Rehabilitation for Long-term Care Residents Following Hip Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In Canada, residents of long-term care (LTC) facilities are frequently transferred back to their residential facilities to continue recovery 1 week following hip fractures. Limited evidence is available regarding rehabilitation services in LTC facilities following hip fracture or rehabilitation practices after hip fracture for persons with dementia. We previously performed a systematic review of the impact of rehabilitation after hip fractures on persons with dementia. The purpose of this project was to augment our systematic review findings and determine current reported rehabilitation practices of rehabilitation professionals working in LTC facilities with hip-fractured patients with dementia and examine perceived barriers to the delivery of rehabilitation. METHODS: We performed a survey study of rehabilitation professionals working in LTC facilities in a Canadian province, using a modified Delphi Consensus approach and a Web-based survey format. The survey was constructed on the basis of our systematic literature review and through discussions with clinical experts. A 2-round modified Delphi consensus approach was used to attain consensus among respondents. Examination of agreement and disagreement among respondents in the areas of (1) current practice and (2) perceived barriers to care was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 42 respondents completed round 1 and 27 respondents completed round 2. Respondents were primarily female and working as physical therapists or occupational therapists. Most worked at facilities that employed at least 1 physical therapist and 1 occupational therapist. Treatment strategies for patients with hip fracture focused on return to independent ambulation and transfers. Although cognition was seen as a barrier to treatment, respondents implemented strategies to mitigate this barrier. Inadequate time and staffing were also seen as barriers to effective treatment. DISCUSSION: Rehabilitation professionals working in LTC facilities reported that the residents with dementia can and should participate in rehabilitation following hip fractures; however, they identified time and staffing constraints in addition to cognitive impairment as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Current research in LTC facilities is very sparse and little is known about the rehabilitation care provided in these facilities. Further research is needed to determine the most effective rehabilitation interventions following hip fractures for residents of LTC facilities with dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".