Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Williams NH, Roberts JL, Din NU, et al. Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR). Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017 Aug. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 21.44.)
![Cover of Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR)](/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/bookshelf/thumbs/th-ukhta2144-lrg.png)
Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR).
Show detailsIntroduction
The third component of Phase I (developing the multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme) consisted of two series of focus groups, one with health professionals who were part of the multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams treating patients following a fractured neck of femur and the other with patients who had experienced a hip fracture and their family carers.
Aim
To describe the experiences of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes in the North Wales area from the perspective of health-care professionals, patients and carers.
Objectives
To assess the views of patients and their carers on:
- the rehabilitation that they received following surgical repair of a proximal hip fracture
- how the programme could be improved
- the intervention ideas emerging from the different strands of work in Phase I.
To assess the views of health professionals in the multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams on:
- the rehabilitation programmes currently available to patients following surgical repair of a proximal hip fracture
- how the programmes could be improved.
Ethics approval
The study received ethics approval from the UK NHS North Wales Research Ethics Committee – Gwynedd and Anglesey (reference number 12/WA/0355) and NHS research and development (R&D) approval from the BCUHB Internal Review Panel.
Methods
Focus groups with rehabilitation team members
Three focus groups were organised with members of multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams in the community around three North Wales hospital sites [north west (Ysbyty Gwynedd and surrounding areas), central (Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and surrounding areas) and north east (Ysbyty Maelor and surrounding areas)].
Sample and recruitment process
After gaining NHS ethics and R&D approval, the management team of the Therapies and Clinical Support Clinical Programme Group was contacted to inform it about the study and seek its co-operation in recruiting staff involved in managing and delivering rehabilitation care and services to hip fracture patients. The managers granted permission to contact hospital and community team leaders, who then assisted in the further identification of members of their teams who might wish to participate in the focus groups. These individuals were sent a letter or an e-mail inviting them to take part. This contained an information sheet and topic guide, a specimen consent form and a reply slip for either e-mail or postal return using a prepaid envelope for their use if they wished to take part. The sample was purposive, aiming to gain a wide variety of views of rehabilitation service delivery from a variety of grades of front-line staff and managers working in both the acute sector and community sectors.
Informed consent
On receipt of consent via the reply slip or e-mail, a member of the research team contacted potential participants by telephone or e-mail to provide a further opportunity to ask questions and to ensure that potential participants had read and understood the participant information sheet. Written informed consent was obtained just prior to starting the focus group from those who attended.
Focus groups with hip fracture patients and their carers
Three focus groups with patients and carers were originally planned, also based around the three main hospital sites within the BCUHB; however, as more than eight participants responded for one of the groups, two focus groups were run at this site.
Sample and recruitment process
The specific inclusion criteria for the focus groups were:
- being aged ≥ 65 years
- having recent proximal hip fracture, including intracapsular and extracapsular (pertrochanteric, intertrochanteric, reverse oblique or subtrochanteric) fracture
- having undergone surgical repair by replacement arthroplasty or internal fixation
- having completed some hip fracture rehabilitation
- living independently prior to hip fracture
- having capacity to give informed consent (in the case of patients lacking capacity, a carer was invited to represent their experiences).
Eligible participants were identified from local data returned to the National Hip Fracture Database,1 which includes data on age, length of hospital stay and discharge destination. Database information was accessed through medical and nursing staff responsible for maintaining the database at each site. Using these data, and electronic medical records at the three hospital sites, and with the assistance of the Health and Care Research Wales network, all those who had undergone surgery between 3 and 12 months previously were invited to take part. This time period was chosen to allow sufficient time for patients to have completed some post-operative rehabilitation while being recent enough that patients would have sufficient recall of their experiences. The carers of eligible patients with cognitive impairment were also invited to attend.
Potential patient/carer participants were sent an invitation letter containing an information sheet, a topic guide, a specimen consent form and a reply slip with a prepaid envelope.
We had hoped to purposively sample patients with different levels of disability, including those who were:
- discharged home from the orthopaedic ward after recovering from proximal hip fracture surgery and who received a rehabilitation intervention in the community
- transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation ward from the orthopaedic ward and then discharged home.
However, it was not possible to identify this differing rehabilitation pathway from the electronic medical records. We did, however, recruit patients with a range of ages and experiences of the two different pathways. The main subpopulations who were not represented were those who were living independently prior to hip fracture but who now lived in residential or nursing care and carers of those with cognitive impairment.
Informed consent
On receipt of the reply slip, a member of the research team contacted potential participants by telephone to give them a further opportunity to ask questions about the focus group and to ensure that they had read and understood the participant information sheet. Written informed consent was obtained just prior to starting the focus group from those who attended.
Data collection
The focus group discussions were semistructured and run by a moderator (the study manager) and co-moderator (study researcher) using a topic guide291,292 that contained open-ended questions regarding experiences of, and perceptions and beliefs about, rehabilitation following proximal hip fracture (see Appendix 25). In the later patient focus groups we were able to start exploring and gaining feedback on initial ideas for the intervention.
As the focus groups were held in an area where two languages are spoken (Welsh and English), we allowed participants to choose which language they wanted to participate in. As a result, one patient and carer focus group was run with the use of simultaneous translation, to enable all participants to discuss their personal experiences using the language that they were most comfortable with. In this focus group a third moderator (study researcher) was present who was fluent in both languages to ensure equality of access to both English- and Welsh-speaking participants. All of the study documentation was provided in both languages.
In the focus groups with professionals, in addition to the topic guide, we developed patient scenarios to stimulate discussion about the sorts of rehabilitation programmes patients would be likely to receive (see Appendix 26).
