A program with a dedicated coordinator improved chart documentation of osteoporosis after fragility fracture

Fracture Prevention in the Orthopaedic Environment: Outcomes of a Coordinator-Based Fracture Liaison Service

BACKGROUND

Fracture liaison services focus on secondary fracture prevention by identifying patients at risk for future fracture and initiating appropriate evaluation, risk assessment, education, and therapeutic intervention. This study describes key clinical outcomes including bone mineral densitometry, physician assessment, and pharmacotherapy initiation in pharmacotherapy-naïve patients undergoing treatment for fragility fracture in a Canadian fracture liaison service.

METHODS

We determined rates of post-fracture investigation and treatment for inpatients and outpatients with a fragility fracture seen in a coordinator-based fracture liaison service at an urban university trauma hospital. The program identified distal radial, proximal femoral, proximal humeral, and vertebral fragility fractures in female patients ≥40 years of age and male patients ≥50 years of age and provided education, bone mineral densitometry, inpatient consultation or outpatient specialist or primary care physician referral for bone health management, and documented patient follow-up.

RESULTS

The 2,191 patients with a fragility fracture were not taking anti-osteoporosis pharmacotherapy at the time of identification (862 inpatients and 1,329 outpatients). Eighty-four percent of inpatients and 85% of outpatients completed a bone mineral densitometry as recommended. Fifty-two percent of patients with proximal femoral fracture, 29% of patients with vertebral fracture, 26% of patients with proximal humeral fracture, and 20% of patients with distal radial fracture had osteoporosis confirmed on the basis of a bone mineral densitometry T-score of ≤-2.5 at the femoral neck or L1 to L4. Eighty-five percent of inpatients and 79% of outpatients referred for bone health management were assessed by a specialist or primary care physician. Of the patients who attended their appointments, 73% of inpatients and 52% of outpatients received a prescription for anti-osteoporosis medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A high rate of education, evaluation, and pharmacological treatment, if indicated, can be achieved through a coordinator-facilitated fracture liaison service program.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Fracture prevention programs are currently engaged in establishing and modifying fracture liaison services in a quest for practical and effective models. The program described in this article exemplifies a coordinator-based model that produced good outcomes.

Key outcomes are usually not reported in published fracture secondary prevention programs: results of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

A secondary analysis of a systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis (OP) investigation and treatment was conducted to examine reported key outcomes: (1) the cost of the intervention; (2) the proportion of patients taking OP medication beyond 6 months of the intervention; and (3) the proportion of patients who re-fractured.

METHODS

Fifty-seven articles reporting on 54 studies (64 interventions) from 11 countries were included. Intervention studies to improve OP management were eligible if they were conducted in an orthopedic setting and included primary data on ≥20 patients presenting with a hip fracture or any fragility fracture. To compare outcome data across all interventions regardless of study design, an equated proportion (EP) using a denominator based on the intention-to-treat principle was derived. Whether a cost analysis had been conducted, the EP of patients who were taking medication beyond 6 months of the intervention, and the EP of patients who re-fractured during the study period were documented.

RESULTS

Of the 54 studies, 2 reported a cost analysis and demonstrated that the interventions were at least cost-effective. The EP for medication use beyond 6 months of the intervention ranged from 17 to 56% for four studies. The EP for re-fracture ranged from 0 to 5% for four studies.

CONCLUSION

Most interventions did not report key outcomes. In addition, authors used varying time frames for re-fracture and medication use, making direct comparisons impossible. Authors should consider including intervention costs, medication use beyond 6 months of the intervention, and re-fracture data in future fracture secondary prevention programs.

Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle

The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) Capture the Fracture Campaign aims to support implementation of Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) throughout the world.

INTRODUCTION

FLS have been shown to close the ubiquitous secondary fracture prevention care gap, ensuring that fragility fracture sufferers receive appropriate assessment and intervention to reduce future fracture risk.

METHODS

Capture the Fracture has developed internationally endorsed standards for best practice, will facilitate change at the national level to drive adoption of FLS and increase awareness of the challenges and opportunities presented by secondary fracture prevention to key stakeholders. The Best Practice Framework (BPF) sets an international benchmark for FLS, which defines essential and aspirational elements of service delivery.

