1
|
Camp K, Hartos J, Atanda A. Use of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Quality Metrics to Assess Primary Care Management of Osteoporosis. Gerontol Geriatr Med 2023; 9:23337214231202152. [PMID: 37786542 PMCID: PMC10541736 DOI: 10.1177/23337214231202152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Revised: 08/23/2023] [Accepted: 09/01/2023] [Indexed: 10/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines and quality measures provide recommendations for physicians addressing osteoporosis management. This study explored the alignment of osteoporosis clinical practice in a primary care geriatric clinic with recommended guidelines. Methods: This retrospective chart review included 388 patients 65 or older from a primary care geriatric clinic diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis, with or without a fragility fracture. Data included history of falls and use of DXA scans, FRAX® fracture risk assessment tool, osteoporosis medication, and fall risk mitigation plans. Results: For age-related primary fracture prevention, 68% of women and 87% of men had documented DXA scans, and 45% of patients diagnosed with osteoporosis and 42% determined at high risk were prescribed osteoporosis medication. For secondary fracture prevention, 72% of women aged 67 to 85 had DXA scans and 21% were prescribed osteoporosis medication. Only 10% of patients with a history of falls had documented fall risk management plans. Conclusion: Although showing higher rates of primary and secondary prevention outcomes than did research results from general primary care, gaps were identified for high fracture risk patients and fall risk management documentation. Medical record review may not provide sufficient data to capture factors influencing decision-making for fracture prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathlene Camp
- University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, USA
| | | | - Adenike Atanda
- University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Söreskog E, Borgström F, Shepstone L, Clarke S, Cooper C, Harvey I, Harvey NC, Howe A, Johansson H, Marshall T, O'Neill TW, Peters TJ, Redmond NM, Turner D, Holland R, McCloskey E, Kanis JA. Long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting: the SCOOP study. Osteoporos Int 2020; 31:1499-1506. [PMID: 32239237 PMCID: PMC7115896 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05372-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2019] [Accepted: 02/28/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Community-based screening and treatment of women aged 70-85 years at high fracture risk reduced fractures; moreover, the screening programme was cost-saving. The results support a case for a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK. INTRODUCTION The SCOOP (screening for prevention of fractures in older women) randomized controlled trial investigated whether community-based screening could reduce fractures in women aged 70-85 years. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening for fracture risk in a UK primary care setting compared with usual management, based on the SCOOP study. METHODS A health economic Markov model was used to predict the life-time consequences in terms of costs and quality of life of the screening programme compared with the control arm. The model was populated with costs related to drugs, administration and screening intervention derived from the SCOOP study. Fracture risk reduction in the screening arm compared with the usual management arm was derived from SCOOP. Modelled fracture risk corresponded to the risk observed in SCOOP. RESULTS Screening of 1000 patients saved 9 hip fractures and 20 non-hip fractures over the remaining lifetime (mean 14 years) compared with usual management. In total, the screening arm saved costs (£286) and gained 0.015 QALYs/patient in comparison with usual management arm. CONCLUSIONS This analysis suggests that a screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK would gain quality of life and life years, and reduce fracture costs to more than offset the cost of running the programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - F Borgström
- Quantify Research, Stockholm, Sweden
- LIME/MMC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - L Shepstone
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - S Clarke
- Department of Rheumatology, University Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - C Cooper
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- Oxford Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - I Harvey
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - N C Harvey
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - A Howe
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - H Johansson
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Centre for Bone and Arthritis Research (CBAR), Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - T Marshall
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - T W O'Neill
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - T J Peters
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - N M Redmond
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation, Bristol, UK
| | - D Turner
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - R Holland
- Leicester Medical School, Centre for Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - E McCloskey
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK
- Centre for Integrated research into Musculoskeletal Ageing, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK
- Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, The Mellanby Centre For Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - J A Kanis
- Centre for Metabolic Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK.
- Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|