Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

Geriatric fracture is a pressing global health issue, marked by elevated mortality and morbidity rates and escalating health care costs. The evolving health care system from fee-for-service to quality-based reimbursement has led to externally driven reward and reimbursement systems that may not account for the complexity of caring for older adults with fracture.

Significance

The aim of this review is to highlight the need for a shift towards meaningful metrics that impact geriatric fracture care and to issue a call to action for all medical societies to advocate for national reimbursement and ranking systems that focus on metrics that truly matter.

Results

Traditional metrics, while easier to capture, may not necessarily represent high quality care and may even have unintentional adverse consequences. For example, the focus on reducing length of stay may lead to older patients being discharged too early, without adequately addressing pain, constipation, or delirium. In addition, a focus on mortality may miss the opportunity to deliver compassionate end-of-life care. Existing geriatric fracture care metrics have expanded beyond traditional metrics to include assessment by geriatricians, fracture prevention, and delirium assessments. However, there is a need to further consider and develop patient-focused metrics. The Age-Friendly Health Initiative (4 Ms), which includes Mobility, Medication, Mentation, and what Matters is an evidence-based framework for assessing and acting on critical issues in the care of older adults. Additional metrics that should be considered include an assessment of nutrition and secondary fracture prevention.

Conclusion

In the realm of geriatric fracture care, the metrics currently employed often revolve around adherence to established guidelines and are heavily influenced by financial considerations. It is crucial to shift the paradigm towards metrics that truly matter for geriatric fracture patients, recognizing the multifaceted nature of their care and the profound impact these fractures have on their lives.

Keywords

geriatric fracture quality-based reimbursement patient-centered care metrics hospital metrics

Background

Geriatric fracture is a pressing global health issue, marked by elevated mortality and morbidity rates and escalating health care costs. Fractures in older adults significantly compromise patients’ health-related quality of life (QOL) and activities of daily living (ADL). For example, hip fractures alone are projected to affect 4.5 million individuals worldwide by 2050 with 18-36% patients dying within 1 year, and an additional 8-13% succumbing within the initial month. ^1-9 Additionally, less than half of patients with hip fracture are able to regain their pre-fracture level of ADLs.^10-12 With reported per-patient costs for hip fractures averaging $50,508, contributing to an annual expense of $5.96 billion for the U.S. health care system, the financial burden is substantial.¹³

The evolving health care system from fee-for-service to quality-based reimbursement has led to externally driven reward and reimbursement systems that pressure hospitals to meet certain goals related to patient care.¹⁴ These external pressures are employed in ranking systems and marketing strategies to influence consumer-based decision making by patients and communities. While metrics used in practice also encompass evidence-based practices such as optimal surgical timing, timely assessments by geriatricians, delirium assessment, and the use of evidence-supported treatments (e.g., Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis or implant selection etc.), the majority of metrics historically focus on process and financial aspects.^15-18 National programs often favor these metrics due to their accessibility within electronic medical records and their perceived correlation with efficient resource allocation and superior patient care outcomes.

However, these metrics may not account for the complexity of caring for older adults with fracture that requires management beyond prompt surgical repair, including preexisting multimorbidity, baseline functional and cognitive impairment, polypharmacy, the need to include caregivers, and treatment goal preferences. Therefore, to enhance the care provided to geriatric fracture patients, we need to shift our focus to metrics that truly matter to the patients. (Figure 1)

Figure 1.

Future National Geriatric Fracture Metrics. Current metrics focus on people, processes and money that can be readily pulled from electronic medical records. New metrics should focus on evidence-based patient-centered metrics rather than assumptive metrics selected for ease of access to data.

A striking example of a missed opportunity in aligning patient-centered, evidence-based metrics can be observed in the scoring system for hip fractures by US News and World Report.¹⁹ The emphasis by this report is placed on the presence of board-certified physicians, patient experience, survival rates, and readmission rates.¹⁹ This system overlooks critical factors that matter to older patients, such as mobility (e.g., fall risk or secondary prevention), mentation (e.g., delirium), medication optimization, what matters most, and co-management.²⁰ Even more baffling is the system include measures such as the percentage of health care personnel who received a timely vaccination during flu season.²¹ Additionally, the method used by US News and World Report to account for the complexity of patient co-morbidities through patient volume is inadequate. One of the metrics US News and World Report measure is volume (number of operations or patients).²¹ This approach may suffice for specialized orthopedic hospitals but does not translate well to geriatric patients, who often require care at quaternary trauma hospitals—a factor not considered in the rankings. This oversight may lead to an underestimation of the quality of care provided to patients with significant co-morbidities and complexities.