RESULTS

The BPF has been reviewed by leading experts from many countries and subject to beta-testing to ensure that it is internationally relevant and fit-for-purpose. The BPF will also serve as a measurement tool for IOF to award 'Capture the Fracture Best Practice Recognition' to celebrate successful FLS worldwide and drive service development in areas of unmet need. The Capture the Fracture website will provide a suite of resources related to FLS and secondary fracture prevention, which will be updated as new materials become available. A mentoring programme will enable those in the early stages of development of FLS to learn from colleagues elsewhere that have achieved Best Practice Recognition. A grant programme is in development to aid clinical systems which require financial assistance to establish FLS in their localities.

CONCLUSION

Nearly half a billion people will reach retirement age during the next 20 years. IOF has developed Capture the Fracture because this is the single most important thing that can be done to directly improve patient care, of both women and men, and reduce the spiralling fracture-related care costs worldwide.

Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients

This study aims to determine osteoporosis (OP) investigation and treatment within post-fracture initiatives conducted in fracture clinics and other orthopedic environments. A systematic review was conducted. Eligibility criteria were: hip fracture patients plus all other fracture patients presenting with a fragility fracture, orthopedic setting where orthopedic physicians/staff were involved, intervention to improve OP management, primary data on ≥20 patients from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other study designs. We calculated outcome data within 6 months of screening from an intention-to-treat principle to derive an equated proportion (EP) across interventions. Outcomes were: (1) proportion of patients investigated with bone densitometry, (2) proportion of patients initiating OP medication, and (3) proportion of patients taking OP medication. We identified 2,259 citations, of which 57 articles that included 64 intervention groups were eligible. The median EP for patients investigated was 43% and the 75th percentile was 71%. The median EP for medication initiation was 22% and the 75th percentile was 34%. The median EP for medication taking was 27.5% and the 75th percentile was 43%. The EPs for all outcomes were higher for interventions with dedicated personnel to implement the intervention and those within which bone mineral density testing and/or treatment were included. In studies with an EP, up to 71% of patients were investigated for OP, but <35% initiated medication, and <45% were taking medication within 6 months of screening. Calculating an EP allowed us to compare outcomes across the studies, therefore capturing both RCTs and other study designs typical of real-world settings.

Post-discharge management following hip fracture--get you back to B4: a parallel group, randomized controlled trial study protocol

Background

Fall-related hip fractures result in significant personal and societal consequences; importantly, up to half of older adults with hip fracture never regain their previous level of mobility. Strategies of follow-up care for older adults after fracture have improved investigation for osteoporosis; but managing bone health alone is not enough. Prevention of fractures requires management of both bone health and falls risk factors (including the contributing role of cognition, balance and continence) to improve outcomes.

Methods/Design

This is a parallel group, pragmatic randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a post-fracture clinic compared with usual care on mobility for older adults following their hospitalization for hip fracture. Participants randomized to the intervention will attend a fracture follow-up clinic where a geriatrician and physiotherapist will assess and manage their mobility and other health issues. Depending on needs identified at the clinical assessment, participants may receive individualized and group-based outpatient physiotherapy, and a home exercise program. Our primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of a novel post-discharge fracture management strategy on the mobility of older adults after hip fracture.

We will enrol 130 older adults (65 years+) who have sustained a hip fracture in the previous three months, and were admitted to hospital from home and are expected to be discharged home. We will exclude older adults who prior to the fracture were: unable to walk 10 meters; diagnosed with dementia and/or significant comorbidities that would preclude their participation in the clinical service.

Eligible participants will be randomly assigned to the Intervention or Usual Care groups by remote allocation. Treatment allocation will be concealed; investigators, measurement team and primary data analysts will be blinded to group allocation. Our primary outcome is mobility, operationalized as the Short Physical Performance Battery at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include frailty, rehospitalizations, falls risk factors, quality of life, as well as physical activity and sedentary behaviour. We will conduct an economic evaluation to determine health related costs in the first year, and a process evaluation to ascertain the acceptance of the program by older adults, as well as clinicians and staff within the clinic.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01254942

Secondary prevention program for osteoporotic fractures and long-term adherence to bisphosphonates

Our purpose was to assess the impact of a secondary prevention program for osteoporotic fractures in patients with fragility fracture and to determine its effect on long-term compliance with bisphosphonate treatment. Persistence with bisphosphonate use was 71%. Attending follow-up visits was the only variable significantly associated with adherence to bisphosphonates.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to assess the impact a secondary prevention program for osteoporotic fractures in a prospective cohort of patients with at least one fragility fracture and to determine the effect of this intervention on long-term compliance with bisphosphonate treatment.