The focus group discussions were digitally recorded and fully transcribed. The transcriptions were made in the original language and any transcripts in Welsh were translated into English for analysis.
Analysis, credibility and plausibility
The focus groups were thematically analysed using the framework approach.293 The initial framework used for this analysis was broadly developed from the theory areas identified as important in guiding the realist review (see Chapter 2). The framework (see Appendix 27) was used to index the transcripts and was populated with summaries of data by one researcher (the study manager). This was carried out separately for the patient and carer focus group data and the professionals’ focus group data. Once summarised, each subsection of the index was transferred onto a new sheet for coding. The coding was completed for both sets of data for a particular subsection of the framework in sequence, to begin identifying similarities and differences in the perspectives and to start the process of synthesising the analysis. The researcher was able to add reflective notes as the coding progressed. At the end of each section, emerging key ideas and issues were noted for development into categories and subcategories.
Once this process was completed for all sections of the framework, the researcher developed an initial interpretation using the categories, grouping them into themes. At this point a second researcher experienced in framework thematic analysis, and who had been a co-moderator in one focus group but who was otherwise independent of the study, reviewed the charts and agreed the plausibility of the emerging themes.
A third researcher involved in the study then reviewed the initial framework, the original transcripts and the draft of the initial analysis. This researcher then made the final decisions about theme structure and content. The initial and third researchers agreed on the final analysis. Involving three researchers in the analytical process strengthened the plausibility and credibility of the findings, as the identified themes were not generated from one person’s perspective. The indexing of the transcripts and the framework charts provided an audit trail connecting the themes back to the original data.
Patient and public involvement
A patient and public involvement representative commented on all aspects of the study protocol,294 including the content of the topic guides, and was actively involved in the design of the patient-facing materials, such as the information sheets and consent forms.
Results
Description of participants
Thirteen health-care professionals involved in delivering rehabilitation throughout the patient pathway consented to take part in the focus groups. These were:
- one physiotherapist from an acute hospital orthopaedic trauma ward
- one nurse manager of an acute hospital orthopaedic trauma ward
- three occupational therapists from three different acute hospital orthopaedic trauma wards
- one physiotherapist from a community hospital providing inpatient rehabilitation
- one physiotherapist from a community rehabilitation unit who also saw patients at home
- one physiotherapist from a community intermediate care team
- one occupational therapist from a community intermediate care team
- one occupational therapist from a local authority social services team
- two local authority domiciliary support team managers (teams that provide reablement care as part of their remit)
- one co-ordinator of a local authority leisure services centre providing the National Exercise Referral Scheme295 (a national scheme in Wales).
Thirteen hip fracture patients (11 women and two men) and four associated carers (two women and two men) consented to take part in the focus groups. Three of the carers were spouses and one was a friend. Patient and carer participant ages ranged from 60 to 90 years and participants were from both rural and urban areas of North Wales.
The numbers of participants in the patient and carer focus groups ranged from three to seven and in the health-care professional focus groups from two to six. Some participants in the health-care professional focus groups were unable to attend at short notice because of work commitments and two participants in the patient and carer focus groups were unable to attend because of illness.
Focus group themes
Four main themes emerged from the data analysis:
- the variation in rehabilitation care provided
- the need for information
- facilitators of, and barriers to, rehabilitation
- the psychosocial impact of hip fracture.
The variation in rehabilitation care provided
The prominent theme throughout all of the focus groups, and which defined the context in which rehabilitation was delivered, was the wide variability in care. In general, patient participants did receive some form of post-discharge rehabilitation. Provision in some areas was extensive, with patients receiving walking aids, home adaptations and varied physiotherapy sessions with one-to-one rehabilitation, gym classes and hydrotherapy. However, other patients reported receiving very little rehabilitation or having to overcome significant barriers to access services. This was particularly evident in the provision of community physiotherapy services, with some patients having only one or two sessions following discharge and others receiving many weeks of home visits and referral to ongoing physiotherapy programmes. Occupational therapy services, including the provision of walking aids and home adaptions, were more consistent across the North Wales area and patients typically viewed these services very positively:
The occupational therapy girls were brilliant, you know if you wanted anything, you just had to phone and they would get it for you, they were really really good.
Female carer, Flintshire and Wrexham
There were three main factors that this variability was attributed to:
- geographical variation in resource availability
- variation in referral procedures and service awareness
- variation in the tailoring of rehabilitation to individual needs
Geographical variation in resource availability
Patients and health-care professionals attributed the variation in usual care, in part, to geographical variation in resource availability, leaving available staff and services overstretched, and unable to meet demands consistently across the whole North Wales area. This was reflected in comments from patients, such as the care received ‘depends where you live’ (male carer, Flintshire and Wrexham) and that optimal care may not be available ‘if you don’t live in the right postcode’ (female patient, Flintshire and Wrexham). Health-care professionals also acknowledged that the provision of NHS rehabilitation services, social care provision and access to charity services was a ‘postcode lottery’ (reablement team, Ysbyty Gwynedd) and that, even for services that are universally available, there may be variation in who is eligible to receive them:
We could provide a service under our eligibility criteria but other counties have got different eligibility criteria.
Reablement team, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
The resultant variation in care was apparent in the acute setting and throughout patient rehabilitation. Although the patient and carer focus group participants particularly emphasised the impact of resource scarcity during the post-discharge rehabilitation period, they also raised it as an issue that they had experienced during their stay in the acute hospital. Patients observed that ward staff struggled to cope with the volume of highly dependent patients: ‘there is too much work, not enough nurses’ (female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy). As a result, some participants experienced delays in care and were incontinent or left in pain without medication:
I wet the bed a couple of times and I felt so embarrassed.
