Friedman SM et al (2010) Ortho-geriatric service – a literature review comparing different models. Osteoporos Int 21(Supp 4):S637–S646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Friess T, Hartwig E, Liener U, Sturm J, Hoffmann R (2016) Alterstraumazentren von der Idee bis zur Umsetzung. Was wurde erreicht? Unfallchirurg 119:7–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Watne LO, Torbergsen AC, Conroy S et al (2014) The effect of a pre- and postoperative orthogeriatric service on cognitive function in patients with hip fracture: randomized controlled trial (Oslo Orthogeriatric Trial). BMC Med 12:63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Prestmo A, Hagen G, Sletvold O et al (2015) Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 385:1623–1633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Prestmo A, Saltvedt I, Helbostad JL et al (2016) Who benefits from orthogeriatric treatment? Results from the Trondheim hip-fracture trial. BMC Geriatr 16:49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lundstrom M, Olofsson B, Stenvall M et al (2007) Postoperative delirium in old patients with femoral neck fracture: a randomized intervention study. Aging Clin Exp Res 19:178–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stenvall M, Berggren M, Lundström M, Gustafson Y (2012) A multidisciplinary intervention program improved the outcome after hip fracture for people with dementia: subgroup analyses of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 54:e284–e289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stenvall M, Olofsson B, Nyberg L, Lundström M, Gustafson Y (2007) Improved performance in activities of daily living and mobility after a multidisciplinary postoperative rehabilitation in older people with femoral neck fracture: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. J Rehabil Med 39:232–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pedersen SJ, Borgbjerg FM, Schousboe B et al (2008) A comprehensive hip fracture program reduces complication rates and mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc 56(10):1831–1838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stenqvist C, Madsen CM, Riis T, Jørgensen HL, Duus BR, Lauritzen JB, van der Mark S (2016) Orthogeriatric service reduces mortality in patients with hip fracture. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 7(2):67–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ihmisen terveyden tähden (2014) The Seinäjoki orthogeriatrics symposium 30.10.2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.epshp.fi/files/6765/Symposium_programme_30.10.2014.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2016

  29. Mahamdia R et al (2015) [Towards the development of the orthogeriatric care model]. Article in French. Soins Gerontol 114:22–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Deschodt M, Braes T, Broos P et al (2011) Effect of an inpatient geriatric consultation team on functional outcome, mortality, institutionalization, and readmission rate in older adults with hip fracture: a controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 59(7):1299–1308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Deschodt M, Braes T, Flamaing J et al (2012) Preventing delirium in older adults with recent hip fracture through multidisciplinary geriatric consultation. J Am Geriatr Soc 60(4):733–799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van den Berg P et al (2015) Meeting international standards of secondary fracture prevention: a survey on Fracture Liaison Services in the Netherlands. Osteoporos Int 26:2257–2263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. den Hartog YM, Mathijssen NMC, Vehmeijer SBW (2013) Reduced length of hospital stay after the introduction of a rapid recovery protocol for primary THA procedures. Acta Orthop 84(5):444–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. F. F. Network (2015) 4th FFN Global Congress – workshop 3–1 [Online]. Available: http://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/cug/resources-und-webinars/4th-ffn-global-congress-2015/. Accessed 18 June 2016

  35. Cogan L, Martin AJ, Kelly LA, Duggan J, Hynes D, Power D (2010) An audit of hip fracture services in the Mater Hospital Dublin 2001 compared with 2006. Ir J Med Sci 179:51–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. The National Office of Clinical Audit (NOCA). Irish Hip Fracture Database [Online]. Available: https://www.noca.ie/irish-hip-fracture-database. Accessed 16 June 2016

  37. Irish Hip Fracture Database. Irish Hip Fracture Database. National report 2014 [Online]. Available: https://www.noca.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IHFD-National-Report-2014-Online-Version.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2016

  38. Henderson CY, Shanahan E, Butler A, Lenehan B, O’Connor M, Lyons D, Ryan JP (2016) Dedicated orthogeriatric service reduces hip fracture mortality. Ir J Med Sci. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 27059996

