1
|
Cianferotti L, Porcu G, Ronco R, Adami G, Alvaro R, Bogini R, Caputi AP, Frediani B, Gatti D, Gonnelli S, Iolascon G, Lenzi A, Leone S, Michieli R, Migliaccio S, Nicoletti T, Paoletta M, Pennini A, Piccirilli E, Rossini M, Tarantino U, Brandi ML, Corrao G, Biffi A. The integrated structure of care: evidence for the efficacy of models of clinical governance in the prevention of fragility fractures after recent sentinel fracture after the age of 50 years. Arch Osteoporos 2023; 18:109. [PMID: 37603196 PMCID: PMC10442313 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01316-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2023] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/22/2023]
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the implementation of clinical governance models, in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture, were examined. Literature was systematically reviewed and summarized by a panel of experts who formulated recommendations for the Italian guideline. PURPOSE After experiencing a fracture, several strategies may be adopted to reduce the risk of recurrent fragility fractures and associated morbidity and mortality. Clinical governance models, such as the fracture liaison service (FLS), have been introduced for the identification, treatment, and monitoring of patients with secondary fragility fractures. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the association between multidisciplinary care systems and several outcomes in patients with a fragility fracture in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were investigated up to December 2020 to update the search of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed clinical governance models in patients who had experienced a fragility fracture were eligible. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic therapy initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, and mortality risk, while secondary outcomes were quality of life and physical performance. RESULTS Fifteen RCTs and 62 observational studies, ranging from very low to low quality for bone mineral density values, antiosteoporotic initiation, adherence to antiosteoporotic medications, subsequent fracture, mortality, met our inclusion criteria. The implementation of clinical governance models compared to their pre-implementation or standard care/non-attenders significantly improved BMD testing rate, and increased the number of patients who initiated antiosteoporotic therapy and enhanced their adherence to the medications. Moreover, the treatment by clinical governance model respect to standard care/non-attenders significantly reduced the risk of subsequent fracture and mortality. The integrated structure of care enhanced the quality of life and physical function among patients with fragility fractures. CONCLUSIONS Based on our findings, clinicians should promote the management of patients experiencing a fragility fracture through structured and integrated models of care. The task force has formulated appropriate recommendations on the implementation of multidisciplinary care systems in patients with, or at risk of, fragility fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Cianferotti
- Italian Bone Disease Research Foundation (FIRMO), Florence, Italy
| | - G Porcu
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
- Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
| | - R Ronco
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
- Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
| | - G Adami
- Rheumatology Unit, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - R Alvaro
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - R Bogini
- Local Health Unit (USL) Umbria, Perugia, Italy
| | - A P Caputi
- Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy
| | - B Frediani
- Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, Rheumatology Unit, University of Siena, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy
| | - D Gatti
- Rheumatology Unit, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - S Gonnelli
- Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, Policlinico Le Scotte, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - G Iolascon
- Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy
| | - A Lenzi
- Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale del Policlinico, Rome, Italy
| | - S Leone
- AMICI Onlus, Associazione nazionale per le Malattie Infiammatorie Croniche dell'Intestino, Milan, Italy
| | - R Michieli
- Italian Society of General Medicine and Primary Care (SIMG), Florence, Italy
| | - S Migliaccio
- Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, Foro Italico University, Rome, Italy
| | - T Nicoletti
- CnAMC, Coordinamento nazionale delle Associazioni dei Malati Cronici e rari di Cittadinanzattiva, Rome, Italy
| | - M Paoletta
- Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy
| | - A Pennini
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - E Piccirilli
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
- Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, "Policlinico Tor Vergata" Foundation, Rome, Italy
| | - M Rossini
- Rheumatology Unit, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - U Tarantino
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
- Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, "Policlinico Tor Vergata" Foundation, Rome, Italy
| | - M L Brandi
- Italian Bone Disease Research Foundation (FIRMO), Florence, Italy
