A postfracture initiative to improve osteoporosis management in a community hospital in ontario

Preventing hip fractures with multidisciplinary teams: a Canadian perspective

Fragility fractures (FFs) are low-energy trauma fractures that occur at or below standing height. Among FFs, hip fractures are associated with the greatest morbidity, mortality and cost to Canadian health care systems. This review highlights the current state of medical care for hip fractures in Canada, with specific focus on the role of the multidisciplinary team. Gaps in care exist, as FFs represent a unique challenge requiring both acute and chronic management. Furthermore, there is a lack of ownership of FFs by a medical specialty. These gaps can be addressed through the use of multidisciplinary teams, which have been shown to be efficacious and cost-effective. This model of care also addresses numerous patient-identified barriers to treatment, including inadequate patient counselling. However, there is still room for improvement in both the identification of patients at risk for hip fracture and patient adherence to therapy.

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.

Post-fracture care: do we need to educate patients rather than doctors? The PREVOST randomized controlled trial

We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a population-based patient-centered post-fracture care program with a dedicated case manager, PREVention of OSTeoporosis (PREVOST), on appropriate post-fracture osteoporosis management. We showed that, compared to usual care, BMD investigation post-fracture was significantly improved (+20%) by our intervention program.

INTRODUCTION

Our study aims to evaluate the impact of a population-based patient-centered post-fracture care program, PREVOST, on appropriate post-fracture care.

METHODS

Multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolling 436 women aged 50 to 85 years and attending a French hospital, for a low-energy fracture of the wrist or humerus. Randomization was stratified by age, hospital department, and site of fracture. The intervention was performed by a trained case manager who interacted only with the patients, with repeated oral and written information about fragility fractures and osteoporosis management, and prompting them to visit their primary care physicians. Control group received usual care. The primary outcome was the initiation of an appropriate post-fracture care defined by Bone Mineral Density (BMD) and/or anti-osteoporotic treatment prescription at 6 months.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 53% of women in intervention group initiated a post-fracture care versus 33% for usual care (adjOR 2.35, 95%CI [1.58-3.50], p < 0.001). Post-fracture care was more frequent after wrist than humerus fracture (adjOR 1.93, 95%CI [1.14-3.30], p = 0.015) and decreased with age (adjOR for 10 years increase 0.76, 95%CI [0.61-0.96], p = 0.02). The intervention resulted in BMD prescription in 50% of patients (adjOR 2.10, 95%CI [1.41-3.11], p < 0.001) and in BMD performance in 41% of patients (adjOR 2.12, 95%CI [1.40-3.20], p < 0.001) versus 33 and 25% for usual care, respectively. Having performed a BMD increased treatment prescription; however, only 46% of women with a low BMD requiring a treatment according to the French guidelines received a prescription.

CONCLUSION

A patient-centered care program with a dedicated case manager can significantly improve post-fracture BMD investigation.

Evaluation of Patients' Response Toward Osteoporosis Letter Intervention Versus Phone Call Plus Letter Intervention

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 interventions in prompting patients to obtain osteoporosis follow-up after a fracture. Our hypothesis was that a phone call plus letter would yield greater response toward osteoporosis evaluation versus a letter alone to patients after sustaining a fragility fracture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective study randomized 141 patients age 50 years and older with a fragility fracture into 3 groups for comparison. Group 1 (letter only) patients received a letter 3 months after their diagnosis of fracture indicating their risk for osteoporosis and urging them to follow-up for evaluation. Group 2 (phone call plus letter) patients were contacted via phone 3 months after their diagnosis of fracture. A letter followed the phone call. Group 3 (control) patients were neither contacted via phone nor sent a letter. All groups were contacted via phone 6 months after their initial visit to determine if they followed up for evaluation.

RESULTS

In group 1, 23 (52.27%) of 44 had follow-up, and 21 (47.73%) of 44 did not follow-up. In group 2, 30 (62.5%) of 48 had follow-up, and 18 (37.50%) of 48 did not follow-up. In group 3, 6 (12.24%) of 49 had some sort of follow-up, and 43 (87.76%) of 49 did not have any follow-up. A statistical significance was achieved between group 3 (control) and both groups 1 and 2 with regard to follow-up (P < .0001). The results did not show a statistically significant difference between Groups 1 and 2, however, there was a trend toward improved response with a phone call plus letter (P = .321).

CONCLUSION

A more personalized approach with a phone call plus follow-up letter to patients increased osteoporosis follow-up care by an additional 10%, however, this was not a statistically significant difference from just sending out a letter alone.