The aim of this review is to highlight the need for a shift towards meaningful metrics that genuinely impact geriatric fracture care and to issue a call to action for all medical societies to advocate for the adoption of relevant metrics by national reimbursement and ranking systems that focus on metrics that truly matter. Our primary focus is on the geriatric fracture patient population. However, in the subsequent discussion, we will predominantly utilize evidence and statistics concerning patients with hip fracture. This choice is made because hip fractures are the most thoroughly assessed in terms of metrics. Hip fracture encompasses ICD-10 codes S720 (fracture of head and neck of femur), S721 (pertrochanteric fracture), or S722 (subtrochanteric fracture of femur).²²

Commonly Used Metrics

Length of Stay

Length of Stay (LOS) is a widely recognized metric in health care assessment. Traditionally, a shorter LOS is seen as a positive indicator, as it implies efficient resource utilization and reduced health care costs. Hospitals have often strived to streamline processes to achieve early discharges, with the assumption that this approach benefits patient care. Nonetheless, recent studies have raised concerns about the impact of early discharge on patient outcomes, particularly when considering specific patient populations such as geriatric fracture patients.

Several previous research have drawn attention to the likelihood of complications arising shortly after patients leave the hospital as complications commonly arise after discharge for both hip and distal femur fracture patients.^23-35 Further, an elevated one-year mortality rate was observed among older adults discharged within 10 days of their hospital admission for hip fracture surgery.²⁶

Although a shorter LOS is financially advantageous for hospitals, these findings highlight the need to look beyond just LOS and incorporate a patient-centered metric that includes quality of post-discharge care. Enhancing our ability to identify and address potential issues both before and after discharge can lead to better patient outcomes while minimizing unnecessary hospitalization. Integrating LOS indices with metrics that include patient-centered high quality discharge planning is vital to find a balance between timely discharges and the prevention of post-discharge complications.

Mortality

It is important to question whether mortality rate is the relevant measure for the extremely frail individuals. ^4,9,27-32 Even the highest-risk subgroups of patients often opt for surgery in the hopes of achieving better pain control. By solely concentrating on mortality, we may miss the opportunity to deliver compassionate end-of-life care. Indeed, an often-overlooked aspect of geriatric fracture care metrics is the consideration of palliative care and hospice patients. In these situations, metrics that evaluate the quality of palliative care, pain management, and emotional support become paramount, yet current national standards and metrics miss this opportunity.

Patient-Centered Metrics

In the realm of geriatric fracture care, the goal is to deliver care that aligns with patients’ preferences, is tolerable, purposeful, and effective. Existing hip fracture metrics, such as those outlined in the IGFS guideline and the best practice tariff (BPT), emphasize timely assessments by geriatricians, surgery within 36 hours, fracture prevention, nutrition, and delirium assessment.^23,33,34 The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guideline also includes considerations like surgical timing, DVT prophylaxis, transfusion, tranexamic acid (TXA), and surgical implants.¹⁶ While these established guidelines provide a foundation for best practices, it is essential to consider other geriatric focused metrics. Delving deeper into the metrics that directly matter to patients reveals critical aspects that may be easily overlooked in our current metrics for accreditation and award-seeking programs such as US News & World report or bundled payment goals.

4Ms (Mobility, Medication, Mentation, and what Matters)

The collaboration between the Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Health care Improvement (IHI) resulted in the Age-Friendly Health Initiative and the 4M framework, an evidence-based framework for assessing and acting on critical issues in the care of older adults across settings and transitions of care.^35-41 This 4M framework underscores the significance of comprehending and tackling what holds genuine significance for patients: Mobility, Medication, Mentation, and What Matters. Crafted by experts in aging and geriatrics alongside health system leaders, the 4 Ms offer a holistic approach to care and establish goals to ensure older adults receive optimal care, avoid harm, and are satisfied with their health care experiences.^35-41 By incorporating these broader, patient-centered metrics, health care providers may potentially better gauge the quality of care and improve the well-being of geriatric fracture patients.

