» Articles » PMID: 7719180

Differences in Mortality After Fracture of Hip: the East Anglian Audit

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 1995 Apr 8
PMID 7719180
Citations 73
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To investigate differences between hospitals in clinical management of patients admitted with fractured hip and to relate these to mortality at 90 days.

Design: A prospective audit of process and outcome of care based on interviews with patients, abstraction from records with standard proforma, and follow up at three months. Data were analysed with chi 2 test and forward stepwise regression modelling of mortality.

Setting: All eight hospitals in East Anglia with trauma orthopaedic departments.

Patients: 580 consecutive patients admitted for fracture of neck of femur.

Main Outcome Measure: Mortality at 90 days.

Results: Patients admitted to each hospital were similar with respect to age, sex, pre-existing illnesses, and activities of daily living before fracture. In all, 560 (97%) were treated surgically, by a range of grades of surgeon. Two hundred and sixty one patients (45%; range between hospitals 10-91%) received pharmaceutical thromboembolic prophylaxis, 502 (93%; 81-99%) perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The incidence of fatal pulmonary emboli differed between patients who received and those who did not receive prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis (P = 0.001). Mortality at 90 days was 18%, differing significantly between hospitals (5-24%). One hospital had significantly better survival than the others (odds ratio 0.14; 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.48; P = 0.0016).

Conclusions: No single factor or aspect of practice accounted for this protective effect. Lower mortality may be associated with the cumulative effects of several aspects of the organisation of treatment and the management of fracture of the hip, including thromboembolic pharmaceutical prophylaxis, antibiotic prophylaxis, and early mobilisation.

Citing Articles

Which performance indicators are used globally for evaluating healthcare in patients with a hip fracture? : a mixed methods systematic review.

Mazarello Paes V, Ting A, Masters J, Paes M, Tutton E, Graham S Bone Jt Open. 2025; 6(3):275-290.

PMID: 40043739 PMC: 11882308. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.63.BJO-2024-0104.R1.


Factors Influencing Postoperative Inpatient Rehabilitation Requirement After Surgical Intervention for Isolated Hip Fracture: A Multicenter Study.

Lynch D, Romero A, McFadden J, Zeblisky P, Liu H, Ang D Orthop Surg. 2024; 17(1):252-259.

PMID: 39545453 PMC: 11735350. DOI: 10.1111/os.14290.


Osteoporosis: A Narrative Review.

Sheik Ali A Cureus. 2023; 15(8):e43031.

PMID: 37674960 PMC: 10479953. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43031.


Association of two geriatric treatment systems on care home admission and mortality in patients with hip fracture.

Rapp K, Becker C, Todd C, Rehm M, Rothenbacher D, Konnopka C BMC Geriatr. 2022; 22(1):459.

PMID: 35624422 PMC: 9145150. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03037-z.


A randomized clinical trial of low dose single antibiotic-loaded cement versus high dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement in patients receiving a hip hemiarthroplasty after fracture: A protocol for the WHiTE 8 COPAL study.

Agni N, Costa M, Achten J, OConnor H, Png M, Peckham N Bone Jt Open. 2021; 2(2):72-78.

PMID: 33630700 PMC: 7925209. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.22.BJO-2020-0174.


References
1.
Parker M, Palmer C . A new mobility score for predicting mortality after hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993; 75(5):797-8. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.75B5.8376443. View

2.
Pearse M, Woolf A . Care of elderly patients with a fractured neck of femur. Health Trends. 1991; 24(4):134-6. View

3.
Altman D . Statistics and ethics in medical research: III How large a sample?. Br Med J. 1980; 281(6251):1336-8. PMC: 1714734. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.281.6251.1336. View