Abstract
Objectives
Following hip fracture, the amount of time an individual spends on their feet (‘uptime’) may be an important marker of recovery. Using an automated device that measured uptime (Uptimer), we aimed to: (1) compare hip fracture patients’ uptime with age- and gender-matched community dwelling older people; (2) identify whether uptime changed during the transition from hospital to home; and (3) examine the relationship between uptime and existing functional measures.
Design
Prospective, observational study.
Setting
Rehabilitation hospital and community.
Participants
Patients undergoing rehabilitation after hip fracture surgery who aimed to return home at the end of rehabilitation, and age- and gender-matched community dwellers.
Interventions
Patients received standard care.
Main outcome measures
Uptime over 24hours was measured on three occasions in hip fracture patients: 1 week before, 1 day before and 1 week after discharge home. Uptime over 24hours was measured once in age- and gender-matched community dwelling older people. Functional mobility, self-reported activity, pain, mood and endurance were also assessed.
Results
Thirteen hip fracture patients (mean age 80.4 years) and 13 community dwelling participants completed testing. Once home, hip fracture patients spent 3.4hours/day (25th, 75th percentiles 2.8, 5.2) upright, while community dwelling healthy older people were upright for 6.5hours/day (6.1, 8.7). A trend for uptime to increase between hospital and home was observed. Hip fracture uptime at home correlated significantly with self-reported activity, functional mobility and gait endurance (P<0.05).
Conclusions
This study highlighted uptime limitations of hip fracture patients at home. We discuss possible future directions for research using the Uptimer.
Citation
Stand up and be counted: measuring time spent upright after hip fracture and comparison with community dwelling older people
Julie Bernhardt, Karen Borschmann, Dominic Crock, Keith Hill, Anne McGann, Mary DeGori
Physiotherapy - December 2005 (Vol. 91, Issue 4, Pages 215-222, DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2005.01.011)