Mobility

Mobility is closely linked to the recovery of functionality and independence, and plays a central role in the overall well-being of geriatric fracture patients. However, very few national systems use mobility as a critical metric in evaluating patient safety and quality for geriatric fracture care. Metrics related to mobility should include assessments of how quickly patients regain mobility post-surgery and the level of mobility achieved. Commonly utilized assessment tools include the Barthel Index (BI), Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS), Timed “Up & Go” Test (TUG), and Functional Independence Measure (FIM).⁴² Additionally, the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) “6-Clicks” Inpatient Short Forms offer multifaceted metrics by utilizing six questions to evaluate the functional outcomes of patients in post-acute care settings.⁴³ These metrics could offer a comprehensive measurement of physical function specifically in the acute hospital setting for patients with geriatric fractures.

Medication Management

Diligent medication monitoring plays a fundamental role in promoting patient well-being and minimizing the risks associated with medication use. Medication reconciliation is crucial for patient safety, especially during care transitions, as evidenced by various studies. Ernst et al and Miller et al both identified discrepancies in medication records, highlighting the need for thorough reconciliation processes.^44,45 In acute inpatient settings, discrepancies between ambulatory and inpatient care are common, with challenges including incomplete documentation and time constraints. However, standardized reconciliation processes have been shown to reduce discrepancies and save time, ultimately enhancing patient safety.^46,47 Overall, comprehensive medication reconciliation processes are vital for promoting patient safety and reducing errors across health care settings.^46-49

Age-related changes can increase the risk of medication side effects. Central to monitoring is the avoidance of high risk medications, for example, as listed on the Beers Criteria, which highlights potentially inappropriate medications, especially for older adults.⁵⁰ Avoiding medications listed on the Beers Criteria and limiting narcotics and benzodiazepines further enhances patient safety and contributes to high-quality, patient-centered care.^50,51 Despite widespread acceptance of this concept, there are currently no established national metrics targeting goals or health system metrics that specifically address polypharmacy, reductions in medications that induce delirium or falls, or evaluate adherence to these guidelines.

Managing pain is frequently a crucial element of patient care objectives and is closely monitored in patient care. Pain not only affects a patient’s immediate comfort but also plays a significant role in their ability to engage in rehabilitation and regain functional independence.⁵² Utilizing a multimodal approach, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions tailored to individual needs, the goal is to achieve optimal pain management while minimizing risks associated with high opioid use in older adults.⁵³ Current national metric systems examine opioid use, yet miss the mark on fully understanding if we are adequately addressing pain for geriatric fracture patients.

Mentation

Assessing patients’ mental state encompasses several critical dimensions, including identifying high-risk patients for delirium, early detection and prevention of delirium, as well as screening for cognitive impairment and depression. Multidisciplinary collaboration among surgeons, geriatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, pharmacists, and other specialists is key to developing comprehensive perioperative management plans. Delirium, characterized by sudden alterations in attention and cognition, is common among elderly surgical patients, especially those with pre-existing cognitive impairment. The prevalence of delirium in hip fracture patients has been documented as ranging from 28% to 60%.⁵⁴ Early identification using validated screening tools like the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is crucial for timely intervention.^55,56 Preventive measures, including orientation techniques, minimizing sedation, and promoting early mobilization, can help mitigate the risk of delirium.⁵⁷ Patients with dementia face an elevated risk of postoperative delirium, extended hospital stays, worse functional outcomes, difficulties in engaging therapies, and poor adherence to restrictions, when compared to those without dementia, necessitating heightened vigilance and tailored care strategies.^55-62

Similarly, depression can exacerbate postoperative recovery. The overall prevalence of depression among older adults with hip fracture is about 20%.⁶³ Screening for depression using standardized tools such as the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is crucial, as untreated depression can negatively impact surgical outcomes and overall quality of life.⁶⁴

Although we recognize the importance of these measures, national guidelines currently lack metrics to capture adherence to these protocols.

What Matters

When we treat patients with geriatric fractures, discussion should include risks and benefits of surgical and non-surgical treatment. Then, to ensure optimal decision-making regarding surgery, it is crucial to inquire about the individual’s treatment goals and preferences, with a focus on factors such as efficacy, quality of life, and functional outcomes.⁶⁵

In real-life scenarios, there is a risk of either sustaining life when not consistent with goal concordant care or denying available treatments. Emergency settings pose additional challenges, as time constraints often lead to aggressive treatments being administered without considering the individual’s preferences.

Addressing goals of care and advance care planning can also help ensuring that care aligns with patients’ wishes. Studies suggest that advance care planning is an essential part of achieving goal concordant care. Additionally, it helps reduce anxiety, stress, and depression among patients, family, and caregivers.^66-69 However, current national metrics related to geriatric fracture care do not assess whether patients have undergone advance care planning, if their wishes are documented in medical records for implementation, or if treatment goals are being met. Future metrics that integrate advance care planning and providing goal concordant care, could transform our approach and improve quality of care.