Female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy
I was initially in a room on my own because the place was so full, and I just could not get hold of anybody to give me the morphine when I needed it.
Female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy
Despite these challenges, findings from the focus groups with health-care professionals suggested that there was a good level of standardisation at the acute phase of rehabilitation, with early mobilisation being ‘quite routine’ (occupational therapist, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd) within 24 hours after surgery, which was in line with NICE guidance.7 However, the impact of post-discharge resource availability on planning discharges from the acute setting, and consequently the therapy given in hospital, was apparent, with therapists often having to take a flexible approach:
We usually have plan A and plan B because if the bed [in community hospital] doesn’t come up they are going home.
Acute hospital occupational therapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
The variation in post-discharge rehabilitation was not limited to patients who were discharged directly to their own home, but was also experienced by those discharged to community hospitals:
There was another ward with, they were all erm . . . different types of breakages and whether there wasn’t room the day I went there to go in that ward. I think if I had been in that ward I may have been, had more exercises to do you know.
Female patient, Flintshire and Wrexham
They taught us in detail how to climb stairs, with a stick, and with crutches, and they sent us to walk in the corridors and outside . . . I found that extra fortnight to be very valuable.
Female patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
Although some patients had positive experiences or found that specific aspects of their rehabilitation were well implemented, there was a general sense of isolation and that they would have appreciated more consistent input from health-care professionals:
I don’t think the aftercare is what it should be. You are just left to look after yourself more of less.
Female patient, Conwy and Denbighshire
Health-care professionals in one area acknowledged that some patients may go home with no care, but postulated that it was ‘probably rare to have absolutely nothing’ (occupational therapist, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd) and that there would likely be some level of community service engagement, even if there was no occupational therapy or physiotherapy input from the hospital.
Referral procedures and service awareness
Variation in referral processes and in some cases the criteria for accessing a service meant that staff had to be aware of different referral pathways in different areas, which could cause delays in referral. In particular, a lack of uniformity in referral procedures for different community hospitals was identified as an issue by health-care professionals:
You have five referral forms, you can’t just have one, and there you are that’s done, so that takes time.
Nurse orthopaedic ward manager, Ysbyty Gwynedd
There was variation in the delay that patients experienced at the start of their rehabilitation and when progressing to more demanding activities. This was partly explained by different referral processes in health and social care. One physiotherapist commented:
Social workers have got their own timescale . . . they only have a panel once a week and that’s on a Monday, if you refer any day like Thursday afterwards they are going to miss that panel so you will have to wait an additional week.
Nurse orthopaedic ward manager, Ysbyty Gwynedd
A number of patients and their carers also commented that there had been a delay in their referral to physiotherapy. This was particularly noted to be a problem for patients who had received some physiotherapy after discharge but who had to be referred again by their GP when the initial sessions had come to an end:
If she goes to the doctor the doctor doesn’t really, he only refers you to the hospital, then you have got to wait an appointment, which there is no one you can actually say can you come next week and tell me if I am, if it’s . . . sort of all right.
Male carer, Gwynedd and Conwy
Patients experiencing delays because of problems with referral systems or variation in service provision in different areas felt that they would have benefited if they had access to these rehabilitation services immediately following discharge and that such delays in treatment were a barrier to them achieving their recovery potential:
There have been long gaps and that very slow start and I know, the physio[therapist] I saw, not immediately when I started but soon after, was very concerned about that delay it had made it a lot more difficult for me, and more difficult for her to get anything moving.
Male patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
It took longer than perhaps it could’ve before I actually got to the stage where I did go to the gym. I think I could’ve done with that being happening a bit sooner.
Female patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
Others were very pleased with the care that they received and felt that it had helped them progress quickly:
I was very grateful for the care I got . . . in the hospital and to resettle after being in hospital . . . within some 3 months I went back to driving a car.
Female patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
Some therapists thought that it was challenging for the acute staff and GPs to know the full extent of services that were available in different areas and that this may have contributed to some patients not being referred to services that they were eligible to receive:
There is not always a great awareness of the acute team of exactly what services are in which place . . . I think we could definitely signpost them better to these . . . GPs need to know how to . . . what services there are and how to signpost.
Occupational therapist, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
Physiotherapists based in community hospitals who ran the falls prevention classes also commented that, even when patients were referred, it was often at a later stage than they would expect:
You need to refer them the minute they are showing signs of impaired balance, or problems or at risk of falls. I think we are missing a lot, of the prevention stuff.
Community hospital physiotherapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
It was also suggested that awareness in patients could be raised and that, if patients were able to self-refer, this might help to overcome the problems. However, therapists acknowledged that available resources would limit this and it also raised an issue of relying on the self-motivation of patients to seek out additional therapy:
Self-referral, you know making patients aware, posters up in GP surgery, have you lost your confidence, have you got a balance problem you can self-refer and then but it’s the resources to cope with that then, that are missing.
Community hospital physiotherapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
Tailoring of rehabilitation to individual needs
Health-care professionals spoke extensively about tailoring patient care according to individual needs, which was determined by comprehensive assessment consisting of a background history, past medical history, social history, an assessment of the present condition, a physical assessment and an assessment of patient goals. The outcome of this assessment would determine where a patient might be referred. A recurring theme in the staff focus groups was that individual patient’s needs and situation varied greatly, so rehabilitation needs to be individualised.
It depends completely on the patient, you can’t just say well this is what is going to happen to every patient, they vary so much . . . there is different avenues depending on what they present.