| | - G Corrao
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - A Biffi
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
- Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Verdonck C, Willems R, Borgermans L. Implementation and operationalization of Integrated People-Centred Health Services delivery strategies in integrated osteoporosis care (IOC) initiatives: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 2023; 34:841-865. [PMID: 36695826 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06678-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
Integrated Osteoporosis Care (IOC) has been emerging over the past decade. To support integrated care initiatives, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has developed the Integrated People Centred Health Services (IPCHS) framework, which consists of five interdependent strategies. Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, World of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus) were searched for relevant studies published from January 1, 2010 to December 2022. Initiatives implementing collaborative practices and at least two IPCHS strategies were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project checklist. Seventy-six publications describing 69 implementations met the inclusion criteria; 90% of them were implemented at the hospital level, and over half focused on secondary fracture prevention. Three implementations captured all five IPCHS strategies, and half applied three. Substrategies targeting individuals as beneficiaries were frequently employed. Substrategies requiring fundamental shifts (e.g., systemic coordination and updating) were seldomly implemented. Substantive heterogeneity in substrategy operationalization was observed. Patient education, standardized care, team-based care, care coordinators, and health care provider training were commonly pursued. IOC interventions have focused mainly on secondary fracture prevention in a hospital setting and have been narrowly operationalized. Future implementation should: employ all five IPCHS strategies; better align programmes, providers, and regulatory frameworks, while adapting funding mechanisms; and operationalize broader and more innovative substrategies.Registration: This review has been registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO (CRD42021250244).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Verdonck
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Ruben Willems
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Liesbeth Borgermans
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Corrao G, Biffi A, Porcu G, Ronco R, Adami G, Alvaro R, Bogini R, Caputi AP, Cianferotti L, Frediani B, Gatti D, Gonnelli S, Iolascon G, Lenzi A, Leone S, Michieli R, Migliaccio S, Nicoletti T, Paoletta M, Pennini A, Piccirilli E, Rossini M, Tarantino U, Brandi ML. Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2023; 14:1137671. [PMID: 37143730 PMCID: PMC10151776 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1137671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field. Purpose This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline. Methods The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations. Results Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively. Conclusions The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Corrao
- National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, Laboratory of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- *Correspondence: Giovanni Corrao, ; Maria Luisa Brandi,
| | - Annalisa Biffi
- National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, Laboratory of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Gloria Porcu
- National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, Laboratory of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Raffaella Ronco
- National Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, Laboratory of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
- Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Rosaria Alvaro
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | - Luisella Cianferotti
- Italian Bone Disease Research Foundation, Fondazione Italiana Ricerca sulle Malattie dell’Osso (FIRMO), Florence, Italy
| | - Bruno Frediani
- Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neurosciences, Rheumatology Unit, University of Siena, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy
| | - Davide Gatti
- Rheumatology Unit, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Stefano Gonnelli
- Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, Policlinico Le Scotte, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Giovanni Iolascon
- Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy
| | - Andrea Lenzi
- Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale del Policlinico, Rome, Italy
| | - Salvatore Leone
- AMICI Onlus, Associazione Nazionale per le Malattie Infiammatorie Croniche dell’Intestino, Milan, Italy
| | - Raffaella Michieli
- Italian Society of General Medicine and Primary Care Società Italiana di Medicina Generale e delle cure primarie (SIMG), Florence, Italy
| | - Silvia Migliaccio
- Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, Foro Italico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Tiziana Nicoletti
- CnAMC, Coordinamento nazionale delle Associazioni dei Malati Cronici e rari di Cittadinanzattiva, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Paoletta
- Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy
| | - Annalisa Pennini
- Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - Eleonora Piccirilli
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy
- Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, “Policlinico Tor Vergata” Foundation, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Umberto Tarantino
- Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy
- Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, “Policlinico Tor Vergata” Foundation, Rome, Italy
| | - Maria Luisa Brandi
- Italian Bone Disease Research Foundation, Fondazione Italiana Ricerca sulle Malattie dell’Osso (FIRMO), Florence, Italy
- *Correspondence: Giovanni Corrao, ; Maria Luisa Brandi,
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tell-Lebanon O, Yaacobi E, Ohana N, Rotman-Pikielny P. Osteoporosis Treatment After Osteoporotic Fractures: Data From a Single Medical Center. Endocr Pract 2022; 28:1221-1225. [PMID: 36126885 DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2022.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Revised: 09/11/2022] [Accepted: 09/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Most patients do not receive osteoporosis treatment after osteoporotic fracture. This study reviewed osteoporosis treatment after osteoporotic fractures in a center without a Fracture Liaison Service. METHODS We identified all patients with hip, vertebral, humeral or radial fractures, evaluated in Meir Medical Center, in 2017. The exclusion criteria were not a Clalit Health Services member, high-energy fracture or 30-day postoperative mortality. The primary endpoint was osteoporosis drugs issued within 12 months of fracture. Secondary endpoints included bone densitometry and 1-year mortality. RESULTS Five-hundred-eighty-two patients (average age 78.6 ± 11.1 years, 75.8% women) were included. There were 321 (55.5%) hip, 84 (14.1%) humeral, 33 (5.6%) vertebral, and 144 (24.7%) radial fractures. Osteoporosis drugs were issued to 26.5% of the patients; those with humeral fractures received the least (21.4%) and vertebral, the most (30.3%; P = .51). Bone densitometry was performed in 23.2% of patients. One-year mortality after hip fracture was 12.1%, followed by humeral (3.6%; P < .05). Logistic regression showed that previous treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6-15.2), bone densitometry (OR = 4.4; 95% CI 2.6-7.4) and endocrinology visit (OR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.6) were the most important factors associated with treatment. CONCLUSION Fewer than one third of patients received pharmacotherapy within 1 year after fracture. Because pharmacotherapy reduces future fractures and mortality, we recommend that medical staff who care for patients with fracture adopt practical and effective strategies to increase treatment rates among patients with osteoporotic fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Eyal Yaacobi
- Orthopedic Department, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Nissim Ohana
- Orthopedic Department, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Pnina Rotman-Pikielny
- Endocrine Institute, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dobre R, Niculescu DA, Petca RC, Popescu RI, Petca A, Poiană C. Adherence to Anti-Osteoporotic Treatment and Clinical Implications after Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11050341. [PMID: 33923261 PMCID: PMC8146075 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11050341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2021] [Revised: 04/18/2021] [Accepted: 04/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The role of anti-osteoporotic treatment as part of the secondary prevention after hip fracture in terms of mortality and re-fracture risk has been studied, and the results are promising. Decreased treatment adherence and compliance is a problem that needs to be addressed by healthcare professionals. A systematic review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database with terms that included hip fracture, mortality, second fracture, and specific anti-osteoporotic treatment. We included 28 articles, 21 regarding mortality and 20 re-fracture rates in hip fracture patients. All studies showed lower mortality after hip fracture associated with anti-osteoporotic treatment, mostly bisphosphonate agents. The re-fracture risk is still debatable, since conflicting data were found. Although most of the studies showed notable effects on mortality and re-fracture rates associated with anti-osteoporotic treatment, we still need more data to validate the actual results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ramona Dobre
- “Carol Davila”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (D.A.N.); (R.-C.P.); (R.-I.P.); (A.P.); (C.P.)
- Department of Endocrinology, National Institute of Endocrinology CI Parhon, 011853 Bucharest, Romania
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +40-770-597590
| | - Dan Alexandru Niculescu
- “Carol Davila”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (D.A.N.); (R.-C.P.); (R.-I.P.); (A.P.); (C.P.)
- Department of Endocrinology, National Institute of Endocrinology CI Parhon, 011853 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Răzvan-Cosmin Petca
- “Carol Davila”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (D.A.N.); (R.-C.P.); (R.-I.P.); (A.P.); (C.P.)