Additional Meaningful Metrics

In addition to metrics described above, several other factors are crucial to consider for optimizing care and outcomes for geriatric fracture patients. Metrics including nutrition and secondary fracture prevention are essential for delivering holistic care that addresses the unique needs of geriatric fracture patients.

Nutrition

Malnutrition prevalence is high in geriatric patients, yet measuring it accurately remains a challenge. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) serves as a valuable instrument for identifying malnourished patients and those susceptible to malnutrition.⁷⁰ It comprises a screening segment and an assessment segment. The screening section includes inquiries regarding food consumption, body mass index (BMI), weight changes, stress, mobility, and neuropsychological issues. The assessment segment entails detailed questions about dietary habits, self-perceived nutritional and health status, as well as measurements of mid-arm and calf circumference. ⁷⁰ According to existing evidence, the effectiveness of nutritional therapy as a standalone treatment for hip fracture patients is still unclear.⁷¹ A systematic review revealed low-quality evidence regarding the reduction of complications and no discernible impact on mortality.⁷² Though certain randomized controlled trials indicated enhancements in complications, pressure ulcers, wound-healing period, hospital stay duration, readmission rates, muscle strength, muscle mass, and nutritional status, others failed to identify significant differences in nutritional status or mortality.^73-75

While it may not be the sole determinant, ensuring adequate nutrition and addressing malnutrition should be part of comprehensive care for these patients. Considering the possible impact of nutrition on patient outcomes, it is reasonable to consider incorporating nutritional assessment and intervention including dietitian consultation as one of the factors in assessing the quality of care provided by health care providers caring for geriatric fracture patients.

Secondary Fracture Prevention

Patients who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at increased risk of subsequent fractures, with up to 30% of patients suffering a second fracture within five years.⁷⁶ The risk of subsequent fractures increases with each additional fracture, leading to a cycle of fracture and disability. To effectively manage geriatric fracture patients, prioritizing secondary fracture prevention is crucial. This involves adopting a multifaceted approach centered on fall prevention and comprehensive care.

Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) play a pivotal role in this regard, as they are structured care systems designed to identify patients with fragility fractures and ensure they receive appropriate evaluation and management.⁷⁷ However, despite the existence of such services, adherence to recommended lifestyle changes among geriatric fracture patients remains low.^78,79 Lifestyle adjustments such as maintaining adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, engaging in regular weight-bearing exercises, quitting smoking, and limiting alcohol consumption are advised but often not followed.⁷⁹

Furthermore, osteoporosis screening and treatment are integral components of secondary fracture prevention. Anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) come in various forms and are essential for managing osteoporosis effectively.^80-83 Fall prevention strategies, including physical therapy, home modifications, and medication review, are equally vital. Physical therapy can enhance balance and gait, thereby reducing the risk of falls, while home modifications mitigate hazards in the living environment.⁸⁴

However, the efficacy of these interventions varies across studies, with some reporting positive outcomes while others find no statistically significant effect.^85,86 One challenge lies in monitoring the effectiveness of these interventions, particularly in measuring the occurrence of actual falls among geriatric fracture patients. Falls are prevalent in this demographic, with the majority happening at home.^87,88 Some studies have utilized fall-related 9-1-1 calls to track occurrences, offering valuable insights for prevention strategies.⁸⁹ Detailed recording of fall incidents, including location, time, activity, and patient attributes, can provide further insights for developing effective prevention strategies.⁹⁰

Implementing comprehensive approaches to secondary fracture prevention should serve as a benchmark for assessing the quality of care provided to geriatric fracture patients.

Additional Considerations

The transition from traditional metrics like mortality and LOS to more meaningful metrics (4 Ms, nutrition, fracture prevention etc.) poses challenges, primarily due to the absence of a centralized database to collect such information. While mortality and LOS are readily measurable and easily accessible, the new metrics, though arguably more reflective of quality geriatric care, require more intricate collection mechanisms and higher costs.