Community hospital physiotherapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
Health-care professionals’ knowledge of these factors was extensive and they were aware of several options for patient care that depended on a patient’s home situation and comorbidities. For initial rehabilitation, the type of surgery carried out was also a major factor:
It depends on what, what procedure she [the surgeon] has done to fix the fractured NOF [neck of femur] as to what level of interventions we do.
Occupational therapist, Wrexham Maelor
While discussing the patient scenarios, there was a consensus among the health-care professionals that the planned care for each patient would be tailored to his or her specific needs. This included signposting patients to certain services but the health-care professionals also highlighted the fact that they would not, for example, assess all patients as needing to attend falls prevention or balance classes, even if their fracture had occurred as the result of a fall; referral would depend on the cause of the fall:
You are dealing with very angry relatives who were under the presumption that because they are under our service, that they will automatically get care and they won’t, not unless there is a need.
Clinical specialist physiotherapist, Wrexham Maelor
Although the tailoring of post-fracture rehabilitation to individual patient needs is recommended in NICE guidelines,7 it may contribute to a significant degree of the variation reported within these broadly defined care pathways. Some participants held the perception that more comprehensive care was given only to patients who were assessed as being less able to cope alone, with others who may have been more independently mobile feeling that they would still have benefited from input from a health-care professional. One patient felt that, because she had shown self-motivation to exercise independently, it was difficult for her to receive physiotherapy input, commenting that ‘they just could see that I was motivated and doing things and they were needed somewhere else’ (female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy). Health-care professionals also commented that, although a patient might be referred to a service, they might not receive the maximum available input, for example 6 weeks with an intermediate care team; how much care was actually given would depend on an individual patient’s needs, which might be defined differently in different areas or by different therapists. ‘Usual care’, therefore, was hugely variable.
The need for information
As a consequence of the variability in usual care and available services in different areas, it was not possible to give patients definitive information on what would happen during their recovery period. This was compounded when communication links between different services providing care at different stages or providing different parts of a patient’s rehabilitation broke down. For example, an acute therapist could refer a patient for outpatient physiotherapy at a community hospital when he or she was discharged, but if the referral was delayed in the system the patient was left wondering if such a long wait was normal and what they should do about it. Patients and their carers often expressed uncertainty about the services that were available and which services they would be assessed as requiring. Patients and their carers perceived these issues as occurring because of a lack of communication from health-care staff and felt that they were not given adequate information about what to expect from their rehabilitation following hip fracture. The theme that emerged from the data was that there was a crucial need for better communication and dissemination of information to enable patients and carers to better cope with what had happened and to manage their expectations for recovery.
What to expect following hip fracture
Patients’ initial need for information related to the physical aspects of what had happened to them during their hip fracture and what they should expect during their recovery. In particular, there was a need for information about what activities they could do safely as they were uncertain whether they should exercise or ‘lie on your backside for 5 weeks’ (male carer, Flintshire and Wrexham). Another patient stated that:
I didn’t know what to do I didn’t know whether to sit, and rest or try to exercise or what nobody told me anything . . . people don’t explain . . . tell you so that you can understand. You just, left to ponder it over for yourself.
Female patient, Conwy and Denbighshire
There was confusion among patients regarding the hip fracture precautions given on discharge, with the wife of one patient reporting that, although they were told that her husband was not allowed to climb the stairs alone, they had no understanding of why this was as ‘nobody ever told us that’ (female carer, Flintshire and Wrexham). This lack of clarity left patients feeling isolated and unsure about what activities they should resume, a problem that was compounded by a feeling that the time post discharge was a ‘no man’s land’ (male carer, Gwynedd and Conwy), with patients and carers feeling unsure about who they could seek advice from.
Although some patients reported good experiences of ongoing rehabilitation after discharge from the hospital consultant, for others there was a perception that at this stage in recovery hospital consultants ‘didn’t want to see you’ (female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy) and that GPs felt that they were unable to help because of the responsibility lying with community therapy teams. This confusion surrounding where patients should ask for help meant that delays in receiving rehabilitation were not communicated to them, and patients did not know if they would receive any services at all. Although patient and carer focus group participants were dissatisfied with these delays, they also stated that they could have accepted them if it had been clearer at the beginning that rehabilitation would happen eventually:
The GP just seemed to be saying it’s the physio[therapist]’s responsibility. I didn’t know where the responsibility was at all. I think if there was someone to talk to or whatever, if I knew that it would lead into rehabilitation then that would have been better.
Male patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
For patients who did receive rehabilitative input from health-care professionals, their need for information changed over time; although the initial input was especially helpful, they needed support throughout the entire recovery process:
There was a whole series of questions I had that had come up over the previous 3 weeks and I think the ability to go and talk to someone, with different experience and knowledge, was very important for me now.
Male patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
There was also a common feeling among participants that the problems that they faced were related to accessing services, rather than the quality of the services that were provided, and once these services had been accessed patients were satisfied with the majority of the care that they received: ‘Care is good, communication is rubbish’ (male carer, Flintshire and Wrexham).
A draft of the intervention workbook had been developed by the time of the later focus groups. This contained information relating to the physical aspects of fracture and surgery and examples of people’s experiences of hip fracture. These focus group participants felt that such information would have been very useful for them in their recovery, as they were keen to achieve a greater understanding of their condition, and that such a workbook would still be useful in addressing some of their outstanding issues.
Information for carers
Carers of hip fracture patients also identified their own specific information needs. One participant who cared for his wife described how he was not given any information about when she would be discharged from the community hospital, or to where, leaving him feeling let down and overlooked:
No one said a word to me like, I was sort of invisible like, you know, it was a funny situation like you are nothing.
