The 1-Year Mortality of Patients Treated in a Hip Fracture Program for Elders

Abstract

Comanagement of geriatric hip fracture patients with standardized protocols has been shown to improve short-term outcomes after surgery. A standardized, patient-centered, comanaged Hip Fracture Program for Elders is examined for 1-year mortality. Patients ≥60 years of age who were treated in the Hip Fracture Program for Elders were comanaged by orthopaedic surgeons and geriatricians. Data including age, place of origin, procedure, length of stay, 1-year mortality, Charlson score, and activities of daily living (ADLs) were retrospectively collected. A total of 758 patients ≥60 years of age with hip fractures between April 15, 2005, and March 1, 2009, were included. Their data were analyzed, and the Social Security Death Index and the hospital data system were searched for mortality data. Seventy-eight percent were female, with a mean age of 84.8 years. The mean Charlson score was 3. Fifty percent were admitted from an institutional setting. The overall 1-year mortality was 21.2%. Age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.05; P = .02), male gender (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01-2.36; P = .04), low Parker mobility score (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.31-6.57; P = .01), and a Charlson score of 4 or greater (OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.30-3.55; P = .002) were predictive of 1-year mortality. ADL dependence was a borderline predictor, as was medium Parker mobility score. Prefracture residence and moderate comorbidity (Charlson score of 2-3) were not independently predictive of mortality at 1 year after adjusting for other characteristics. A comprehensive comanaged hip fracture program for elders not only improves the short-term outcomes but also demonstrates a low 1-year mortality rate, particularly in patients from nursing facilities.

Hip fractures in older adults are a leading public health concern. The incidence of hip fractures has been declining over the past decade; however, the total number of fractures has grown exponentially.¹ The number of hip fractures in the United States could total 840 000 by the year 2040.^2,3 Older adults are the fastest growing segment of the US population. The population aged 65 years and older is predicted to more than double by 2050, increasing from 39 million today to 89 million.⁴ It has been estimated that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 12 men will sustain a hip fracture in their lifetime.⁵ It has been reported that 86% of hip fractures occur in individuals aged 65 years and older.⁶

Hip fractures are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, loss of independence, and financial burden.^6–12 In usual care, the reported 1-year mortality after sustaining a hip fracture has been estimated to be 14% to 58% (Table 1).^1,7,13–29 The relative risk of mortality in the elderly patient population increases 4% per year.³⁰ The first year after a hip fracture appears to be the most critical time. A recent meta-analysis revealed that women sustaining a hip fracture had a 5-fold increase and men almost an 8-fold increase in relative likelihood of death within the first 3 months as compared with age- and sex-matched controls.³¹ The relative hazards decreased substantially over the first 2 years after fracture but never returned to the mortality rates of the controls.³²

Table 1.

Summary of Published Mortality Rates in Patients With Hip Fractures Treated in Usual Care

Author	Year	Number of Patients	In-Hospital Mortality, %	Overall 1-Year Mortality, %; Male/Female, %	1-Year Mortality of NH Patients, %	1-Year Mortality of Community Patients, %
White et al29	1987	241	NS	22; M 34, F 18	NA	NA
Keene et al23	1993	1000	15	33	NA	NA
Aharonoff et al22	1997	612	4	12.7; M 20.7, F 10.7	Excluded	12.7
Leibson et al21	2002	312	NA	NA	30	15
Elliot et al20	2003	1780	NA	22; M 30.1, F 19.5	NA	NA
Richmond et al58	2003	836	2.7	11.5; NA	Excluded	11.5
Wehren et al18	2003	794	NA	18.9; M 31.4, F 23.3	Excluded	18.9
Roche et al7	2005	2448	NA	33; NA	NA	NA
Haentjens et al17	2007	170	6.5	18.8; NA	NA	NA
Rapp et al16	2008	4342	NA	M 58.3, F 44.8	M 58.3, F 44.8	Excluded
Von Friesendorff et al15	2008	163	NA	21; NA	NA	Na
Brauer et al1	2009	786 717	NA	M 32.5, F 21.9	NA	NA
Berry et al14	2009	195	NA	39.5; M 53.5, F 35.6	39.5; M 53.5, F 35.6	Excluded
Bentler et al13	2009	495	3	26	NA	NA

NA, not available; M, male; F, female.

