Quality of fracture risk assessment in post-fracture care in Ontario, Canada

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review

Background:

Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada.

Methods:

We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level.

Results:

We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%–56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%–66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%–30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%–85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%–35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%–71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%–97.3%, n = 9).

Interpretation:

We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice

Introduction. The purpose of this study is to understand the experience of primary care providers (PCPs) using an evidence-based requisition for bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Methods. A qualitative descriptive approach was adopted. Participants were given 3 BMD Recommended Use Requisitions (RUR) to use over a 2-month period. Twenty-six PCPs were interviewed before using the RUR. Those who had received at least one BMD report resulting from RUR use were then interviewed again. An inductive thematic analysis was performed. Results. We identified four themes in interview data: (1) positive and negative characteristics of the RUR, (2) facilitators and barriers for implementation, (3) impact of the RUR, and (4) requisition preference. Positive characteristics of the RUR related to both its content and format. Negative characteristics related to the increased amount of time needed to complete the form. Facilitators to implementation included electronic availability and organizational endorsement. Time constraints were identified as a barrier to implementation. Participants perceived that the RUR would promote appropriate referrals and the majority of participants preferred the RUR to their current requisition. Conclusions. Findings from this study provide support for the RUR as an acceptable point-of-care tool for PCPs to promote appropriate BMD testing.

Evaluation of Automated Fracture Risk Assessment Based on the Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Assessment Tool

Fracture risk assessments are not always clearly communicated on bone mineral density (BMD) reports; evidence suggests that structured reporting (SR) tools may improve report clarity. The aim of this study is to compare fracture risk assessments automatically assigned by SR software in accordance with Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) recommendations to assessments from experts on narrative BMD reports. Charts for 500 adult patients who recently received a BMD exam were sampled from across University of Toronto's Joint Department of Medical Imaging. BMD measures and clinical details were manually abstracted from charts and were used to create structured reports with assessments generated by a software implementation of CAROC recommendations. CAROC calculations were statistically compared to experts' original assessments using percentage agreement (PA) and Krippendorff's alpha. Canadian FRAX calculations were also compared to experts', where possible. A total of 25 (5.0%) reported assessments did not conform to categorizations recommended by Canadian guidelines. Across the remainder, the Krippendorff's alpha relating software assigned assessments to physicians was high at 0.918; PA was 94.3%. Lower agreement was associated with reports for patients with documented modifying factors (alpha = 0.860, PA = 90.2%). Similar patterns of agreement related expert assessments to FRAX calculations, although statistics of agreement were lower. Categories of disagreement were defined by (1) gray areas in current guidelines, (2) margins of assessment categorizations, (3) dictation/transcription errors, (4) patients on low doses of steroids, and (5) ambiguous documentation of modifying factors. Results suggest that SR software can produce fracture risk assessments that agree with experts on most routine, adult BMD exams. Results also highlight situations where experts tend to diverge from guidelines and illustrate the potential for SR software to (1) reduce variability in, (2) ameliorate errors in, and (3) improve clarity of routine adult BMD exam reports.

What Do We Know about Individuals Who Are Assessed as Being at Moderate Risk for Future Fracture in Canada?

OBJECTIVE

We examined what was known about individuals in Canada who were assessed as being at moderate risk for future fracture.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Eligible articles were Canadian studies published from 2010 onwards reporting on primary data that included patients at moderate risk for future fracture. We limited the search to Canada as fracture risk categorization is unique to each country. Studies were identified by searching relevant databases. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts to determine each study's eligibility. General information about each study, demographic information about the moderate risk groups (including tool used to determine moderate risk (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC)), and outcomes (number of patients: recommended treatment, prescribed treatment, initiating treatment, persisting with treatment after six months, who re-fractured, who died) were documented.

RESULTS

We identified 1193 papers which were further screened for eligibility. Of the 1193 identified, 7 were eligible for the review but only 4 articles contained demographic or outcome data on moderate risk patients. In one study, 1.8% of moderate risk patients died over a mean 5.3 years of observation and in three studies, the risk of fracture was 5.9% over a median of 3 years of follow-up, 8.3% over a mean of 5.4 years, and 14.7% over 10 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide knowledge gap in the literature concerning individuals who are assessed as moderate risk for future fracture in Canada.

Bone Mineral Density Reporting Underestimates Fracture Risk in Ontario

Objective

Analysis of clinical documents such as bone mineral density (BMD) reports is an important component of program evaluation because it can provide insights into the accuracy of assessment of fracture risk communicated to patients and practitioners. Our objective was to compare fracture risk calculations from BMD test reports to those based on the 2010 Canadian guidelines.