Practical solutions for data collection include leveraging electronic medical records (EMR) systems and an interprofessional team.⁹¹ For example, health systems have integrated the 4 Ms into the EMR. Standardized mobility (e.g., AM-PAC 6-clicks) and delirium (e.g., brief confusion assessment method) can be completed and documented in the EMR by physical therapy and nursing, respectively. In addition, disciplines such as social work can contribute to the documentation advance directives in the EMR. Nutrition assessments can be systematically recorded during consultations with dietitians, especially for patients identified with or at risk of malnutrition. Enhancing EMR capabilities to capture these metrics systematically, and leveraging interprofessional teams can avoid the additional cost of developing new databases. Similarly, secondary fracture prevention can be managed by enrolling patients in fracture liaison services, which can be documented and monitored through the EMR.

Given that these metrics directly contribute to improving the quality of geriatric care and can potentially reduce overall health care costs by preventing complications and subsequent fractures, Medicare and Medicaid could consider funding these initiatives. They could offer incentives or provide additional funding to health care providers who implement these metrics effectively. Future directions should include exploring opportunities for health care innovation and technological advancements.

Conclusion

In the realm of geriatric fracture care, the metrics currently employed often revolve around adherence to established guidelines and are heavily influenced by financial considerations. However, this narrow focus often overlooks the comprehensive needs and well-being of older patients. It is crucial to shift the paradigm towards metrics that truly matter for geriatric fracture patients, recognizing the multifaceted nature of their care and the profound impact these fractures have on their lives.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Naoko Onizuka

Carmen Quatman

References

Veronese

Maggi

. Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture. Injury. 2018;49(8):1458-1460. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.015.

Johnell

Kanis

. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(11):897-902. doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1627-0.

Prommik

Kolk

Sarap

, et al. Estonian hip fracture data from 2009 to 2017: high rates of non-operative management and high 1-year mortality. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(2):159-164. doi:10.1080/17453674.2018.1562816.

Jiang

Shen

Tang

Wang

. Preoperative predictors for mortality following hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2012;43(6):676-685. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.017.

Abrahamsen

van Staa

Ariely

Olson

Cooper

. Excess mortality following hip fracture: a systematic epidemiological review. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(10):1633-1650. doi:10.1007/s00198-009-0920-3.

Farahmand

Michaëlsson

Ahlbom

Ljunghall

Baron

Swedish Hip Fracture Study Group . Survival after hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(12):1583-1590. doi:10.1007/s00198-005-2024-z.

Bentler

Liu

Obrizan

, et al. The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(10):1290-1299. doi:10.1093/aje/kwp266.

Panula

Pihlajamäki

Mattila

, et al. Mortality and cause of death in hip fracture patients aged 65 or older: a population-based study. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2011;12:105. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-105.

Guzon-Illescas

Perez Fernandez

Crespí Villarias

, et al. Mortality after osteoporotic hip fracture: incidence, trends, and associated factors. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):203. doi:10.1186/s13018-019-1226-6.

10.

Peeters

Visser

Van de Ree

Gosens

Den Oudsten

De Vries

. Quality of life after hip fracture in the elderly: a systematic literature review. Injury. 2016;47(7):1369-1382. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.04.018.

11.

Gjertsen

Baste

Fevang

Furnes

Engesæter

. Quality of life following hip fractures: results from the Norwegian hip fracture register. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2016;17:265. doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1111-y.

12.

Magaziner

Chiles

Orwig

. Recovery after hip fracture: interventions and their timing to address deficits and desired outcomes--evidence from the Baltimore hip studies. Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser. 2015;83:71-81. doi:10.1159/000382064.

13.

Adeyemi

Delhougne

. Incidence and economic burden of intertrochanteric fracture: a Medicare claims database analysis. JB JS Open Access. 2019;4(1):e0045. doi:10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00045.

14.

Goldman

Kates

. Pay-for-performance in orthopedics: how we got here and where we are going. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10(2):212-217. doi:10.1007/s12178-017-9404-9.

15.

Siddique

Tipton

Leas

, et al. Interventions to reduce hospital length of stay in high-risk populations: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(9):e2125846. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.25846.

16.

Management of hip fractures in older adults evidence-based clinical practice guideline adopted by: the American Academy of orthopaedic surgeons board of directors december 3, 2021. https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/quality-and-practice-resources/hip-fractures-in-the-elderly/hipfxcpg.pdf

17.

Mears

Kates

. A guide to improving the care of patients with fragility fractures, edition 2. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2015;6(2):58-120. doi:10.1177/2151458515572697.

18.

Simunovic

Devereaux

Sprague

, et al. Effect of early surgery after hip fracture on mortality and complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ (Can Med Assoc J). 2010;182(15):1609-1616. doi:10.1503/cmaj.092220.

19.

US News Best Hospitals . Best Hospitals. New York, NY: U.S. News Hospital Rankings and Ratings (usnews.com).