To optimize the care of this rapidly growing population, a hip fracture program for elders has been implemented with the orthopaedic and geriatric medical services to improve patient care. This hip fracture program for elders uses evidence-based protocols and comanagement of the patients by orthopaedic surgeons and geriatricians. This model of care has previously been shown to decrease length of stay (LOS), re-admission rates, complications, costs of care, and in-hospital mortality.^25,31–36

Our hypothesis was that, relative to other hip fracture studies in which a comanagement approach is not employed, our cohort of hip fracture patients, treated, as described, by our comanagement team, would have similar 1-year mortality. We also sought to describe patient characteristics that would be associated with increased 1-year mortality.

Methods

Patient Care Setting

The study hospital is a 262-bed, level-3 community teaching hospital affiliated with a large university medical center. This program was developed incrementally, starting in 1995, with use of standard orders sets and a standard nursing care plan. In 2004, this program was standardized, redesigned, and expanded to include comanagement with geriatricians, total quality management of each aspect of patient care, and lean business principles. All hip fracture patients were comanaged by orthopaedic surgeons and geriatricians throughout their entire hospitalization. Patient-centered, evidence-based, standard protocols were used in all phases of patient care. Patients with hip fractures were admitted through the emergency department or directly from other institutions. Medically stable and medically complex patients were admitted to the orthopaedic service on a designated fracture unit. All patients admitted to the orthopaedic service were seen by a geriatrician preoperatively. Medically unstable patients are admitted to the geriatric medicine service or to the intensive care unit. When the team decided the patient had been medically optimized, the patient was brought to surgery. Stability and fitness for surgery were determined when surgery was scheduled. Standardized patient care order sets were used from admission until discharge and are matched to integrated nursing care plans. Some care is provided by house staff, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Throughout the hospital stay, orthopaedic surgeons and geriatricians shared “ownership” of the patients and saw the patients daily.³³ Specifics of this program have previously been described in detail.^33,37

Data Collection

Most data were prospectively collected as part of a quality management program, starting 6 months after the inception of the program. Data needed to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were obtained by chart review retrospectively. The Parker mobility score was primarily collected prospectively. Data were collected by a dedicated research nurse, using clinical information from charts. Chart review and interrater reliability testing were used to verify and maintain data integrity. The Research Subjects Review Board has reviewed and approved this study.

Patient Population

Patients 60 years of age or older who sustained a proximal femur fracture and were treated between April 15, 2005, and March 1, 2009, were included in the study for analysis. Subjects were excluded from the study if they were found to have a pathological fracture, a high-energy trauma, periprosthetic fracture, a previous hip fracture treated, or treated nonoperatively. This left 758 patients for evaluation.

Variables

Predictors included age, race, gender, comorbidities, preinjury living situation, LOS, Parker Mobility Index,²³ prefracture activities of daily living (ADLs), and Charlson³⁸ score. The Parker mobility score is an assessment tool that ranks prefracture mobility on a scale of 0 to 9.³⁹ A person with a score of 9 is independent in mobility at home and in the community, whereas someone with a score of 0 is completely dependent for ambulation. ADLs were given a value of 1 for independent and 0 for dependent. ADL independence was summed, giving a value between 0 (fully dependent) and 6 (fully independent). The CCI is a validated tool used to predict 1-year mortality. The CCI is a weighted score that takes into account the severity of certain medical comorbidities. In the original study, a patient with a CCI between 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 had 1-year mortality rates of 26% and 52%, respectively.³⁸

The primary outcome measure was 1-year mortality. This was determined by searching the Social Security Death Index and the hospital data system. Social security numbers were submitted to the Social Security Death Index first. If mortality could not be confirmed, death was verified through hospital records. One hundred percent of patients with charts had 1-year mortality information confirmed in this way. Time to surgery, LOS, discharge Parker mobility score, and in-hospital mortality were secondary outcomes that were evaluated.

Statistical Analysis

The patient population was described using means and standard deviations for continuous variables, with medians reported for skewed data. Proportions were reported for categorical variables.

One-year mortality was reported for the entire population and then divided by predictor variables. For purposes of categorization, Parker mobility score was divided into low (below the median of 5), high (9, or fully mobile), and medium (5-8). ADLs had a bimodal distribution, and ADL was therefore divided into 3 categories, namely, independent (score of 6/6), partial dependence (1-5), and dependent (0/6). Charlson comorbidity was divided into low (0 or 1), medium (2-3), and high (4 or more). χ² analyses were performed to determine statistical significance.

A logistic regression model was performed to evaluate independent predictors of mortality at 1 year. Variables included in the model were age, gender, Parker mobility category, ADL category, Charlson category, and residence prior to admission.

Statistical analyses were conducted using Statview 5 software for Windows (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, North Carolina).

Comparison Literature

As this was a case series, without a comparison population, comparison data were derived from a thorough literature review. We searched for English articles by using PubMed.org. The search terms included hip fracture, one-year mortality, and comanagement. The papers were then reviewed and included if they contained patients older than 50 years with surgically treated hip fractures and 1-year mortality data. Search results were divided into usual care and comanaged programs.

Results

Demographics

A summary of the patient demographics can be found in Table 2. A total of 758 patients aged ≥60 years with low-energy, nonpathologic fractures treated in this program had 1-year mortality data available (April 15, 2005, to March 1, 2009) and were included in the study (Table 2). Hip fractures included all fractures from the femoral neck to subtrochanteric region. These were not analyzed by type of fracture in this article as the study does not have sufficient power to detect these differences. The mean age was 84.8 ± 8.4 years, 77.8% were female, and 94.7% were Caucasian. Forty-seven percent of the patients were admitted to the hospital from home. Fifty percent of the patients required a higher level of preadmission care and were admitted from assisted living and skilled nursing facilities. For purposes of this study, assisted living was defined as an adult-living community or facility that provided assistance or supervision with at least 1 ADL but was not licensed as a skilled nursing facility. The mean Charlson³⁸ score was 2.9 ± 2.1. The average Parker mobility score on admission was 5.0 ± 2.7. The mean preadmission ADL score was 3.9 ± 2.4.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Patients

Total N	758
Gender, %
Female	77.8
Age, y, mean ± SD
Overall	84.8 ± 8.4
Race, %
White	94.7
Hispanic	1.2
Black	1.2
Asian	2.1
American Indian	0.1
Other	0.3
Prefracture residence, %
Community	47.1
Assisted living	12.8
Nursing home	37.3
Unknown	2.8
Charlson score, mean ± SD
Overall	2.9 ± 2.1
Female	2.8 ± 2.1
Male	3.3 ± 2.3
Dementia, %	47.8
Length of stay, mean ± SD	4.3 ± 3.3
Readmission rate, %	10.4
Reoperation rate, %	1.85
Admit average Parker mobility, mean ± SD	4.9 ± 2.7
Inpatient mortality, %	2.8
Admission activities of daily living, mean ± SD	3.9 ± 2.4

Surgical and Postsurgical Data

The average hospital LOS was 4.3 ± 3.3 days. The average time to the operating room was 23:25 ± 17:13 hours. Sixty-eight percent of the patients went to the operating room within 24 hours, and 94.6% went to the operating room within 48 hours. The average Parker mobility score upon discharge was 1.2 ± 0.9.

Mortality

The 1-year mortality according to baseline characteristics is provided in Table 3. The overall unadjusted 1-year mortality was 21.2%. The 1-year mortality for men versus women was 26.8% and 19.7%, respectively. Individuals who resided in the community prior to fracture had a 1-year mortality of 13.2% versus 30.7% and 23.7%, respectively, for those residing in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities. The mortality rate was 2.7% for the initial inpatient hospital stay.

Table 3.

1-Year Mortality, According to Baseline Characteristics

Characteristic	n	Mortality Rate	P Value
Overall mortality	758	21.2
Age, y			.0002
60-69	48	2.1
70-79	139	14.4
80-89	364	22.8
≥90	207	27.5
Gender			.04
Male	590	26.8
Female	168	19.7
Preadmission  residencea			<.0001
Nursing home	283	30.7
Assisted living	97	23.7
Community	357	13.2
Preoperative Parker  mobility score			<.0001
High (9)	149	6.7
Medium (5-8)	327	18.3
Low (0-4)	282	32.3
Preoperative levels of  activity of daily living			<.0001
Independent (6/6)	348	11.2
Partial dependence (1-5/6)	268	29.5
Dependent (0/6)	142	30.3
Charlson score			<.0001
Low (0-1)	221	12.7
Medium (2-3)	277	19.1
High (4 or more)	260	30.8
Dementia			<.0001
Yes	362	29.3
No	396	13.9

Table 4 provides the independent predictors of 1-year mortality. Age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.05; P = .02), male gender (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.01-2.36; P = .04), low Parker mobility score (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.31-6.57; P = .01), and a Charlson score of 4 or greater (OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.30-3.55; P = .002) were predictive of mortality at 1 year after adjusting for other factors. ADL dependence was a borderline predictor, as was medium Parker mobility score. Prefracture residence and moderate comorbidity (Charlson of 2-3) were not independently predictive of mortality at 1 year after adjusting for other characteristics.

