Programme no. 530-OP
Public Health
Patient pathways in older people with hip fracture
Sabine Ruths*1, Stein Atle Lie2, Marit Bakken3, Valborg Baste4, Lars Engesæter5, Siren Haugland6
1Dept of Global Public Health and Primary Care,University of Bergen,Bergen,Norway, 2Department of Clinical Dentistry,University of Bergen,Bergen,Norway, 3Dept of Global Public Health and Primary Care,University of Bergen,Bergen,Norway, 4Uni Research Health,Bergen,Norway, 5Department of Clinical Medicine,University of Bergen,Bergen,Norway, 6Uni Research Health,Bergen,Norway
* = Presenting author
Objectives: We aim to examine associations between municipal resources and patient outcomes through the first year after a hip fracture.
Background: Hip fractures are prevalent among older people. Consequently, costs are high for patients (functional impairment and dependency, increased mortality) and society (health care expenditures). Most patients need rehabilitation after surgery for hip fracture. Because municipalities vary in available health services the question arises as to what extent municipal resources might affect patient outcomes.
Results: Preliminary: The study population comprises all 16024 people who experienced a primary hip fracture, mean age 80.8 (SD 11.6) years, 68.6 % women. All-cause mortality 8.7 % after 30 days and 25.5% after 1 year. We will analyze, and present at the conference, associations between survival, readmission and quality of life at the patient level with rehabilitation resources at the municipality level.
Material/Methods: We are conducting a cohort study based on merged data from three national registries. From the Norwegian Hip Fracture Registry, we obtain dates of all primary hip fractures in 2011- 2012, demographic data, total morbidity (ASA) score, quality of life 12 months after hip fracture surgery, and date of death (if applicable). From the Norwegian Patient Register, we extract dates of admission and discharge for primary surgery, or readmission in 2011-2013. From Statistics Norway, we obtain data on available municipal health services with regard to rehabilitation.
Conclusion: Preliminary
Points for discussion: