ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are devastating injuries, with high health and social care costs. Despite national standards and guidelines, substantial variation persists in hospital delivery of hip fracture care and patient outcomes. This qualitative study aimed to identify organisational processes that can be targeted to reduce variation in service provision and improve patient care. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 40 staff delivering hip fracture care in four UK hospitals. Twenty-three anonymised British Orthopaedic Association reports addressing under-performing hip fracture services were analysed. Following Thematic Analysis of both data sources, themes were transposed onto domains both along and across the hip fracture care pathway. RESULTS: Effective pre-operative care required early alert of patient admission and the availability of staff in emergency departments to undertake assessments, investigations and administer analgesia. Coordinated decision-making between medical and surgical teams regarding surgery was key, with strategies to ensure flexible but efficient trauma lists. Orthogeriatric services were central to effective service delivery, with collaborative working and supervision of junior doctors, specialist nurses and therapists. Information sharing via multidisciplinary meetings was facilitated by joined up information and technology systems. Service provision was improved by embedding hip fracture pathway documents in induction and training and ensuring their consistent use by the whole team. Hospital executive leadership was important in prioritising hip fracture care and advocating service improvement. Nominated specialty leads, who jointly owned the pathway and met regularly, actively steered services and regularly monitored performance, investigating lapses and consistently feeding back to the multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the importance of representation from all teams and departments involved in the multidisciplinary care pathway, to deliver integrated hip fracture care. Complex, potentially modifiable, barriers and facilitators to care delivery were identified, informing recommendations to improve effective hip fracture care delivery, and assist hospital services when re-designing and implementing service improvements.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Hip Fractures , Humans , Hip Fractures/surgery , HospitalsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Unstable ankle fractures represent a substantial burden of disease, accounting for a mean hospital stay of nine days, a mean cost of £4,491 per patient and 20,000 operations per year. There is variation in UK practice around weight-bearing instructions after operatively managed ankle fracture. Early weight-bearing may reduce reliance on health services, time off work, and improve functional outcomes. However, concerns remain about the potential for complications such as implant failure. This is the protocol of a multicentre randomised non-inferiority clinical trial of weight-bearing following operatively treated ankle fracture. METHODS: Adults aged 18 years and over who have been managed operatively for ankle fracture will be assessed for eligibility. Baseline function (Olerud and Molander Ankle Score [OMAS]), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and complications will be collected after informed consent has been obtained. A randomisation sequence has been prepared by a trial statistician to allow for 1:1 allocation to receive either instruction to weight-bear as pain allows from the point of randomisation, two weeks after the time of surgery ('early weight-bearing' group) or to not weight-bear for a further four weeks ('delayed weight -bearing' group). All other treatment will be as per the guidance of the treating clinician. Participants will be asked about their weight-bearing status weekly until four weeks post-randomisation. At four weeks post-randomisation complications will be collected. At six weeks, four months, and 12 months post-randomisation, the OMAS, EQ-5D-5L, complications, physiotherapy input, and resource use will be collected. The primary outcome measure is ankle function (OMAS) at four months post-randomisation. A minimum of 436 participants will be recruited to obtain 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -6 points on the OMAS 4 months post-randomisation. A within-trial health economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment options. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will inform national guidance with regards to the most clinically and cost-effective strategy for weight-bearing after surgery for unstable ankle fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12883981 , Registered 02 December 2019.
Subject(s)
Ankle Fractures , Adolescent , Adult , Ankle Fractures/diagnostic imaging , Ankle Fractures/surgery , Ankle Joint , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome , Weight-BearingABSTRACT
AIMS: This feasibility study investigates the utilization and cost of health resources related to formal and informal care, home adaptations, and physiotherapy among patients aged 60 years and above after hip fracture from a multicentre cohort study (World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE)) in the UK. METHODS: A questionnaire containing health resource use was completed at baseline and four months post-injury by patients or their carer. Completion rate and mean cost of each health resource item were assessed and sensitivity analysis was performed to derive a conservative estimate of the informal care cost. All costs are presented in 2017/18 pound sterling. RESULTS: A total of 4,183 patients from the WHiTE cohort completed the baseline questionnaire between May 2017 and April 2018, of whom 3,524 (84.2%) completed the four-month health resource section. Estimated mean costs of formal and informal care, home adaptations, and physiotherapy during the four months following injury were £2,843 (SD 5,467), £6,613 (SD 15,146), £706 (SD 1,706) and £9 (SD 33), respectively. Mean cost of informal care decreased to £660 (SD £1,040) in the sensitivity analysis when informal care was capped at 17.2 hours per day. CONCLUSION: Informal care is a significant source of costs after hip fracture and should therefore be included in future economical analyses of this patient group. Our results show that there is considerable variation in the interpretation of time-use of informal care among patients and further work is needed to improve how data regarding informal care are collected in order to obtain a more accurate cost estimate.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(5):250-257.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: This study sought to determine the proportion of older adults with hip fractures captured by a multicentre prospective cohort, the World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE), whether there was evidence of selection bias during WHiTE recruitment, and the extent to which the WHiTE cohort is representative of the broader population of older adults with hip fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The characteristics of patients recruited into the WHiTE cohort study were compared with those treated at WHiTE hospitals during the same timeframe and submitted to the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). RESULTS: Patients recruited to WHiTE were more likely to be admitted from their own home (83.5% vs 80.2%; p < 0.001) and to have a higher median Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) (9 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 10) vs 9 (IQR 5 to 10); p < 0.001) than those who were not recruited. In terms of WHiTE cohort generalizability, participating hospitals included a greater proportion of Major Trauma Centres (47.8% vs 7.8%) and large hospitals (997 (IQR 873 to 1290) vs 707 (459 to 903) beds) with high-volume Emergency Departments (median annual attendances of 43 981 (IQR 37 147 to 54 385) vs 35 964 (IQR 26 229 to 50 551)). However, there were few differences in baseline characteristics between patients in the WHiTE cohort and those recorded in the NHFD. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of a weak selection bias towards recruiting fitter patients within the WHiTE cohort, which will help to put into context the findings of future studies. We conclude that the patients within the WHiTE cohort are representative of the national population of older adults with hip fractures throughout England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:708-714.
Subject(s)
Hip Fractures/epidemiology , Aged, 80 and over , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiologySubject(s)
Practice Guidelines as Topic , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Hospitalization , Humans , Middle Aged , Perioperative Care/methods , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Young AdultABSTRACT
Aims: This study aimed to compare the change in health-related quality of life of patients receiving a traditional cemented monoblock Thompson hemiarthroplasty compared with a modern cemented modular polished-taper stemmed hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Patients and Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, multisurgeon, two-arm, parallel group, randomized standard-of-care controlled trial. It was embedded within the WHiTE Comprehensive Cohort Study. The sample size was 964 patients. The setting was five National Health Service Trauma Hospitals in England. A total of 964 patients over 60 years of age who required hemiarthroplasty of the hip between February 2015 and March 2016 were included. A standardized measure of health outcome, the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, was carried out on admission and at four months following the operation. Results: Of the 964 patients enrolled, 482 died or were lost to follow-up (50%). No significant differences were noted in EQ-5D between groups, with a mean difference at four months of 0.037 in favour of the Exeter/Unitrax implant (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.014 to 0.087, p = 0.156), rising to 0.045 (95% CI 0.007 to 0.098, p = 0.09) when patients who died were excluded. The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D-5L used in this study is 0.08, therefore any benefit between implants is unlikely to be noticeable to the patient. There was no difference in mortality or mobility score. Conclusion: Allowing for the high rate of loss to follow-up, the use of the traditional Thompson hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of the displaced intracapsular hip fracture shows no difference in health outcome when compared with a modern cemented hemiarthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:352-60.
