Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T23:52:23.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hospital Care Versus Home Care for Rehabilitation After Hip Replacement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Gudrun Möller ,
Ian Goldie  and
Egon Jonsson
Gudrun Möller
Affiliation:
Karolinska Hospital/Institute
Ian Goldie
Affiliation:
Karolinska Hospital/Institute
Egon Jonsson
Affiliation:
Karolinska Hospital/Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A pilot study was done to assess the feasibility of reducing the hospital stays of patients with total hip replacement (THR). The length of hospital stay for these patients depends largely on how rehabilitation, mostly physical therapy, is organized. This study shows that not more than a half hour per postoperative day was devoted to care services and rehabilitation activities. It is feasible and less expensive to reduce substantially hospital stay by planned physical therapy in the patient's home. These results have prompted a randomized controlled clinical trial to assess hospital versus home rehabilitation.

Type
Special Section: Assessing The Technology Of Physical Therapy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Winter 1992 , pp. 93 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ceder, L.Effektivt samarbete ortopedi — Öppenvård krävs för att kunna ge äldre en fullgod vård. Läkartidningen, 1983, 80, 582–84.Google Scholar
2.Jarnlo, G.-B., Ceder, L., & Thorngren, K.-G.Early rehabilitation at home of elderly patients with hip fractures and consumption of resources in primary care. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 1984, 2, 105–12.Google Scholar
3.Johansson, S.Höftledsplastik. Kostnader och effekter av en ortopedisk-kirurgisk operationsmetod. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborgs Universitet, 1983.Google Scholar
4.Jonsson, E.Kostnader och nytta av medicinsk teknologi- den konstgjorda höften. Nordisk Median, 1985, 100, 2–3.Google Scholar
5.Kolstad, K., & Wigren, A.Costs of and needs for resources in hospital care. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 1981, 9, 11–18.5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Löfström, Å. Kostnadstäckning för utomlänspatienter vid ortoped-kirurgiska kliniker. Stockholm: Karolinska sjukhuset, 1984.Google Scholar
7.Nilsson, B., Ahnfelt, L., Albrektsson, T., et al. Nya höftleder: En explosionsartad utveckling. Läkartidningen, 1988, 38, 3053.Google Scholar
8.Office of Health Economics. Hip replacement and the NHS. Luton, England: Office of Health Economics, 1982.Google Scholar
9.Sikorski, J. M., Davies, N. J., & Senior, J.The rapid transit system for patients with fractures of proximal femur. British Medical Journal, 1985, 290, 438–43.Google Scholar
10.Socialstyrelsen, . Köer i sjukvården 3. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen, 1990.Google Scholar
11.Socialstyrelsen, . Rörelseorganens sjukdomar— Problem och strategier inför 90-talet. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen, 1983.Google Scholar
12.Stockholms läns lndsting, Kommunförbundets länsavdelning. Sjukvård i hemmet-social Hemtjänst. Stockholm: Liber Tryck, 1984.Google Scholar