A health care record review of early mobility activities after fragility hip fracture: Utilizing the French systematic method to inform future interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundA fragility hip fracture is a serious injury in older adults. After experiencing a fracture, a large percentage of patients do not regain their pre-fracture level of mobility. There are several international guidelines recommending early mobility after surgery. We do not know the usage of these early mobility recommendations by health care providers within our institution. An evidence-to-practice gap occurs when there is a failure to implement best practices. Utilization of a systematic method allows for a strategic approach to assessment of an evidence-to-practice gap. There were two aims of this project; to describe early mobility activities undertaken on one post surgical unit and b) to identify if there is an evidence-to-practice gap.MethodsAt a large tertiary centre in Toronto, Ontario, medical records from one calendar year were abstracted for older adults (≥65 years of age) recovering from fragility hip fracture repair. Data regarding demographics, co-morbidities, surgery type, post-operative mobility activities, and any post-operative complications were collected. Primary outcomes were evidence of early mobility activities and a comparison to Health Quality Ontario recommendations for fragility hip fracture care.ResultsBetween 11% - 50% of patients are not participating in early mobility activities. By postoperative day five only two patients had walked over 50 metres. Those with low pre-fracture functional ability and a cognitive impairment consistently experienced lower rates of participation compared to patients with a high pre-fracture functional ability and no cognitive impairment. Chi-square tests and regression analysis did not reveal any significant associations with variables.ConclusionsThere is very limited participation in early mobility activities after surgery. The study was unable to identify any significant relationships between several variables that may impact participation. This chart review identified the processes that have been sustained and highlights potential areas for future interventions.
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 | 0.096 | 0.280 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".