Subject(s)
Fracture Dislocation/surgery , Hemiarthroplasty/instrumentation , Hip Fractures/surgery , Hip Prosthesis , Intra-Articular Fractures/surgery , Quality of Life , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Status Indicators , Hemiarthroplasty/methods , Humans , Linear Models , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients following hip fracture. We compare the relative merits and make recommendations for the use for two methods of measuring HRQoL; (i) including patients who died during follow-up and (ii) including survivors only. METHODS: The World Hip Trauma Evaluation has previously reported changes in HRQoL using EuroQol-5D for patients with hip fractures. We performed additional analysis to investigate the effect of including or excluding those patients who died during the first four months of the follow-up period. RESULTS: The dataset included 503 patients, 25 of whom died between 30 days and four months of injury. There was a statistically significant difference in 30-day HRQoL between those alive (mean 0.331 and standard deviation (sd) 0.360) and those dead (mean 0.156 and sd 0.421) by four months (independent-samples t-test; p 0.022). The estimated difference of 0.175 in HRQoL (95% confidence interval 0.025 to 0.325) was also highly clinically significant. CONCLUSION: When reporting HRQoL for patients after a hip fracture, excluding patients who die during follow-up leads to an overestimate of the effects of the intervention or treatment pathway. We would recommend that death-adjusted estimates should be used routinely when reporting HRQoL in this population.Cite this article: N. Parsons, X. L. Griffin, J. Achten, T. J. Chesser, S. E. Lamb, M. L. Costa. Modelling and estimation of health-related quality of life after hip fracture: A re-analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:1-5.
Subject(s)
Orthopedic Procedures , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Research Design , Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic , Editorial Policies , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Research Design/standardsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The Sliding Hip Screw (SHS) is commonly used to treat trochanteric hip fractures. Fixation failure is a devastating complication requiring complex revision surgery. One mode of fixation failure is lag screw cut-out which is greatest in unstable fracture patterns and when the tip-apex distance of the lag screw is > 25 mm. The X-Bolt Dynamic Hip Plating System (X-Bolt Orthopaedics, Dublin, Ireland) is a new device which aims to reduce this risk of cut-out. However, some surgeons have reported difficulty minimising the tip-apex distance with subsequent concerns that this may lead to an increased risk of cut-out. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We measured the tip-apex distance from the intra-operative radiographs of 93 unstable trochanteric hip fractures enrolled in a randomised controlled trial (Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation, WHiTE One trial). Participants were treated with either the sliding hip screw or the X-Bolt dynamic hip plating system. We also recorded the incidence of cut-out in both groups, at a median follow-up time of 17 months. RESULTS: There was a significantly increased tip-apex distance with the use of the X-Bolt (mean difference 3.7mm (95% confidence interval 1.58 to 5.73); SHS mean 17.1 mm, X-Bolt mean 20.8; p = 0.001. However, this was not associated with an increased incidence of cut-out at a median follow-up time of 17 months, with three cut-outs (6%) in the SHS group and 0 (0%) in the X-Bolt group. CONCLUSION: The X-Bolt is a safe implant with no increased risk for cut-out. Concerns about minimising the tip-apex distance may be justified but do not appear to be clinically important.Cite this article: M. A. Fernandez, A. Aquilina, J. Achten, N. Parsons, M. L. Costa, X. L. Griffin. The tip-apex distance in the X-Bolt dynamic plating system. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:-207. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.64.BJR-2015-0016.R2.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: The optimal treatment for independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip remains controversial. The recognised alternatives are hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. At present there is no established standard of care, with both types of arthroplasty being used in many centres. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study comparing the clinical effectiveness of a dual mobility acetabular component compared with standard polyethylene component in total hip arthroplasty for independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip, for a 12-month period beginning in June 2013. The primary outcome was the risk of dislocation one year post-operatively. Secondary outcome measures were EuroQol 5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, Oxford hip score, mortality and re-operation. RESULTS: Only 20 patients were recruited during this time. The baseline demographics were similar in the two groups and no patient suffered a dislocation. Differences in secondary outcomes were not analysed due to the small sample. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study suggests that any trial investigating the effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty for fracture of the hip might not be deliverable within the constraints of current systems of care in the United Kingdom. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1431-5.