Male carer, Gwynedd and Conwy
Another carer was distressed and concerned about her husband’s well-being when she discovered that he was to be discharged home with insufficient warning for her to make adequate preparations:
They never discussed it with us the girls, I was panicking then . . . I was in such a state I was getting upset all the time.
Female carer, Flintshire and Wrexham
These responses related to communication with the acute hospital teams. In comparison, some of the community occupational therapists discussed the importance of involving family carers in patients’ rehabilitation and how this can be beneficial in encouraging patients to continue with their exercise practice, suggesting that there is variation in carer involvement between different services:
It’s important to engage with family or carers . . . you know making sure that they are aware of the exercise programme.
Acute and community occupational therapist, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
We you know, invite the family to be there when we are discussing the precautions [post-discharge guidelines given to hip replacement patients] so that they can understand their importance and reinforce it to the patient as well.
Occupational therapist, Wrexham Maelor
Facilitators of, and barriers to, rehabilitation
The third theme that emerged concerned the perceived facilitators of, and barriers to, commencing and continuing a programme of physical activity. As well as system-level challenges, such as the variation in available resources, impacting on a patient’s access to rehabilitation, other factors also worked as facilitators of, and barriers to, rehabilitation. Whether or not patients were able to use the services made available to them effectively was often dependent on their ability, both physical and psychological (e.g. motivation), to negotiate challenges and make the most of what was offered to them.
Service reliance on patient self-motivation
Some patients or their families had to persistently ask to access rehabilitation services, which they did not feel was their responsibility. They felt that such services should be offered automatically or arranged by health-care professionals without instigation from patients and carers:
I phoned them and asked them would it be possible, I came on a, I think it was an 8-week course then.
Female patient, Conwy and Denbighshire
I had to do all the ringing up, which seemed a bit crazy.
Female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy
Some participants reported receiving basic therapy input initially but were told by therapists that ‘we are only at the end of a phone’ (female carer, Flintshire and Wrexham) or ‘we won’t come again unless you ask us’ (female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy), leaving the onus on patients to instigate further input from these services. Although this usually applied to patients who were progressing well and who were happy to be more independent, patients differed in the extent to which they were willing to ask for help; some ‘felt like we were just a total nuisance’ (female carer, Flintshire and Wrexham) if they pursued further care.
Although some patients ‘haven’t got the nerve or the nouse to ring up and badger them’ (female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy), it was evident that patients who were told to contact the therapist or encouraged by outside sources to seek additional help were more likely to do so, and this helped them overcome the feeling that they were a burden. This was also identified as a positive aspect of the proposed intervention workbook, a draft version of which was shown to participants in later focus groups, who commented that it would ‘prompt you to ask things’ (female carer, Flintshire and Wrexham).
Professionals also acknowledged that in some cases it was up to patients to request input from therapists or other services and that they would receive this only if they made contact with the services themselves.
Patients who had good levels of activity and mobility pre fracture and who were younger often received less input, as clinicians would expect them to resume their activities in a more independent manner. These patients might be assessed to check safety and progress with exercises but not necessarily referred for many organised sessions (e.g. group physiotherapy or more frequent appointments at a physiotherapy gym). If they were provided with exercises to do, these patients would be expected to continue with minimal input from therapists, relying on their own self-motivation:
They are expected to do them, of their own accord if they can.
Community hospital physiotherapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
It’s a lot about their own mentality.
Nurse orthopaedic ward manager, Ysbyty Gwynedd
This reliance on patients and their family members to be the driving force in rehabilitation could cause problems for those who do not have a sufficient support network, who are less self-motivated or who lack confidence to ask for help.
One occupational therapist also commented that seemingly independent patients might not do as well as expected without input and may take longer in their recovery than originally anticipated:
Couple of women recently and have taken ages, whereas initially talking to them they are women you know sort of retired but really active, do loads, but then they have fallen and really I think it’s more, you know the shock of the falling over and not being able to do things it does take them quite a long time to get over it.
Acute hospital occupational therapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
Even in patients who were self-motivated, there was an acknowledgement that it was difficult to maintain motivation over time and that it was not a limitless reserve:
Getting hold of numbers is quite difficult yes. You have to be motivated don’t you and I think a lot of people aren’t motivated. Well they have had it knocked out of them by that time.
Female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy
Patient engagement in rehabilitation
Another potential barrier was the lack of engagement of some patients in the available exercise programmes. Professionals described how, for these patients, they had to ‘sit down and reason why it is important for them to do exercises’ (health-care professional, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd) and that at this point it was often helpful to include family carers to help encourage the patients.
Some patients commented that it was important that the exercises that they were given were relevant to their everyday activities, rather than being focused entirely on more abstract strength training, with comments such as ‘doing normal things in the house was more beneficial to me’ (male patient, Flintshire and Wrexham). Professionals agreed that setting functional goals that related to ADL was helpful for engaging patients in their rehabilitation. This provided the basis for methods used in enablement units, which some patients were referred to, in which patients ‘can see themselves actually doing something that is worthwhile for them’ (community occupational therapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd).
Other patients valued continued therapist input to maintain momentum, commenting that being left with pre-printed exercise sheets without the input of a therapist ‘didn’t benefit anything’ (male patient, Flintshire and Wrexham), particularly when they were experiencing pain, as this was a common barrier to exercise:
Seeing the physio[therapist], it’s a mixture of more exercises and going through it but also it’s the ability just to have someone to talk through things like what to do with the pain.