Table 4.

Independent Predictors of Mortality

Characteristic	Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)	P Value
Age (per additional year)	1.03 (1.00–1.06)	.02
Male gender	1.56 (1.02–2.40)	.04
Parker mobility score (vs high)
Medium (5–8)	2.17 (0.99–4.42)	.05
Low (0–4)	2.79 (1.24–6.27)	.01
Activity of daily living  independence (vs independent)
Partial (1–5)	1.60 (0.93–2.76)	.09
Dependent (0)	1.84 (0.99–3.44)	.05
Charlson score (vs 0–1)
2–3	1.36 (0.81–2.28)	.25
4 or more	2.19 (1.32–3.64)	.002
Residence (vs community)
Assisted living	1.23 (0.66–2.28)	.52
Skilled nursing facility	1.31 (0.78–2.20)	.32

Discussion

Health centers worldwide have begun to incorporate the comanagement of patients by geriatricians or hospitalists and orthopaedists. Many use evidence-based treatment protocols for the care of elderly patients with proximal femur fractures.^{25,34,37,40–46} This is likely in response to the large number of elderly patients with hip fractures, the poor outcomes that these patients experience, and the high cost of hip fracture care. To provide cost-effective, efficient, and evidence-based care to this medically complex population, health care systems have sought new treatment paradigms. The practice of comanagement has not been widely instituted in the United States. The research supporting the use of this model of care has been mixed. Multiple randomized controlled trials have failed to show significant improvements in long-term mortality after hip fracture surgery with this model of care.^41,47–49 Other studies that have included comanagement or special clinical pathways have shown a decrease in mortality rates; however, few report long-term mortality rates (Table 5).^{25,33,42,44,46} In a cohort comparison by Pedersen et al²⁵ of 535 patients with hip fractures treated within a multidisciplinary hip fracture program, the overall 1-year mortality was 23% compared with 29% for those who were treated with standardized care. However, this improved mortality was only a trend in the Kaplan-Meier analysis and not significant (P = .2). Barone et al⁵⁰ compared comanaged patients with controls and revealed 1-year mortalities of 25% and 35.3%, respectively. However, patient inclusion and exclusion criteria were not clear.⁵⁰

Table 5.

Hip Fracture Studies Involving Comanagement or Specialized Clinical Pathways

Author	Year	Type	n	Care Model	Included Instutionalized Patients	In-Hospital Mortality for IG, %	1-Year Mortality for IG, %
Gilchrist47	1988	RCT	374	Comanagement	Yes	5	n/a
Huusko48	2000	RCT	243	Comanagement	No	n/a	n/a
Naglie41	2000	RCT	279	Comanagement	Yes	n/a	n/a
Khan49	2002	Prospective cohort	745	Comanagement	Yes	11.1	n/a
Koval45	2004	Retrospective	1065	Clinical pathway	No	1.5	8.8
Phy31	2005	Retrospective	466	Comanagement	Yes	4.4	n/a
Vidàn46	2005	RCT	319	Comanagement	No	0.6	18.9
Thwaites43	2005	Retrospective	150	Comanagement	Yes	0.7	n/a
Fisher42	2005	Prospective cohort	951	Comanagement	Yes	4.7	n/a
Parker44	2000	Prospective cohort	2846	Team management	Yes	n/a	n/a
Beaupre34	2006	Prospective cohort	663	Clinical pathway	Yes	7	n/a
Pedersen25	2008	Retrospective	535	Clinical pathway	Yes	n/a	23%
Hommel12	2008	Retrospective	478	Clinical pathway	Yes	2% F, 3% M	22% F, 36% M
Present study	2010	Retrospective	758	Comanagement	Yes	2.8	21.2

RCT, randomized controlled trial; F, female; M, male; IG, intervention group.