20.

Sinvani

Goldin

Roofeh

, et al. Implementation of hip fracture Co-management program (AGS CoCare: ortho®) in a large health system. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(8):1706-1713. doi:10.1111/jgs.16483.

21.

Methodology U.S . News & World Report 2023-2024 Best Hospitals: Procedures & Conditions Ratings. https://health.usnews.com/media/best-hospitals/BHPC-Methodology-2021-2022

22.

Berry

Zullo

McConeghy

Lee

Daiello

Kiel

. Defining hip fracture with claims data: outpatient and provider claims matter. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(7):2233-2237. doi:10.1007/s00198-017-4008-1.

23.

International Geriatric Fracture Society Guideline 2013. https://www.geriatricfracture.org/

24.

Malik

Quatman

Phieffer

Khan

. Timing of complications following surgery for geriatric hip fractures. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(5):904-911. doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2018.10.020.

25.

Onizuka

Farmer

Wiseman

Alain

Quatman-Yates

Quatman

. Timing of complications following surgery for distal femur fractures in older adults. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2023;14:21514593231195539. doi:10.1177/21514593231195539.

26.

Yoo

Lee

Kim

, et al. Length of hospital stay after hip fracture surgery and 1-year mortality. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(1):145-153. doi:10.1007/s00198-018-4747-7.

27.

Kristoffersen

Dybvik

Steihaug

, et al. Cognitive impairment influences the risk of reoperation after hip fracture surgery: results of 87,573 operations reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(2):146-151. doi:10.1080/17453674.2019.1709712.

28.

Forte

Virnig

Swiontkowski

, et al.

Ninety-day mortality after intertrochanteric hip fracture: does provider volume matter?

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(4):799-806. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01204.

29.

Bai

Zhang

Liang

Wang

Liang

. Association between dementia and mortality in the elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):298. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0988-6.

30.

Smith

Pelpola

Ball

Ong

Myint

. Pre-operative indicators for mortality following hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2014;43(4):464-471. doi:10.1093/ageing/afu065.

31.

Nijmeijer

Folbert

Vermeer

Slaets

Hegeman

. Prediction of early mortality following hip fracture surgery in frail elderly: the Almelo Hip Fracture Score (AHFS). Injury. 2016;47(10):2138-2143. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.07.022.

32.

Ooi

Wong

Toh

Wong

. Hip fractures in nonagenarians--a study on operative and non-operative management. Injury. 2005;36(1):142-147. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2004.05.030.

33.

Oakley

Nightingale

Moran

Moppett

. Does achieving the best practice tariff improve outcomes in hip fracture patients? An observational cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e014190. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014190.

34.

British Orthopaedic Association and the British Geriatric Society . The Care of Patients with Fragility Fracture. London: Blue Book Publication by the British Orthopaedic Association; 2007.

35.

Age-Friendly Health Systems Initiative. https://www.johnahartford.org/grants-strategy/current-strategies/age-friendly/age-friendly-care

36.

Mate

Berman

Laderman

Kabcenell

Fulmer

. Creating Age-Friendly Health Systems - a vision for better care of older adults. Healthc (Amst). 2018;6(1):4-6. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.05.005.

37.

Age-Friendly Health Systems. https://www.ihi.org/initiatives/age-friendly-health-systems

38.

Cacchione

. Age-Friendly health systems: the 4Ms framework. Clin Nurs Res. 2020;29(3):139-140. doi:10.1177/1054773820906667.

39.

Lesser

Zakharkin

Louie

Escobedo

Whyte

Fulmer

. Clinician knowledge and behaviors related to the 4Ms framework of Age-Friendly Health Systems. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(3):789-800. doi:10.1111/jgs.17571.

40.

Emery-Tiburcio

Mack

Zonsius

Carbonell

Newman

. The 4Ms of an age-friendly health system. Am J Nurs. 2021;121(11):44-49. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000799016.07144.0d.

41.

Emery-Tiburcio

Mack

Zonsius

Carbonell

Newman

. The 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System an evidence-based framework to ensure older adults receive the highest quality care. Home Healthc Now. 2022;40(5):252-257. doi:10.1097/NHH.0000000000001113.

42.

Rix

Lawrence

Raper

Calthorpe

Holland

Kimmel

. Measurement of mobility and physical function in patients hospitalized with hip fracture: a systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties. Phys Ther. 2022;103(1):pzac142. doi:10.1093/ptj/pzac142.

