http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4174-6744
![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Hip fracture is a common and morbid condition, affecting a patient population with significant medical co-morbidities. A number of medical co-management models have been studied, with conflicting reports of effect on patient outcomes. Our objective was to compare outcomes for patients with hip fracture managed by hospitalist vs. non-hospitalist services at an academic medical center.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with hip fracture over 1 year, comparing those on hospitalist vs. non-hospitalist services. Outcomes included 30-day readmission and hospitalization ≤7 days, with comparison between patients admitted to hospitalist vs. non-hospitalist services. We performed multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance type, ASA score, and blood transfusion during hospitalization and days from admission to surgery.
Results: We identified 124 hospitalist and 53 non-hospitalist patients. In unadjusted analysis, hospitalist patients were more likely to have hospitalization ≤7 days (84.7% vs. 67.9%, p = 0.01). In adjusted analysis, hospitalist patients had lower odds of 30-day readmissions (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04–0.97) but no difference in odds of hospitalization ≤7 days (OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.82–5.66).
Conclusions: Patients with hip fracture managed by hospitalist vs. non-hospitalist services had lower odds of 30-day readmission after discharge. Our results suggest benefit to hospitalist co-management of hip fracture patients.
Disclosure of interest
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
