Mahir Mustafa Abdel Aziz Hamad

The association of atrial fibrillation (AF) and neck of femur fractures (NOF) are common in old people, creating a complex clinical scenario with significant implications for morbidity, mortality, and healthcare systems. This narrative review explores the bidirectional relationship between AF and NOF, focusing on shared risk factors, pathophysiological links, and challenges in clinical management, and also reviews the benefit of an orthogeriatric model. Advanced age, frailty, osteoporosis, polypharmacy, and cardiovascular comorbidities predispose patients to both conditions, while AF itself increases fall risk through haemodynamic instability, syncope, and adverse effects of rate- or rhythm-controlling medications. Importantly, the physiological stress of hip fracture and subsequent surgery can precipitate new-onset or worsening AF via inflammatory, neurohormonal, and metabolic mechanisms. The main challenge for ortho-geriatricians lies in anticoagulation management and preoperative and postoperative management. While anticoagulation reduces thromboembolic risk in AF, it increases perioperative bleeding risk in patients with NOF, often leading to delays in surgery that are independently associated with poorer outcomes. This review examines the current evidence regarding perioperative anticoagulation strategies, timing of surgery, and postoperative resumption of therapy. In addition, the review examines important outcome parameters such as mortality, stroke, bleeding, length of hospital stay, and functional recovery. This highlights the importance of not only improving multidisciplinary care involving orthopaedics, cardiology, geriatrics, and anaesthesia to optimise outcomes, but also enhancing risk stratification. Standardised perioperative pathways and integrated geriatric–cardiac assessment may help mitigate complications. Therefore, understanding how AF and NOF interact is key to delivering holistic, patient-centred care for an increasingly elderly population in orthogeriatric wards.

Ambulatory emergency care (AEC) has been developed by clinicians as a means of providing emergency care without the traditional bed base of a hospital. Given that AEC is provided in a clinic-style setting, it can continue to operate during periods of high bed occupancy, alleviating bed pressures and continuing to provide timely care for selected patients. Although different models of AEC have developed according to local context, there are common principles that apply to AEC services, including early access to senior decision-makers, opening hours matching demand, access to diagnostics, close collaboration with other clinical services, a mixed workforce and patient selection processes. Some of the key AEC developments have been related to technology, including high-sensitivity troponin, low-molecular-weight heparins and computer tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography. Risk stratification tools are useful for assessing the appropriateness of using AEC as a care model for patients.