This is a feature story about the potential benefits in treating hip fractures as a critical emergency, and providing “fast-track” access to surgery to improve outcomes. As the story indicates, limited research so far shows that waiting more than a day or so leads to a higher risk of complications and death.
This story covered a lot of the basics, giving readers an overview of where the research stands, and why doctors hypothesize this method is better. That said, it could have emphasized that surgery is still surgery, and while this approach may reduce complications, there are still risks. More also was needed on the measured benefits and general availability of this option.
Among older adults, hip fractures are common and have a big impact on quality of life. For readers at risk of a hip fracture, or who have loved ones at risk, this story is likely to be of high interest, and it’s important they come away fully informed–even if things like costs and harms may be less than standard slower treatment, they should not be overlooked altogether.
The story does not discuss costs, and this is an important oversight considering how expensive inpatient surgery is. Presumably this fast-track surgery is less expensive since it reduces time spent in the hospital, but we’re not giving any specifics.
The story doesn’t get into the measured specifics. We’re told delayed surgery creates a “significantly higher overall complication rate. And surgery two days and three or more days after admission was associated with higher rates of death.” But without actual numbers, it’s unclear how significant these rates are.
There are no harms discussed in the story. We can presume that faster surgery is safer, but whether hip repair is done rapidly or after three days, all surgical patients are at risk of harm, and so the risks should be discussed.
The story provides a good overview of the evidence, letting us know that fast-track hip surgery has been studied on a pilot basis, and is now being studied in a new large international clinical trial to help clarify how beneficial it is.
The story quotes two experts involved with research, but also one more who appears independent of it, as well as a patient. There also appear to be no notable conflicts of interest.
This story is a comparison of alternatives, comparing established methods with newer methods.
It’s not clear how widely available this fast-track surgery option is in general, but this is something you’d want to know if you were a patient/caregiver trying to find some place that offers this.
The story calls this a new approach, but in reality “fast-track” surgery has been used in many institutions for a long time (but it has not been standardized across the country).
It does not appear that there was a news release on this topic that instigated the story.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
With the discontinuation of @HealthNewsRevu, there's a genuine concern that well-written and researched "reality checks" in healthcare are not economically interesting. This should be disconcerting to anyone, and yet I'm only seeing more and more piling into "promising findings"
Thanks for ALL you do and have done, Gary. https://t.co/93K4hzQXZj
Thanks for sharing this with all of us today, @garyschwitzer @HealthNewsRevu
A nice gift.
#healthcare #healthcarenews #journalism #reporting #factsmatter #truthmatters https://t.co/hNHdZDl2rc
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like