METHODS

All patients older than 50 years with a fragility fracture attended at the emergency department over a 2-year period were appointed for a clinical visit through a telephone call. Two follow-up controls at 4 and 12 months were scheduled. After a mean of 4 years, a telephone survey was conducted to assess compliance with treatment.

RESULTS

Of 683 eligible patients, 380 (55.6%) were visited at the hospital. Previous treatment with bisphosphonates was recorded in 17.9% of patients. DXA scan was considered normal in 61 patients and revealed osteopenia in 184 and osteoporosis in 135. Pharmacological treatment was indicated in 90% of patients (alendronate in 76%). Among 241 patients who participated in the survey, eight patients had new fractures (four were on treatment with bisphosphonates and four had discontinued treatment). Of 187 patients in which bisphosphonates were prescribed at the initial visit, 133 (71.1%) continued using bisphosphonates. Attendance of scheduled visits was associated with adherence to bisphosphonates (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 2.99-3.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of the program to recruit patients was 55%. In patients visited at the hospital, treatment with bisphosphonates increased from 17.9% to 76%. Persistence with bisphosphonate use after a mean of 4 years was 71%. Attending follow-up visits was significantly associated with adherence to bisphosphonates.

Osteoporosis quality indicators using healthcare utilization data

SUMMARY

Healthcare utilization data may be used to examine the quality of osteoporosis management by identifying dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing (sensitivity = 98%, specificity = 93%) and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy (κ = 0.81) with minimal measurement error.

INTRODUCTION

In osteoporosis, key quality indicators among older women include risk assessment by DXA and/or pharmacotherapy within 6 months following fracture.

METHODS

The purpose of this study was to examine healthcare utilization data for use as quality indicators of osteoporosis management. We linked data from 858 community-dwelling women aged over 65 years who completed a standardized telephone interview about osteoporosis management to their healthcare utilization (medical and pharmacy claims) data. Agreement between self-report of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy and pharmacy claims was examined using kappa statistics. We examined the sensitivity and specificity of medical claims to identify DXA testing as well as the sensitivity and specificity of medical and pharmacy claims to identify those with DXA-documented osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -2.5).

RESULTS

Participants were aged 75 (SD = 6) years on average; 96% were Caucasian. Agreement between self-report and claims-based osteoporosis pharmacotherapy was very good (κ = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.76, 0.86). The sensitivity of medical claims to identify DXA testing was 98% (95% CI = 95.9, 99.1), with estimated specificity of 93% (95% CI = 89.8, 95.4). We abstracted DXA results from test reports of 359 women, of whom 114 (32%) were identified with osteoporosis. Medical (osteoporosis diagnosis) and pharmacy (osteoporosis pharmacotherapy) claims within a year after DXA testing had a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI = 71.3, 86.8) and specificity of 72% (95% CI = 66.2, 77.8) to identify DXA-documented osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare utilization data may be used to examine the quality of osteoporosis management by identifying DXA testing and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy (care processes) with minimal measurement error. However, medical and pharmacy claims alone do not provide a good means for identifying women with underlying osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis knowledge among individuals with recent fragility fracture

BACKGROUND

To evaluate osteoporosis knowledge among patients with fractures and to evaluate factors associated with osteoporosis knowledge.

METHODS

Patients with fragility fractures participated in a telephone interview. Participants were asked what they thought osteoporosis was. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) were calculated to identify factors associated with a correct definition. Predictors identified in univariate analysis were entered into multivariable logistic regression models. A subset also completed the Facts on Osteoporosis Quiz.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven patients (82% women) participated in the study, with mean (SD) age being 67.5 (12.7) years. Ninety-five (75%) respondents gave correct osteoporosis definitions. The odds of an individual providing a correct definition of osteoporosis were higher for those who reported a diagnosis of osteoporosis or those who reported higher education levels, but the odds decreased with increasing age. A total of 49 (39%) respondents completed the Facts on Osteoporosis Quiz; the average score was 13.6 (3.8) of 21. Areas that respondents scored poorly on were related to key risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Many patients with fractures are unaware of important risk factors. Education initiatives aimed at improving osteoporosis knowledge should be directed at individuals at high risk of fracture. Nurses and other allied healthcare providers working in fracture clinics, acute care, and rehabilitation settings are in an ideal position to communicate information about osteoporosis and fracture risk to individuals with a recent fragility fracture.