Male patient, Anglesey and Gwnyedd
She didn’t do the exercise because she was in pain so much.
Male carer, Gwynedd and Conwy
Participants also referred to a need for their rehabilitation to evolve and progress as they started to regain function, as this gave them a sense of achievement that helped in motivating them to continue:
There’s a limit to what you can do at home, I got to the stage where I needed equipment . . . the first time I went to the gym and saw the physio[therapist] there, I thought yes . . . It hurt, it was painful, but at least I felt I’m sure I’m going to get somewhere, and it has it’s been brilliant.
Female patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
When participants were able to see the progress that they have made, either independently or with the input of health-care professionals, this led to greater self-efficacy, strengthening their own beliefs that they could manage further challenges as they moved forward.
Although many participants were keen to exercise and resume activities quickly, they identified that what was useful for some might be ‘totally different for certain people’ (male carer, Flintshire and Wrexham). Many patients felt that a more individualised approach to their rehabilitation would have been beneficial.
One participant had very strong views that patients should be given more time in a community hospital to recuperate rather than being engaged in physical rehabilitation, stating that:
. . . there should be somewhere, where people can erm . . . are allowed to get more time to recover, a person my age or whatever, can’t recover in a few days, they should be given more help somewhere or another.
Female patient, Conwy and Denbighshire
Comorbidities and pre-fracture function
Patients’ pre-existing levels of fitness and comorbidities prior to their fracture had a significant impact on their ability to recover and influenced their perceptions of rehabilitation and how they might engage with it. Patients who were previously very active may have found it easier to engage in a new exercise programme after fracture, as they were already aware of the benefits that exercise could have and how exercise had previously helped them to maintain function. One participant had previously suffered organophosphorus poisoning and spoke of how, before her fracture, she would ‘go swimming first thing in the morning, because that is the way I have got myself to walk again. And I need to do it to keep being able to walk’ (female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy); this had motivated her to do the same after her fracture, to rebuild her strength a second time.
In contrast to this, therapists commented that patients who were ‘poorly, sort of, post-op, with various different sort of comorbidities’ (occupational therapist, Wrexham Maelor), could develop a perception that they should stay in bed to recuperate and that this could have a negative impact on rehabilitation.
Previous levels of activity also had an effect on patient expectations and could lead to a sense of frustration at what was often perceived as a slow recovery. One participant described how he had previously walked a lot and that he felt very unhappy that he had not been able to regain this previous level of activity:
Now I feel badly done by because I am nowhere near, and I’m never going to be fit enough for that.
Male patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
Other participants commented on the length of time that it took them to return to pre-fracture function and how they found this especially difficult to cope with. One patient said that it had ‘ruined my life’ (female patient, Flintshire and Wrexham) because she felt that she was unable to return to her previous level of function. Another patients stated that ‘It’s a year now and I thought I would have been better by now, you know’ (female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy).
This unrealistic expectation of recovery is linked to the patient need for information and, as previously outlined, may be mediated in situations in which there is input from a health-care professional who is able to manage these expectations.
Transport
Professionals highlighted transport as a major barrier to patients being able to access available services and a factor that they had to consider when referring patients to ongoing rehabilitation services. This was identified as an aspect of services that could be improved, by increasing the provision of transport to rehabilitation programmes run within the community:
We refer a lot [to falls group], as long as they can get transport.
Health-care professional, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
The problem we have is transport for a lot of the over-70s because they don’t drive.
Community hospital physiotherapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
Physiotherapists identified lack of transport as one of the reasons that patients may have declined further therapy input, even if they had been progressing well. This could lead to their progress stalling if they were able to access classes only that were below their ability level:
The big stumbling block then is the transport. We will occasionally keep people on for another session another 12 weeks, if they really have no means of transport but then they are then being limited by the level of exercise that everybody else is doing. Erm . . . so that is our biggest concern is getting people to places.
Clinical specialist physiotherapist, Wrexham Maelor
Problems with patients having access to transport also contributed to the variation in geographical service provision, as patients in rural areas may not have been able to access all services.
Communication between service departments
One participant who had experienced gaps in her care stated that this had happened as a result of the hospital losing her notes, leaving her with a poor impression of the hospital referral system and its general co-ordination of post-discharge rehabilitation. On a wider scale, there was a consensus that communication between different areas of the health service was the main problem, rather than the people who were delivering the services.
One example of a breakdown in communication was that of a patient who required a corrective boot following surgery, which she was told by the district nurses and community therapists that she should wear at all times, including overnight, which caused a lot of pain. It was only on the insistence of the patient’s family that she received an earlier follow-up appointment with the orthopaedic consultant, who was then able to clarify how the boot should be used and rectify her treatment plan:
Communication is not very good, because although they said they had rung about what they needed to do about me boot, what they had been told, was that it wasn’t to be taken off at all . . . [the consultant] said well, no it shouldn’t have been left on, you should have been having physiotherapy.
Female patient, Conwy and Denbighshire
The lack of co-ordination between departments was a common theme that undoubtedly contributed to the variation in care that patients received. There was an expectation on the part of patients that health-care professionals were able to ensure that the correct information was passed on to where it was needed, but there were barriers within the system that often prevented this from happening:
Communication was absolutely shocking.
Female carer, Flintshire and Wrexham
Despite patient perceptions that communication between service departments was poor, health-care professionals reported examples of good communication between acute services and community therapy services, and liaison with carer support workers, social workers and other peripheral services.