43.

Pfoh

Hamilton

Stilphen

Rothberg

. The six-clicks mobility measure: a useful tool for predicting discharge disposition. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(7):1199-1203. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.02.016.

44.

Ernst

Brown

Klepser

Kelly

. Medication discrepancies in an outpatient electronic medical record. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58(21):2072-2075. doi:10.1093/ajhp/58.21.2072.

45.

Miller

Matson

Rogers

. Improving prescription documentation in the ambulatory setting. Fam Pract Res J. 1992;12(4):421-429.

46.

Stover

Somers

. An approach to medication reconciliation. Am J Med Qual. 2006;21(5):307-309. doi:10.1177/1062860606292398.

47.

Pronovost

Weast

Schwarz

, et al. Medication reconciliation: a practical tool to reduce the risk of medication errors. J Crit Care. 2003;18(4):201-205. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2003.10.001.

48.

Hughes

, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.

49.

Redmond

Grimes

McDonnell

Boland

Hughes

Fahey

. Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD010791. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010791.pub2.

50.

By the 2023 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel . American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(7):2052-2081. doi:10.1111/jgs.18372.

51.

Patel

Pevnick

Kennelty

. Pharmacists and medication reconciliation: a review of recent literature. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2019;8:39-45. doi:10.2147/IPRP.S169727.

52.

Zanker

Duque

. Rapid geriatric assessment of hip fracture. Clin Geriatr Med. 2017;33(3):369-382. doi:10.1016/j.cger.2017.03.003.

53.

2019 Surveillance of Hip Fracture: Management (NICE Guideline CG124). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552246/

54.

Inouye

Westendorp

Saczynski

. Delirium in elderly people. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):911-922. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60688-1.

55.

Zhao

Sun

Zhang

Chen

Wang

. Risk factors and prognosis of postoperative delirium in nonagenarians with hip fracture. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):2167. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-27829-4.

56.

Onizuka

Huyke-Hernández

Roby

, et al. A quality improvement project addressing the underreporting of delirium in hip fracture patients. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2022;47:100974. doi:10.1016/j.ijotn.2022.100974.

57.

Hshieh

Yang

Gartaganis

Yue

Inouye

. Hospital elder life program: systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2018;26(10):1015-1033.

58.

Abraham

Neuman

. Preventing delirium after hip fracture surgery. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(8):1015-1017. doi:10.1111/anae.15462.

59.

Fogg

Griffiths

Meredith

Bridges

. Hospital outcomes of older people with cognitive impairment: an integrative review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2018;26. doi:10.1002/gps.4919.

60.

Mosk

Mus

Vroemen

, et al. Dementia and delirium, the outcomes in elderly hip fracture patients. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:421-430. doi:10.2147/CIA.S115945.

61.

Carrarini

Russo

Dono

, et al. Agitation and dementia: prevention and treatment strategies in acute and chronic conditions. Front Neurol. 2021;12:644317. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.644317.

62.

Albanese

Ramazani

Greene

Bruse

. Review of postoperative delirium in geriatric patients after hip fracture treatment. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2022;13:21514593211058947. doi:10.1177/21514593211058947.

63.

Heidari

Naghibi Irvani

Dalvand

, et al. Prevalence of depression in older people with hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2021;40:100813. doi:10.1016/j.ijotn.2020.100813.

64.

Kalem

Kocaoğlu

Duman

Şahin

Yoğun

Ovali

. Prospective associations between fear of falling, anxiety, depression, and pain and functional outcomes following surgery for intertrochanteric hip fracture. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2023;14:21514593231193234. doi:10.1177/21514593231193234.

65.

Sinvani

Mendelson

. Surgical care. In: Geriatric Medicine: A Person Centered Evidence Based Approach. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2024:1337-1372.

66.

Silveira

Kim

Langa

. Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1211-1218. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0907901.

67.

Detering

Hancock

Reade

Silvester

. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c1345. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1345.

68.

Schwartz

Wheeler

Hammes

, et al. Early intervention in planning end-of-life care with ambulatory geriatric patients: results of a pilot trial. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(14):1611-1618. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.14.1611.

69.

Goswami

. Advance care planning and end-of-life communications: practical tips for oncology advanced practitioners. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2021;12(1):89-95. doi:10.6004/jadpro.2021.12.1.7.

70.

Vellas

Guigoz

Garry

, et al. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Nutrition. 1999;15(2):116-122. doi:10.1016/s0899-9007(98)00171-3.

71.