When this hip fracture program for elders was developed, the primary goal was to improve the morbidity and mortality of patients in the acute care setting. Initial investigations described an in-hospital mortality rate of 1.5% for a much smaller cohort of patients. The current in-hospital mortality is 2.7%. The 2005 National Inpatient Sample quoted an inpatient mortality rate of 3% for hip fracture.⁵¹ Other studies on comanaged hip fracture care have found in-hospital mortality rates between 0.6% and 11.1%.³³ A recent meta-analysis of 9 studies including 4637 patients that compared patients treated within a hip fracture clinical pathway versus usual care found no significant improvement in short-term mortality.⁵² The substantially lower mortality at 1 year in this program was not expected. The 1-year unadjusted mortality rate of 21.2% is lower than other published studies of patients treated in usual care when including institutionalized patients (Table 1). Other studies involving comanagement of patients have quoted lower mortality rates at 1 year but excluded patients with dementia, nursing home residents, or nonambulatory patients who typically have multiple medical comorbidities.^16,45,46 This study did not exclude patients based on their mental status, previous living arrangements, or functional levels and may provide broader applicability to the population. The incorporation of evidence-based protocols and comanaged care is a possible reason for the low overall mortality rate described in this study. In addition, the surgeons and geriatricians working at this facility care for a high volume of geriatric fractures, and this likely improves surgical and medical outcomes. In a retrospective review of 97 894 patients with hip fractures, the authors found a significant decrease in in-hospital mortality when high-volume surgeons (greater than 15 fracture cases per year) were involved. In addition, they found that the increased surgeon and hospital volume was associated with decreased nonfatal morbidity and decreased LOS.⁵³ In a recent review of mortality after intertrochanteric hip fractures, the researchers found inpatient mortality rates to be 10% to 20% higher in patients cared for in less than median volume hospitals.⁵⁴

The Parker mobility score is a tool to assess preinjury mobility function and help stratify 1-year mortality after proximal femur fractures.³⁹ We found that this index was predictive of 1-year mortality in our study population. The ORs of 1-year mortality were 2.79 (P = .01) and 2.17 (P = .05) for low (0-4) and medium (5-8) mobility scores, respectively. A prospective 10-year study found that patients needing an assistive device for ambulation prior to their hip fracture had a 28% increased risk of mortality. In addition, patients who were limited to ambulation within their home had a 2.2 times greater risk of mortality.³⁰ Another indicator of general health is the patient’s level of independence with ADLs. This study demonstrates that patients who were totally dependent with ADLs prior to hip fracture had an OR of 1.84 (P = .05) higher likelihood of mortality. This is consistent with previously published data. Aharonoff et al²² analyzed 612 community-dwelling geriatric patients in whom prefracture dependency in basic ADLs predicted an increased hazard ratio 1-year mortality of 2.422.

Patients residing in an institution prior to hip fracture have a significantly greater risk of sustaining a hip fracture than those residing at home.⁵⁵ Nursing home patients have a greater likelihood of having dementia and more comorbidities than those residing at home. In addition, the nursing home population has a high prevalence of osteoporosis and falls.¹⁶ Berry et al¹⁴ have shown 1-year mortality rates in hip fracture patients from nursing homes to be 36% for women and 54% for men.¹⁴ Other authors have found a greater prevalence in pneumonia and pressure ulcers after surgery in the institutionalized patients. A recent 3-year study reviewing Medicare patient claims for intertrochanteric hip fractures found the 90-day mortality rate was double for nursing home residents.⁵⁴ It is likely that these associated characteristics are the source of increased risk for hip fracture patients who reside in institutions. In our study, the 1-year mortality rate for home-dwelling patients was 13.2% compared with 30.7% in patients from nursing facilities, which was significantly different on bivariate analysis. However, after adjusting for other characteristics, such as preoperative comorbidity and function, there was no longer a significant difference between community and noncommunity dwellers.

Forty-seven percent of our study population was diagnosed with dementia prior to their hip fracture. The 1-year mortality rate of demented patients was 29.3% versus 13.9% for those without dementia (P < .0001). Patients with dementia are known to have higher mortality rates after hip fractures. A 5-study by Khan et al⁴⁹ of hip fractures revealed a 1-year mortality rate of 28% of patients with severe dementia versus 12% without. A study by Hershkovitz et al⁵⁶ of 376 patients with hip fractures revealed a 2-year mortality rate of 26.4% in patients with dementia versus 6.5% with those without dementia.