Secondary prevention after an osteoporosis-related fracture: an overview

This article is an overview of the status of postfracture secondary prevention programs. The concept of fracture risk, the inclusion of fracture risk in clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis, and how fracture risk has contributed to the development of postfracture secondary prevention programs are described. The scope of postfracture secondary prevention programs, the gaps in care that persist despite these initiatives, and the potential reasons for these gaps are also described. Recommendations for future research in the area of postfracture secondary prevention are provided.

Factors influencing the pharmacological management of osteoporosis after fragility fracture: results from the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy's fracture clinic screening program

Potential mediating factors in the pathway to initiation of osteoporosis treatment following a fragility fracture were evaluated. Patients' perceived need for treatment, mediated by their perception of bone density test results, was central to treatment initiation. Interventions focusing on patients' perceptions of need and test results may improve treatment rates.

INTRODUCTION

We tested a hypothesized pathway to osteoporosis (OP) pharmacotherapy initiation in fragility fracture patients. We hypothesized that bone mineral density (BMD) testing is strongly associated with treatment initiation and perception of BMD test results would inform patients' perceived need for treatment, which would mediate the effect between BMD testing and treatment initiation.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort study followed patients, ≥50 years of age, screened for fragility fracture in 31 fracture clinics in Ontario, Canada who had no prior diagnosis of or treatment for OP. At screening, OP risk factors, baseline-patient perception of OP risk, OP knowledge, and perceived benefits of medication were reported by patients. Patients were followed up within 6 months of fracture to determine BMD testing and prescription of and adherence to first-line OP pharmacotherapy. Structural equation modeling tested the hypothesized pathway. Significance and magnitude of the coefficients and indicators of overall model fit were used to test our model.

RESULTS

The direct path from BMD testing to OP treatment initiation was non-significant. The pathway to treatment initiation was mediated by patients' perception of their need, which was influenced by their self-reported BMD results. Baseline fracture risk factors, knowledge of OP, and perceived benefits of treatment-predicted patient-perceived need for treatment at follow-up and initiation of OP treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient perceptions were central factors in the path to initiation of OP pharmacotherapy. Interventions to facilitate accurate patient perceptions of BMD test results and OP risk status could prove helpful in improving OP treatment initiation.

Non-pharmacological strategies used by patients at high risk for future fracture to manage fracture risk--a qualitative study

We examined patients' self-management of bone health and fracture risk, particularly behaviors other than medication use and seeking diagnostic testing. Awareness of fracture risk was accompanied by positive lifestyle changes in participants' lives such as being careful. Future research should evaluate how lifestyle changes mitigate fracture risk.

INTRODUCTION

We examined patients' understanding of bone health and self-management decisions regarding bone health and fracture risk, particularly behaviors other than medication use and seeking diagnostic testing.

METHODS

A phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. English-speaking patients, 65+ years old, who were "high risk" for future fracture and prescribed pharmacotherapy after being screened through a post-fracture osteoporosis initiative were eligible. Patients were interviewed for 1-2 h and were asked to discuss perceptions of bone health status (bone densitometry results and perceived fracture risk), recommendations received for bone health, and lifestyle changes since their most recent fracture. We analyzed the data guided by Giorgi's methodology.

RESULTS

We interviewed 21 fracture patients (6 males and 15 females), aged 65 to 88 years old. With the exception of one participant, all participants appeared to understand that they had low bone mass and were at risk of sustaining another fracture. Most participants (n = 20) were predominantly concerned about being careful, and they focused their responses on personal and environmental factors that they perceived to be modifiable. Participants also spoke about strategies to manage their bone health such as exercise, having a healthy diet and taking supplements, and using aids and devices. Non-pharmacological strategies used by patients appeared to be independent of current use of pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of fracture risk was accompanied by a number of positive lifestyle changes in participants' lives such as being careful and engaging in exercise. Future research needs to evaluate how lifestyle changes such as being careful mitigate fracture risk.

Improving care after hip fracture: the fracture? Think osteoporosis (FTOP) program

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a common and serious consequence of osteoporosis, and hip fracture patients are at high risk for recurrence. Appropriate pharmacotherapy reduces this risk and is associated with reduced mortality after hip fracture, but a care gap exists for fracture prevention in these patients. This evaluation determined rates of osteoporosis treatment and bone mineral density (BMD) testing in hip fracture patients following discharge from a rehabilitation unit.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of hip fracture patients aged ≥ 50 on an inpatient rehabilitation unit in 2008 and 2011. Patients were seen by a nurse specialist, and encouraged to see their family physician for further assessment and treatment. Physicians were sent a letter indicating the need to follow up with their patient. Patients were contacted following discharge from hospital to determine treatment rates.