Inoue

Maeda

Nagano

, et al. Undernutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty in fragility hip fracture: advanced strategies for improving clinical outcomes. Nutrients. 2020;12(12):3743. doi:10.3390/nu12123743.

72.

Avenell

Handoll

. Nutritional supplementation for hip fracture aftercare in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;4:CD001880. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001880.

73.

Espaulella

Guyer

Diaz-Escriu

Mellado-Navas

Castells

Pladevall

. Nutritional supplementation of elderly hip fracture patients. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2000;29(5):425-431. doi:10.1093/ageing/29.5.425.

74.

Arkley

Dixon

Wilson

Charlton

Ollivere

Eardley

. Assessment of nutrition and supplementation in patients with hip fractures. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2019;10:2151459319879804. doi:10.1177/2151459319879804.

75.

van Wissen

van Stijn

Doodeman

Houdijk

. Mini nutritional assessment and mortality after hip fracture surgery in the elderly. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(9):964-968. doi:10.1007/s12603-015-0630-9.

76.

Balasubramanian

Zhang

Chen

et al. Risk of subsequent fracture after prior fracture among older women. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(1):79-92. doi:10.1007/s00198-018-4732-1.

77.

Osuna

Ruppe

Tabatabai

. Fracture liaison services: multidisciplinary approaches to secondary fracture prevention. Endocr Pract. 2017;23(2):199-206. doi:10.4158/EP161433.RA.

78.

Christianson

Shen

. Osteoporosis prevention and management: nonpharmacologic and lifestyle options. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;56(4):703-710. doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182a9d15a.

79.

Albrecht

Stalling

Foettinger

Recke

Bammann

. Adherence to lifestyle recommendations for bone health in older adults with and without osteoporosis: cross-sectional results of the OUTDOOR ACTIVE study. Nutrients. 2022;14(12):2463. doi:10.3390/nu14122463.

80.

Lindsay

Watts

Lange

Delmas

Silverman

. Effectiveness of risedronate and alendronate on nonvertebral fractures: an observational study through 2 years of therapy. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(8):2345-2352. doi:10.1007/s00198-013-2332-7.

81.

Kanis

Harvey

Johansson

Odén

Leslie

McCloskey

. FRAX update. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20(3):360-367. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.022.

82.

Reid

Billington

. Drug therapy for osteoporosis in older adults [published correction appears in Lancet. 2022 Sep 3;400(10354):732]. Lancet. 2022;399(10329):1080-1092. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02646-5.

83.

Davis

Simpson

Hamilton

, et al. Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24(29):1-314. doi:10.3310/hta24290.

84.

Karinkanta

Piirtola

Sievänen

Uusi-Rasi

Kannus

. Physical therapy approaches to reduce fall and fracture risk among older adults. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2010;6(7):396-407. doi:10.1038/nrendo.2010.70.

85.

Dautzenberg

Beglinger

Tsokani

, et al. Interventions for preventing falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(10):2973-2984. doi:10.1111/jgs.17375.

86.

Bhasin

Gill

Reuben

, et al. A randomized trial of a multifactorial strategy to prevent serious fall injuries. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(2):129-140. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2002183.

87.

VAT

Nguyen

, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with falls among older outpatients. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2021;18(8):4041. doi:10.3390/ijerph18084041.

88.

Salari

Darvishi

Ahmadipanah

Shohaimi

Mohammadi

. Global prevalence of falls in the older adults: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):334. doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03222-1.

89.

Quatman-Yates

Wisner

Weade

, et al. Assessment of fall-related emergency medical service calls and transports after a community-level fall-prevention initiative. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2022;26(3):410-421. doi:10.1080/10903127.2021.1922556.

90.

Stevens

Mahoney

Ehrenreich

. Circumstances and outcomes of falls among high risk community-dwelling older adults. Inj Epidemiol. 2014;1(5):5. doi:10.1186/2197-1714-1-5.

91.

Carney

Kwiatek

Burns

. Transforming health care: a large health organizations' journey to become an age‐friendly health system (AFHS) and beyond. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024;72(2):579-588.

Matters We Metric Vs. Metrics that Matter

Abstract

Introduction

Significance

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Background

Commonly Used Metrics

Length of Stay

Mortality

Patient-Centered Metrics

4Ms (Mobility, Medication, Mentation, and what Matters)

Mobility

Medication Management

Mentation

What Matters

Additional Meaningful Metrics

Nutrition

Secondary Fracture Prevention

Additional Considerations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

References