Methods

We retrieved BMD reports from fragility fracture patients screened through a community hospital fracture clinic participating in Ontario’s Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Fracture risk was determined according to the 2010 Canadian guidelines using age, sex, and T-score at the femoral neck, in addition to three clinical factors. Three researchers classified patients’ fracture risk until consensus was achieved.

Results

We retrieved reports for 17 patients from nine different BMD clinics in the Greater Toronto Area. Each patient had a different primary care physician and all BMD tests were conducted after the 2010 Canadian guidelines were published. The fracture risk of 10 patients was misclassified with 9 of the 10 reports underestimating fracture risk. Nine reports acknowledged that the prevalence of a fragility fracture raised the risk category by one level but only four of these reports acknowledged that the patient had, or may have sustained, a fragility fracture. When we raised fracture risk by one level according to these reports, eight patients were still misclassified. Fracture risk in the majority of these patients remained underestimated. Inconsistent classification was found in the majority of cases where reports came from the same clinic. Four reports described risk levels for two different types of risk.

Conclusions

More than half of patients received BMD reports which underestimated fracture risk. Bone health management recommendations based on falsely low fracture risk are likely to be sub-optimal.

Patient perceptions of provider barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention

We examined patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after being screened through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Provider-level barriers to testing and treatment appeared to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on testing.

INTRODUCTION

Post-fracture secondary prevention programs have had modest effects on bone densitometry rates and osteoporosis (OP) treatment initiation. Few studies have examined in depth the reasons that patients choose to seek or avoid investigation and treatment after screening through such a program. Our purpose was to examine patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after screening through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program (FCSP).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective qualitative study in fragility fracture patients screened through one site of the FCSP. Eligible patients not on antiresorptive medication at the time of fracture were assessed by an osteoporosis screening coordinator and advised to follow up with their primary care physician for a BMD test and appropriate treatment. Participants were interviewed within 6, and within 18, months of their clinic visit. Fracture risk was assessed by the study team. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two researchers.

RESULTS

We conducted 51 interviews with 25 patients (22 females, 3 males) aged 50-79 years old, of whom 8 were deemed high risk for future fracture. Eighteen participants had a BMD test between baseline and follow-up and three reported receiving a prescription for pharmacotherapy. We categorized 21 participants as experiencing at least one barrier to BMD testing and appropriate treatment including health care providers telling participants that the fracture was not a fragility fracture, using participants' appearance/demographic information and X-rays to judge bone density, telling participants that a BMD test was not appropriate, failing to discuss fracture risk status, and giving unclear or incorrect information about treatment.

CONCLUSION

We identified modifiable barriers to post-fracture secondary prevention from the patient's perspective. Provider-level barriers appeare to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on BMD testing.

Fracture risk assessment after BMD examination: whose job is it, anyway?

Fracture risk assessments on bone mineral density reports guide family physicians' treatment decisions but are subject to inaccuracy. Qualitative analysis of interviews with 22 family physicians illustrates their pervasive questioning of reported assessment accuracy and independent assumption of responsibility for assessment. Assumption of responsibility is common despite duplicating specialists' work.

INTRODUCTION

Fracture risk is the basis for recommendations of treatment for osteoporosis, but assessments on bone mineral density (BMD) reports are subject to known inaccuracies. This creates a complex situation for referring physicians, who must rely on assessments to inform treatment decisions. This study was designed to broadly understand physicians' current experiences with and preferences for BMD reporting; the present analysis focuses on their interpretation and use of the fracture risk assessments on reports, specifically

METHODS

A qualitative, thematic analysis of one-on-one interviews with 22 family physicians in Ontario, Canada was performed.

RESULTS

The first major theme identified in interview data reflects questioning by family physicians of reported fracture risk assessments' accuracy. Several major subthemes related to this included questioning of: 1) accuracy in raw bone mineral density measures (e.g., g/cm(2)); 2) accurate inclusion of modifying risk factors; and 3) the fracture risk assessment methodology employed. A second major theme identified was family physicians' independent assumption of responsibility for risk assessment and its interpretation. Many participants reported that they computed risk assessments in their practice to ensure accuracy, even when provided with assessments on reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate family physicians question accuracy of risk assessments on BMD reports and often assume responsibility both for revising and relating assessments to treatment recommendations. This assumption of responsibility is common despite the fact that it may duplicate the efforts of reading physicians. Better capture of risk information on BMD referrals, quality control standards for images and standardization of risk reporting may help attenuate some inefficiency.