One therapist who was part of a community-based intermediate care team commented that her domiciliary care staff ‘have weekly meetings . . . that will be sort of inviting certain individuals in to support them if they were having problems, it’s linking that with sort of other colleagues . . . Support workers are really good at liaising with us’ (physiotherapist, Conwy intermediate care, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd).
Other health-care professionals commented that working in teams within the acute sector or in different community regions had a positive impact on communication as they ‘know what is going on around them, you know who to contact and they have the networks there’ (reablement team, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd). Working in close proximity with other members of a wider multidisciplinary team was seen to make it easier to communicate about a patient’s care:
Things seem to happen an awful lot quicker because it’s sort of, a head pops over a computer and says oh.
Health-care professional, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
Health-care professionals also acknowledged that there could be problems liaising with authorities in patients’ home area if they did not live locally, which was common in North Wales because of tourism. The therapists described this as ‘challenging’ (occupational therapist, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd) because of the different systems that were in place in different areas; sometimes it was not possible to follow the usual procedures for these patients as health-care professionals were unable to order equipment or arrange travel in different areas. This could delay hospital discharge, delay the start of community rehabilitation and lead to further burdens being placed on family members, who might have to take responsibility for arranging care in their local area:
It’s the practicalities of then how that patient is getting back to their local area and hospital transport and funding arrangements, then that delays discharge quite a bit.
Occupational therapist, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
The psychosocial impact of hip fracture
A fourth theme was the psychosocial effects of fracturing a hip as a result of a fall. This was influenced by the commonly experienced variability in care and lack of information, as problems with accessing services left patients feeling unsupported and unsure of their recovery trajectory. This, coupled with anxiety about their ability to return to their previous level of function, contributed to their concerns about undertaking exercise, and this impacted on their engagement with the available rehabilitation services.
A prominent issue raised was an increased fear of falling, which often came as a shock to patients:
I am afraid of another fall, that is what worries me at the moment, so I do . . . I try to do things at my own pace, and I tend to grip onto everything. I am trying to avoid another fall but I don’t think I would survive another fall to be perfectly honest.
Female patient, Conwy and Denbighshire
That is something nobody tells you about I don’t think, is the fear of falling again.
Female patient, Conwy and Denbighshire
The anxiety around falling again often resulted in an over-reliance on walking aids, which, although helping with confidence, could hinder the progress of rehabilitation:
The stick gives you a bit of confidence I think.
Male carer, Gwynedd and Conwy
When I go out I still take a stick because I feel, I don’t know, it’s like a comfort blanket I suppose.
Female patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
This over-reliance on walking aids was also commented on by therapists. The therapists recognised that this over-reliance occurred because patients were anxious about falling again and that it might not be possible to identify which patients would be at risk of developing these fears:
Fear. We don’t have any, any brilliant ideas of getting over people’s fear . . . You will have people who go home who you think will do very well, and you can’t get off the zimmer[frame], no thank you very much I am quite happy I feel safer, no I don’t want to go outside, and that is a big issue I think.
Occupational therapist acute hospital, Wrexham Maelor
Therapists at one site commented on the traumatic experience of a hip fracture, as opposed to a scheduled elective hip replacement, and how this might be responsible for some of the anxiety that patients experienced, and that regaining their confidence was an important part of rehabilitation:
Recently we have had some quite active people recently who take a long time because I think its more the psychological side the shock of the trauma isn’t it . . . They are scared and I think it’s their anxiety.
Acute hospital occupational therapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
They are still anxious, they are bruised and battered as well from getting the injury so there is all that too.
Acute hospital physiotherapist, Ysbyty Gwynedd
Staff involved in rehabilitation acknowledged that, because of this anxiety, patients’ needs extended beyond physical rehabilitation to include the rebuilding of lost confidence, to allow them to engage fully in rehabilitation. Some patients who were assessed as being at risk of a further fall may have been referred to falls prevention or balance classes. These classes often focused on ‘backward training’, in which patients were taught how to get up safely if they did fall, which health-care professionals felt was an important part of addressing their fear of falling and improving patient confidence:
It’s to do with personal care as well, and to raise confidence as well, that’s a lot to do with it because people who have had the falls, it’s their confidence really that’s taken a big knock.
Reablement team, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
It’s just really reinforcing good practice, encouragement . . . it’s reassurance, the mental barrier that you have to break through, sometimes you never do.
Nurse orthopaedic ward manager, Ysbyty Gwynedd
The anxiety surrounding the fear of falling could also delay hospital discharge:
Sometimes it’s also family or the patient that might influence that [discharge], they might say I am not . . . I don’t feel confident going straight home, or the family might feel that they shouldn’t be going straight home so soon.
Occupational therapist, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
Patients who were able to access rehabilitation services identified this as an important factor in overcoming their fear of falling and discussed the impact that support and encouragement from therapists had on their recovery:
You think you are going to fall all the time, erm . . . so it is just practice I think, just keep doing it, keep doing little bits and erm . . . I had the reassurance from the physiotherapist who said ‘no, by next summer you will be doing exactly what you were doing last summer’.
Female patient, Gwynedd and Conwy
Another major psychological challenge was the potential loss of independence. The inability to perform usual activities independently, such as driving or going shopping, necessitated a reliance on social networks such as family and church groups, but many people found this difficult to accept, with one patient commenting ‘I want to do it myself though’ (female patient, Flintshire and Wrexham). Other patients reflected on how their inability to walk prevented them from attending social activities, causing them to feel isolated and less able to take part in activities that they had previously enjoyed:
Not being able to walk is a significant impact on all sorts of different layers.
Male patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
I don’t feel I can go [on a walking trip] because I’m so slow, you know you feel that somebody will be waiting for you and ‘where is she sort of thing’ so I just don’t go. So I suppose in a way, well I am, I’m missing out on that socially.