    Google Scholar 

  39. Irish Medical Journal. Dedicated orthogeriatric service saves the HSE a million euro [Online]. Available: http://imj.ie/1964-2/. Accessed 16 June 2016

  40. Suhm N, Kaelin R, Studer P et al (2014) Orthogeriatric care pathway: a prospective survey of impact on length of stay, mortality and institutionalisation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:1261–1269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Friedman SM, Mendelson DA, Kates SL, McCann RM (2008) Geriatric co-management of proximal femur fractures: total quality management and protocol-driven care result in better outcomes for a frail patient population. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:1349–1356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Friedman SM, Mendelson DA (eds) (2014) Fragility fractures. Clin Geriatr Med 30(2):175–394

    Google Scholar 

  43. International Geriatric Fracture Society. Homepage [Online]. Available: http://www.geriatricfracture.org/. Accessed 20 June 2016

  44. Grigoryan KV, Javedan H, Rudolph JL (2014) Orthogeriatric care models and outcomes in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 28(3):e49–e55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Swart E, Vasudeva E, Makhni EC, Macaulay W, Bozic KJ (2016) Dedicated perioperative hip fracture comanagement programs are cost-effective in high-volume centers: an economic analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(1):222–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. McGilton KS et al (2013) Evaluation of patient-centered rehabilitation model targeting older persons with a hip fracture, including those with cognitive impairment. BMC Geriatr 13:136

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. The canadian collaborative study of hip fractures. Evaluating the 48-hour benchmark for surgery [Online]. Available: http://c2e2.ca/research/health-services-and-outcomes-research-program/evaluating-48-hour-benchmark-surgery-canadian. Accessed 20 June 2016

  48. Sheehan KJ, Sobolev B, Guy P et al (2016) Constructing an episode of care from acute hospitalization records for studying effects of timing of hip fracture surgery. J Orthop Res 34(2):197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Garcez-Leme LE, Leme MD, Espino DV (2005) Geriatrics in Brazil: a big country with big opportunities. J Am Geriatr Soc 53(11):2018–2022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wagner P et al (2012) Comparison of complications and length of hospital stay between orthopedic and orthogeriatric treatment in elderly patients with a hip fracture. Geriatr Orthop Surg 3(2):55–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Suarez S et al (2016) Impact on hip fracture mortality after the establishment of an orthogeriatric care program in a Colombian hospital. J Aging Health. epub before print. doi:10.1177/0898264316636839

  52. Wang H et al (2015) The influence of inpatient comprehensive geriatric care on elderly patients with hip fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(11):19815–19830

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Tian M, Gong X, Rath S et al (2016) Management of hip fractures in older people in Beijing: a retrospective audit and comparison with evidence-based guidelines and practice in the UK. Osteoporos Int 27(2):677–681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen YT et al (2011) Orthogeriatrics in Taiwan: overview and experiences. J Clin Gerontol Geriatr 2:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. F. Japan (2016) FFNJ (Fragility Fracture Network Japan) [Online]. Available: http://ffn-japanmeeting2012.kenkyuukai.jp/special/index.asp?id=8238. Accessed 20 June 2016

  56. Shigemoto K et al (2015) Effect of ortho-geriatric co-management on hip fractures [Online]. Available: http://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/files/207_1100_shigemoto_vwe_sat_37.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2016

  57. Mak J, Wong E, Cameron I (2011) Australian and New Zealand society for geriatric medicine. Position statement – orthogeriatric care. Australas J Ageing 30(3):162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. NICE (2014) Hip fracture: management. [CG124] [Online]. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg124. Accessed 20 June 2016

  59. Close JC (2013) Hip fracture in Australia: missed opportunities and a chance to improve care. Intern Med J 43(12):1262–1264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Chong C et al (2008) Description of an orthopedic–geriatric model of care in Australia with 3 years data. Geriatr Gerontol Int 8:86–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. ANZHFR. Australian & New Zealand hip fracture registry. Homepage [Online]. Available: http://www.hipfracture.org.au/. Accessed 20 June 2016