This study, as well as others, shows an increased mortality after surgery with increasing age.^6,18,29,30 Mortality was 2% for patients younger than 70 years and more than 27% for those aged 90 years or older. In a study of 612 patients, Aharonoff et al²² found that an age >85 years was predictive of 1-year mortality. However, other studies have not shown a significant correlation between age and mortality after hip fracture.^57–59 Richmond et al⁵⁸ found a significantly increased mortality risk in patients in the 64- to 85-year-old group as compared with those older than 85 years. Berry et al¹⁴ showed that in a study of 195 nursing home residents aged 65 years and older with hip fractures, there was a 30% increase in mortality with every 5 years of advancing age. These findings are not surprising, as one would expect increased mortality with increasing age.

Patients with a Charlson score of 4 or greater were found to have twice the risk of death before 1 year. Studies have used the CCI to assess risk and predict 1-year mortality.^21,60-63 The CCI uses a cumulative score of comorbidities to provide prognostic data.³⁸ Roche et al⁷ in their study of 2448 hip fractures found that having 3 or more medical comorbidities was related to higher complication rates and mortality. Bentler et al¹³ studied 495 hip fractures and found that patients with 3 or more comorbid conditions were 65% more likely to die than those with fewer conditions. Our study patients had a mean Charlson score of 2.9 ± 2.1, which suggests a segment of the population who may have more severe or multiple medical comorbidities and presumed higher 1-year mortality rate. The predictive 1-year mortality of a patient with a Charlson score between 3 and 4 is 52%.⁶⁴ Greater than 34% of our patients had a Charlson score of 4 or greater. Despite this sicker population, our overall 1-year mortality rate was 21.2%.

Multiple studies have shown the association between the subject’s gender and mortality.^11,58,65,66 Similar to other studies, we found that men had a higher risk of mortality at 1 year. The study by Endo et al⁶⁵ of 983 hip fracture patients (206 men) found that men had an increased postoperative complication risk and almost double 1-year mortality, even when controlling for age and health status. In their study, Endo et al found no significant difference in the number of comorbidities between the sexes, but men on average had higher American Society of Anesthesiology scores, suggesting more severe morbidities.⁶⁵ A study of patients treated within a hip fracture clinical pathway revealed a 12-month mortality of 35% for men versus 22% for women.¹² Data from the Scottish Hip Fracture audit revealed that men presented with a fracture at a younger age and were likely to have more medical comorbidities. They also found that men had a significantly higher mortality rate at 30 and 120 days.²⁶ The reason for this disparity in mortality between the sexes is unclear and warrants further investigation. Some have postulated that men’s health is less stable at the time of fracture, making them more susceptible to postoperative mortality secondary to infections such as pneumonia and influenza.^11,18

Sixty-eight percent of our patients underwent surgical correction of the hip fracture within 24 hours of admission. The average time from admission to the operating room was 23:25 ± 17:13 hours. We suspect the shorter time to surgery was facilitated by the team approach to the patient and emphasis placed on early surgery in this program. A prospective study of 850 patients revealed that patients who had surgery within 36 hours of admission experienced shorter hospital LOSs, fewer pressure ulcers, and greater likelihood to return to independent living.⁶⁷ In an analysis of 18 209 Medicare recipients who underwent surgery for a hip fracture, a delay in surgery of 2 days or greater from admission was associated with a 17% increase in 30-day mortality.⁶⁸ Other studies have not shown a decrease in mortality with surgery within 48 hours of admission,⁶⁹ but they have revealed decreased minor and major complication rates.^70,71 We believe that once the patient is medically optimized, he or she should be taken to surgery in an expeditious manner to prevent potential complication and possibly improve mortality. However, the literature remains mixed in support of this notion.

This study has several strengths. It includes a large cohort of patients. The study defines factors that predict 1-year mortality after hip fractures. In addition, it gives support to the implementation of a comanagement model for the treatment of patients of with hip fractures.

The limitations include the retrospective design and lack of controls. In addition, the number of men and minorities were limited, and the data may not be applicable to all geriatric populations.

In conclusion, a comprehensive comanaged geriatric hip fracture program had better short-term outcomes and lower 1-year mortality compared with studies in the recent literature, particularly in patients from nursing facilities.