Female patient, Anglesey and Gwynedd
Discussion
Summary of main findings
Four main themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) the variation in rehabilitation care provided, (2) the need for information, (3) the facilitators of, and barriers to, rehabilitation and (4) the psychosocial impact of hip fracture. The variation in care provided occurred partly because of the individual tailoring of treatment, but was also the result of geographical variation in the availability of resources, the complex variety of providers delivering different components of rehabilitation programme and the lack of awareness by referring clinicians of the full extent of available services. This complexity in programme provision meant that there was a strong need for more information to be provided to patients and their carers about what to expect following hip fracture and how to access all of the resources available for rehabilitation. Facilitators of, and barriers to, rehabilitation included the reliance on patients’ self-motivation for seeking out and accessing services, and also their confidence to do so, their engagement in the rehabilitation programme, which could depend on its relevance to their day-to-day activities, and their self-efficacy beliefs, as well as their pre-fracture level of functioning and comorbid conditions. As rehabilitation progressed, some flexibility in response to changing patient needs was required, such as requiring access to transport for community services when home visits were no longer required. Good co-ordination and communication between the different components of the programme were important; as different components were provided by different organisations or services, it was evident that failures in communication had the potential to cause problems at various stages along a patient’s rehabilitation journey. Finally, in addition to physical needs, falling and fracturing had an important psychosocial impact in terms of anxiety, fear of falling, loss of independence and loss of participation in previously enjoyed activities.
Strengths and limitations
Although the best efforts were made to ensure that participants in the health-care professional focus groups included representatives from across the whole multidisciplinary team involved in post-fracture care and rehabilitation, it was not possible for members from all disciplines to attend, for example pharmacists or orthogeriatricians. Therapy managers involved in the organisation of wider teams were also absent from the focus groups. Although the inclusion of such therapy managers may have provided further insights into the organisation of resources across areas, there is the potential for the presence of senior staff to limit the discussions generated from more junior members of teams. As the groups consisted generally of staff at similar levels of seniority, the inclusion of such therapy managers was avoided, and good levels of discussion were seen between focus group members. Representatives from social services from one council were able to attend one focus group, which was useful to obtain their perspectives; however, there are several other councils in this area so these perspectives may be limited, particularly in relation to the geographical variation that was apparent.
Similarly, the absence from focus groups of patients or the carers of patients who were living in residential care, or who had cognitive impairment, limits the breadth of information gathered from the patient and carer perspective. The patients who were able to attend had a broad range of functional abilities and comorbidities, allowing us to gain insight from patients with different experiences of rehabilitation. However, it is possible that those patients who declined to take part in the focus groups or who were unable to attend because of ill health may have been those who were struggling the most with their recovery.
Comparison with previous literature
There are significant similarities between the focus group findings and other published reports of qualitative research in comparable groups. Other studies have found a similar spectrum of patient participants with varying levels of post-fracture function and a range of levels of dependency on carers and available health services,296 but generally displaying strong self-motivation and ‘zest for life’.88 A study exploring mobility levels pre and post fracture also reported a fear of falling, a lack of confidence (low self-efficacy) and reliance on others as having an impact on patients’ experiences of rehabilitation.297 Patients and health-care professionals expressed a difficulty in predicting post-fracture self-efficacy and confidence, which has also been evidenced in a review of surgical outcomes in total hip and total knee replacements.272 This review concluded that post-operative self-efficacy was a more consistent predictor of functional outcomes than pre-operative self-efficacy, highlighting the importance of feedback on post-operative achievements for continuing rehabilitation engagement. The patient need for information from health-care professionals and the importance of this in successful rehabilitation has also been previously identified.298
A qualitative study of physiotherapist perceptions of rehabilitation also found that there is tailoring of care to patients’ individual needs, based on their own goals and level of support available.185 A study into the challenges of team working in the rehabilitation of hip fracture patients also demonstrated that there are breakdowns in communication within multidisciplinary teams and issues relating to the organisation of resources and services that lead to variation in patient care.299 In addition, this theme was prevalent in the survey findings (see Chapter 4).
The description of care across North Wales was also similar to the findings from across the UK, as presented in Chapter 4. There is an emphasis on early mobilisation after surgery and rehabilitation programmes vary according to the resources available and the individual needs of patients.
Implications for practice and future research
The goal of conducting focus groups was to gain insight into the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals on the rehabilitation of patients following hip fracture and highlight areas that could be improved. This has been successfully achieved. The emergent themes encompassed a range of experiences and insights, which were used to inform the development of the study intervention (see Chapter 6) and further refine the theory areas of the realist review (see Chapter 2). In particular, they emphasised the need of patients for information following hip fracture, which led to the development of an information workbook to be used as part of the study intervention, the content of which was partially based on information requirements that were detailed in focus groups.
The variability in care provision was an important factor in both patient and professional perspectives of what constitutes a good package of rehabilitation, and the decision to provide six additional therapy sessions to intervention group participants aimed to address this issue.
On a wider scale, there are also implications in terms of informing health and social care services about areas that could be improved, particularly with regard to how to communicate information to patients and their families to support them during a time when they report feeling isolated and vulnerable. By including patients more explicitly in the decisions regarding their care, providing feedback on progress and being transparent around expectations, including the lack of service provision or potential treatment delays, it may be possible to improve patient engagement in rehabilitation and allow patients and families to regain control of their recovery.
- Phase I focus groups - Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package fol...Phase I focus groups - Developing a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture and testing in a randomised feasibility study: Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR)
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...