  62. Lynch G, Tower M, Venturato L (2015) Identifying outcomes associated with co-managed care models for patients who have sustained a hip fracture: an integrative literature review. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs 19:140–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Leung AHC et al (2011) An orthogeriatric collaborative intervention program for fragility fractures: a retrospective cohort study. J Trauma 71:1390–1394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Doshi HK et al (2014) Orthogeriatric model for hip fracture patients in Singapore: our early experience and initial outcomes. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:351–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Adunsky A et al (2005) Five-year experience with the ‘Sheba’ model of comprehensive orthogeriatric care for elderly hip fracture patients. Disabil Rehabil 27:1123–1127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ginsberg G, Adunsky A, Rasooly I (2013) A cost-utility analysis of a comprehensive orthogeriatric care for hip fracture patients, compared with standard of care treatment. Hip Int 23(6):570–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gilchrist WJ, Newman RJ, Hamblen DL, Williams BO (1988) Prospective randomised study of an orthopaedic geriatric inpatient service. BMJ 297:1116–1118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Johansen A (1996) Collaborative hip-fracture rehabilitation: defining current strategies in Wales. Age Ageing 25(S2):12

    Google Scholar 

  69. Heyburn G, Beringer T, Elliott J, Marsh D (2004) Orthogeriatric care in patients with fractures of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop 425:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. British Orthopaedic Association (2007) The care of patients with fragility fracture [Online]. Available: http://www.fractures.com/pdf/BOA-BGS-Blue-Book.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2016

  71. National Clinical Guideline Centre (2011) The management of hip fracture in adults [Online]. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG124. Accessed 12 June 2016

  72. NICE quality standard [QS 16] (2012) Hip fracture in adults [Online]. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs16. Accessed 12 June 2016

  73. RIKSHÖFT. About Rikshöft [Online]. Available: http://rikshoft.se/about-rikshoft/. Accessed 12 June 2016

  74. RCP – Falls and Fragility Fractures Audit Program (2016) National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) annual report 2015 [Online]. Available: http://www.nhfd.co.uk/nhfd/nhfd2015reportPR1.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2016

  75. Boulton C, Wakeman R (2016) Lessons from the national hip fracture database. Orthop Trauma 30(2):123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Neuburger J, Currie C, Wakeman R et al (2015) The impact of a national clinician-led audit initiative on care and mortality after hip fracture in England: an external evaluation using time trends in non-audit data. Med Care 53:686–691

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. International Society for Fracture Repair. Osteoporotic fracture campaign [Online]. Available: http://www.fractures.com/about_ofc.html. Accessed 13 June 2016

  78. Fragility Fracture Network (2014) FFN Hip Fracture Audit Database (HFAD) [Online]. Available: http://web1.crownaudit.org/FFN/info.nsf/vwcontent/MCDv1.6. Accessed 13 June 2016

  79. Fragility Fracture Network (2015) REPORT of the pilot phase [Online]. Available: http://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/files/ffn-hfad_pilot_phase_2nd_report.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2016

  80. DePuy Synthes (2016) Synthes geriatric fracture program [Online]. Available: http://www.synthes.com/sites/NA/MedicalCommunity/geriatric-fracture-program/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 13 June 2016

  81. AOTrauma (2016) Courses: orthogeriatrics [Online]. Available: https://aotrauma.aofoundation.org/Structure/education/educational-programs/orthogeriatrics/Pages/courses.aspx. Accessed 13 June 2016

  82. Liem IS, Kammerlander C, Suhm N et al (2013) Identifying a standard set of outcome parameters for the evaluation of orthogeriatric co-management for hip fractures. Injury 44:1403–1412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Roth T, Beck S, Cunningham M, Gosch M (2016) Development and initial evaluation of a point-of-care educational app on medical topics in orthogeriatrics. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(1):65–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, London, UK

    David R. Marsh

Authors
  1. David R. Marsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David R. Marsh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Paolo Falaschi

  2. University College London , London, United Kingdom

    David R. Marsh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Marsh, D.R. (2017). The Orthogeriatric Approach: Progress Worldwide. In: Falaschi, P., Marsh, D. (eds) Orthogeriatrics. Practical Issues in Geriatrics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43249-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43249-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43248-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43249-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation