Aims. Performance indicators are increasingly used to evaluate the quality of healthcare provided to patients with a hip fracture. The aim of this review was to map the variety of performance indicators used around the world and how they are defined. Methods. We present a mixed methods systematic review of literature on the use of performance indicators in hip fracture care. Evidence was searched through 12 electronic databases and other sources. A Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality of studies meeting the inclusion criteria. A protocol for a suite of related systematic reviews was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023417515). Results. A total 24,634 articles were reviewed, of which 171 met the criteria of the review. Included studies were heterogenous in design and came from varied healthcare systems in 34 different countries. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe (n = 118), followed by North America (n = 33), Asia (n = 21), Australia (n = 10), and South America (n = 2). The highest number of studies in one country came from the UK (n = 45). Only seven of the 171 studies (< 2,000 participants) were conducted across ten low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There was variation in the performance indicators reported from different healthcare systems, and indicators were often undefined or ambiguously defined. For example, there were multiple definitions of 'early' in terms of surgery, different or missing definitions of ‘mobilization’, and variety in what was included in an ‘orthogeriatric assessment’ in hip fracture care. However, several performance indicators appeared commonly, including time to surgery (n = 142/171; 83%), orthogeriatric review (n = 30; 17%), early mobilization after surgery (n = 58; 34%), and bone health assessment (n = 41; 24%). Qualitative studies (n = 18), mainly from high-income countries and India, provided evidence on the experiences of 192 patients and 138 healthcare professionals with regard to the use of performance indicators in clinical care and rehabilitation pathways. Themes included the importance of education and training in parallel with the introduction of performance indicators, clarity of roles with the clinical team, and the need for restructuring or integration of care pathways. Conclusion. This review identified a large number of performance indicators related to the delivery of healthcare for patients with a hip fracture. However, their definitions and thresholds varied across studies and countries. Evidence from LMICs is sparse. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence indicates that there remains a pressing need for further research into the use and standardization of performance indicators in hip fracture care and their influence on patient outcomes and economic costs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(3):275–290