4.5 Article

Utilization of inpatient care before and after hip fracture: a population-based study

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 879-886

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-008-0752-6

关键词

Aged; Hip fracture; Hospitalization; Inpatient care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluation of hospitalizations in a 70+ population showed that hip fractures (HF) were associated with a significant increase in the utilization of inpatient care for a lengthy period. Hospital days attributable to several diagnostic classes still exceeded both prefracture and population levels in the second year after HF. The goal was to assess effects of HF on the inpatient care utilization. The study covered HF patients and the 70+general population (26,000) living in Central Finland. Hospitalization data categorized by the ICD-10 main classes were obtained from the nationwide discharge register. In 2002-2003, 498 residents (mean age 82 SD 7, 74.9% women) of the study area sustained HF. Among them, the number of hospital days was 23, 107, and 52 per person-year in the prefracture, first and second postfracture year, respectively. In the 70+ general population, the number was constantly 11 per year. The age- and gender-adjusted rate ratio of hospital days between the two groups was 1.30 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.32), 6.91 (95% CI 6.85 to 7.00), and 3.61 (95% CI 3.55 to 3.67) for the prefracture, first and second postfracture year, respectively. Hospital days due to injuries were more prevalent in the HF group throughout the period. Moreover, excess of days was seen in six other diagnostic classes in the first and in four classes in the second postfracture year. Hospital days in HF patients still exceeded both the prefracture and population levels in the second year after HF. Days attributable to several other causes than HF itself became also more prevalent indicating that HF can steeply decrease patients' coping capacity and launch a cascade of impairments in the function of different organ systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据