RESULTS

Of 310 eligible hip fracture patients admitted to the rehabilitation unit in the years studied, 207 patients were reached post-discharge and provided data. Of patients who were not previously taking osteoporosis medication, 59% of patients from the 2008 cohort, and 42% of patients from the 2011 cohort had osteoporosis treatment initiated by six months following discharge. By 2 months following discharge, 46% of patients in the 2008 cohort had a new BMD performed or scheduled, while this was true for 14% of patients from the 2011 cohort. 35% of patients in 2011 had not seen their family physician by 2 months following discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates for osteoporosis treatment and BMD testing were higher than those reported in the literature for patients not enrolled in case manager programs. BMD testing declined from 2008 to 2011. Lower treatment rates may be due to concerns regarding reports of possible association between bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures. Improving rates of patient follow-up with family physicians will be important for increasing hip fracture treatment rates after discharge.

Initiation of osteoporosis assessment in the fracture clinic results in improved osteoporosis management: a randomised controlled trial

Osteoporosis management post fragility fracture has traditionally been deficient with up to 60-90 % of patients remaining untreated for osteoporosis in some studies. Efforts have been made to address this deficiency with some successes reported.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of two different models of screening for osteoporosis in a community fracture clinic setting.

METHODS

A prospective randomised clinical trial was conducted to assess the DXA scan and treatment rates in patients with fragility fractures when assessment for osteoporosis had been initiated in the fracture clinic compared with the "usual care" of assessment initiation by the participant's general practitioner.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty-three patients each were in the control and intervention groups. The assessment rate (DXA scan rate) was significantly better in the intervention group where participants were referred for assessment from fracture clinic compared to the control group where participants were referred for assessment by their general practitioner (68 vs 36 %, respectively; p < 0.05). For patients who were assessed for osteoporosis, treatment rates were similar in both the control and intervention groups (100 vs 88 %, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that screening for osteoporosis initiated in fracture clinic results in improved osteoporosis management compared to screening initiated in primary care. Orthopaedic surgeons and other specialists need to be more active in managing osteoporosis in patients who present with fragility fractures and should at the very least initiate assessment in the fracture clinic setting.

Best practices in secondary fracture prevention: fracture liaison services

Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) have been demonstrated in many countries to provide an effective means to deliver secondary preventive care for patients presenting with fragility fractures. This review provides an update on journal articles, reports, guidelines and government policies, with relevance to FLS, which have been published during the period 2009-2012. International evidence of the extent and persistence of the secondary fracture prevention care gap has expanded during this period. Major professional and patient societies throughout the world, including the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, have supported international initiatives to disseminate best practice. Health economic analysis of FLS has developed considerably, with a consistent theme from investigator-led and government analyses that FLS provide highly cost-effective care. Opportunities to close the care gap, in a systematic way, for unrecognised vertebral fracture sufferers are also considered.

Institutionalization following incident non-traumatic fractures in community-dwelling men and women

Institutionalization after hip fracture occurs in at least 30% of patients in the year following hospital discharge. We demonstrate that the risk of transfer to a long-term care facility, after adjustment for age and burden of co-morbidity, is also increased following fractures at other osteoporotic sites in men and women. For most fractures, men are at greater risk than women.

INTRODUCTION

High institutionalization rates have been documented following non-traumatic hip fractures; however, there is lack of knowledge regarding the frequency of transfer to long-term care institutions of patients who sustain such fractures at other anatomical sites.

METHODS

Using the comprehensive health care databases of the province of Manitoba, Canada, we performed a retrospective matched cohort study of community-dwelling men and women aged 50 years and older who sustained an incident non-traumatic fracture between April 1, 1986, and March 31, 2006. Using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, we estimated the sex-specific relative risk of transfers to long-term care institutions in the year following fracture at osteoporotic sites.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 70,264 individuals with incident fractures (70.0% in women) among whom 3,996 new admissions to long-term care institutions were documented in the year following the index fracture. New admissions increased over time (p < 0.0001 for temporal trends). The age- and co-morbidity-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of institutionalization following a hip fracture was 4.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.19 to 5.69) in men, and this risk was consistently at least twice that of controls for all other fracture sites (all p < 0.0001). In women, the relative risks were highest subsequent to a hip (HR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.56 to 3.04) or vertebral fracture (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-traumatic fractures at any site have serious consequences, including institutionalization. Men are at greater risk of transfer to long-term care following fracture than women.

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.