Subject(s)
Acetabulum/surgery , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Femoral Neck Fractures/surgery , Hip Prosthesis , Aged , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects , Feasibility Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hip Dislocation/etiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prosthesis Design , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The annual incidence of hip fracture is 620 000 in the European Union. The cost of this clinical problem has been estimated at 1.75 million disability-adjusted life years lost, equating to 1.4% of the total healthcare burden in established market economies. Recent guidance from The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) states that research into the clinical and cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) as a treatment for hip fracture is a priority. We asked the question: can a trial investigating THA for hip fracture currently be delivered in the NHS? METHODS: We performed a contemporaneous process evaluation that provides a context for the interpretation of the findings of WHiTE Two - a randomised study of THA for hip fracture. We developed a mixed methods approach to situate the trial centre within the context of wider United Kingdom clinical practice. We focused on fidelity, implementation, acceptability and feasibility of both the trial processes and interventions to stakeholder groups, such as healthcare providers and patients. RESULTS: We have shown that patients are willing to participate in this type of research and that surgeons value being part of a team that has a strong research ethos. However, surgical practice does not currently reflect NICE guidance. Current models of service delivery for hip fractures are unlikely to be able to provide timely total hip arthroplasty for suitable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Further observational research should be conducted to define the population of interest before future interventional studies are performed.Cite this article: C. Huxley, J. Achten, M. L. Costa, F. Griffiths, X. L. Griffin. A process evaluation of the WHiTE Two trial comparing total hip artroplasty with and without dual mobility component in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur: Can a trial investigating total hip arthroplasty for hip fracture be delivered in the NHS? Bone Joint Res 2016;5:444-452. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2015-0008.R1.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Fractures of the distal femur are an important cause of morbidity. Their optimal management remains controversial. Contemporary implants include angular-stable anatomical locking plates and locked intramedullary nails (IMNs). We compared the long-term patient-reported functional outcome of fixation of fractures of the distal femur using these two methods of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 297 patients were retrospectively identified from a State-wide trauma registry in Australia: 195 had been treated with a locking plate and 102 with an IMN. Baseline characteristics of the patients and their fractures were recorded. Health-related quality-of-life, functional and radiographic outcomes were compared using mixed effects regression models at six months and one year. RESULTS: There was a clinically relevant and significant difference in quality-of-life at six months in favour of fixation with an IMN (mean difference in EuroQol-5 Dimensions Score (EQ-5D) = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; p = 0.025). There was weak evidence that this trend continued to one year (mean difference EQ-5D = 0.09; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.19; p = 0.073). There was a significant although very small reduction in angular deformity using an IMN (mean difference -1.02; 95% CI -1.99 to -0.06; p = 0.073). There was no evidence that there was a difference in any other outcomes at any time point. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: IMN may be a superior treatment compared with anatomical locking plates for fractures of the distal femur. These findings are concordant with other data from pilot randomised studies which favour treatment of these fractures with an IMN. This study strongly supports the need for a definitive randomised trial. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:846-50.
Subject(s)
Bone Nails , Bone Plates , Femoral Fractures/surgery , Fracture Fixation, Internal/instrumentation , Australia , Female , Femoral Fractures/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , Registries , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
AIMS: The aim of this study was to inform a definitive trial which could determine the clinical effectiveness of the X-Bolt Dynamic Hip Plating System compared with the sliding hip screw for patients with complex pertrochanteric fragility fractures of the femur. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single centre, participant blinded, randomised, standard-of-care controlled pilot trial. Patients aged 60 years and over with AO/ASIF A2 and A3 type femoral pertrochanteric fractures were eligible. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the EuroQoL 5 Dimension Score (EQ-5D-3L) at one year following index fixation. A total of 100 participants were recruited, and primary outcome data were available for 88 patients following losses to follow-up and withdrawals. The mean difference in EQ-5D was 0.03 (95% confidence interval -0.17, 0.120; p = 0.720.) There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes measures. The recruitment and follow-up rates from this feasibility study were as predicted. CONCLUSION: A definitive trial with 90% power to find a clinically important difference in EQ-5D would require 964 participants based upon the data from this study. We plan to start recruitment to this trial in Spring 2016. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A definitive trial of X-Bolt Dynamic Hip Plating System is feasible and should be conducted now in order to quantify the clinical effectiveness of this novel implant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:686-9.
Subject(s)
Bone Plates , Bone Screws , Fracture Fixation, Internal/instrumentation , Hip Fractures/surgery , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Reoperation , Single-Blind Method , United KingdomABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of 'proven' cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes. DESIGN: This study design is a multi-centre, multi-surgeon, parallel, two arm, standard-of-care pragmatic randomised controlled trial. It will be embedded within the WHiTE Comprehensive Cohort Study (ISRCTN63982700). The main analysis is a two-way equivalence comparison between Hemi-Thompson and Hemi-Exeter polished taper with Unitrax head. Secondary outcomes will include radiological leg length discrepancy measured as per Bidwai and Willett, mortality, re-operation rate and indication for re-operation, length of index hospital stay and revision at four months. This study will be supplemented by the NHFD (National Hip Fracture Database) dataset. DISCUSSION: Evidence on the optimum choice of prosthesis for hemiarthroplasty of the hip is lacking. National guidance is currently based on expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. The incidence of hip fracture is likely to continue to increase and providing high quality evidence on the optimumCite this article: A. L. Sims. The World Hip Trauma Evaluation Study 3: Hemiarthroplasty Evaluation by Multicentre Investigation - WHITE 3: HEMI - An Abridged Protocol. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:18-25. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.51.2000473.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture poses a significant global challenge both to healthcare systems and to patients themselves. We outline the management of this injury, highlight areas where the evidence is deficient and discuss research efforts towards improving the quality of the evidence base. SOURCES OF DATA: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library, using the core search terms 'hip fracture' and 'proximal femoral fracture'. In addition we reviewed national treatment guidelines for hip fracture care and references from relevant articles. Only articles published in English from inception to March 2015 were included. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Modern hip fracture management should consist of a coordinated multidisciplinary approach with orthogeriatrician input, early surgery, adequate analgesia and liaison with related services to facilitate safe supported discharge. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The optimum thromboprophylaxis to reduce venous thromboembolism remains a topic for debate. The use of bone cement has received much attention recently with concerns about its safety in the frailest of hip fracture patients. GROWING POINTS: An increasing understanding of the severity and impact of sustaining a hip fracture upon quality of life. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Strategies to improve postoperative mobility, postoperative nutrition and the role of home-based rehabilitation. There is a need to identify the optimum analgesic regimes and assessment tools for hip fracture patients with cognitive impairment.
Subject(s)
Fracture Fixation, Internal/methods , Hip Fractures/surgery , Osteoporotic Fractures/surgery , Analgesia/methods , Anesthesia/methods , Fracture Fixation, Internal/adverse effects , Hip Fractures/diagnosis , Hip Fractures/prevention & control , Humans , Osteoporotic Fractures/diagnosis , Osteoporotic Fractures/prevention & control , Patient Care Team , Thrombosis/prevention & controlABSTRACT
Hip fracture is a common injury associated with high mortality, long-term disability and huge socio-economic burden. Yet there has been relatively little research into best treatment, and evidence that has been generated has often been criticised for its poor quality. Here, we discuss the advances made towards overcoming these criticisms and the future directions for hip fracture research: how co-ordinating existing national infrastructures and use of now established clinical research networks will likely go some way towards overcoming the practical and financial challenges of conducting large trials. We highlight the importance of large collaborative pragmatic trials to inform decision/policy makers and the progress made towards reaching a consensus on a core outcome set to facilitate data pooling for evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. These advances and future directions are a priority in order to establish the high-quality evidence base required for this important group of patients.
Subject(s)
Hip Fractures/surgery , Clinical Trials as Topic , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Orthopedic Procedures/standards , United KingdomABSTRACT
Hip fracture is a global public health problem. The National Hip Fracture Database provides a framework for service evaluation in this group of patients in the United Kingdom, but does not collect patient-reported outcome data and is unable to provide meaningful data about the recovery of quality of life. We report one-year patient-reported outcomes of a prospective cohort of patients treated at a single major trauma centre in the United Kingdom who sustained a hip fracture between January 2012 and March 2014. There was an initial marked decline in quality of life from baseline measured using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions score (EQ-5D). It was followed by a significant improvement to 120 days for all patients. Although their quality of life improved during the year after the fracture, it was still significantly lower than before injury irrespective of age group or cognitive impairment (mean reduction EQ-5D 0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.26). There was strong evidence that quality of life was lower for patients with cognitive impairment. There was a mean reduction in EQ-5D of 0.28 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.35) in patients < 80 years of age. This difference was consistent (and fixed) throughout follow-up. Quality of life does not improve significantly during recovery from hip fracture in patients over 80 years of age (p = 0.928). Secondary measures of function showed similar trends. Hip fracture marks a step down in the quality of life of a patient: it accounts for approximately 0.22 disability adjusted life years in the first year after fracture. This is equivalent to serious neurological conditions for which extensive funding for research and treatment is made available.