- Department of Urology, “Prof. Dr. Th. Burghele” Clinical Hospital, 050659 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Răzvan-Ionuț Popescu
- “Carol Davila”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (D.A.N.); (R.-C.P.); (R.-I.P.); (A.P.); (C.P.)
- Department of Urology, “Prof. Dr. Th. Burghele” Clinical Hospital, 050659 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Aida Petca
- “Carol Davila”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (D.A.N.); (R.-C.P.); (R.-I.P.); (A.P.); (C.P.)
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Elias University Hospital, 011461 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Cătălina Poiană
- “Carol Davila”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (D.A.N.); (R.-C.P.); (R.-I.P.); (A.P.); (C.P.)
- Department of Endocrinology, National Institute of Endocrinology CI Parhon, 011853 Bucharest, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Unveiling the Metabolic Mystery of Fragility Hip Fracture in Indian Patients: A Histomorphometric and Biochemical Correlation. Indian J Orthop 2020; 54:297-306. [PMID: 33194105 PMCID: PMC7609810 DOI: 10.1007/s43465-020-00253-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2020] [Accepted: 09/03/2020] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND High prevalence of hypovitaminosis D is being reported in Indian patients with fragility hip fracture. The gold standard to diagnose osteoporosis and osteomalacia is bone histomorphometry. There is no study evaluating histopathological histomorphometry in Indian fragility hip fracture patients. The purpose of the study was to evaluate fragility hip fracture patients for histopathological osteomalacia and osteoporosis by histomorphometry and to correlate histopathological findings with biochemical hypovitaminosis D. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 55 patients of fragility hip fractures recruited for prospective cross-sectional study. During definitive fracture fixation of these fragility hip fractures, bone biopsy taken from neck region of femur by a novel approach for histomorphometry. Histomorphometric analysis was based on three indices, namely osteoid seam width, osteoblast surface, and osteoid surface. We also analysed blood bone biochemistry and correlated with bone histomorphometry. RESULTS In fragility hip fracture patients, the prevalence of histomorphometric osteoporosis and osteomalacia were very low (only 9.4% had osteoporosis and none had osteomalacia) however in blood bone biochemistry, we found high prevalence (85.5%) of hypovitaminosis D. We also noted significant changes when correlated bone histomorphometry with different blood bone biochemistry. CONCLUSION Indian patients with fragility hip fracture were found to have high prevalence of biochemical hypovitaminosis D but unlike western literature, there was low prevalence of histomorphometric osteoporosis with no evidence of histomorphometric osteomalacia. Correct knowledge about metabolic status of fragility hip fracture is required to improve outcome, decrease complications and to optimise cost of the treatment.
Collapse
|
7
|
Incorporation of a patient navigator into a secondary fracture prevention program identifies barriers to patient care. Aging Clin Exp Res 2020; 32:2557-2564. [PMID: 32030610 DOI: 10.1007/s40520-020-01486-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2019] [Accepted: 01/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patient navigation improves outcomes in various clinical contexts, but has not been evaluated in secondary fracture prevention. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients, age 50 + from April to October, 2016 hospitalized with fragility fracture contacted by a patient navigator. Patients were identified using an electronic tool extracting data from electronic medical records which alerted the patient navigator to contact patients by phone post-discharge to schedule appointments to "High-Risk Osteoporosis Clinic" (HiROC) and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) scan. Primary outcome was transition from hospital to HiROC. We also compared completion of DXA, five osteoporosis-associated in-hospital laboratory tests (calcium, 25-hydroxy vitamin D, complete blood count, renal, and liver function), osteoporosis medication prescription and adherence, and other patient characteristics to historical controls (2014-2015) without patient navigation. Comparisons were made using Chi-square, Fisher's Exact, two-sample t test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, as appropriate. RESULTS The proportion of patients transitioning to HiROC with and without patient navigation was not different (53% vs. 48%, p = 0.483), but DXA scan completion was higher (90% vs. 67%, p = 0.006). No difference in medication initiation within 3 months post discharge (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.387) or adherence at 6 months (68% vs. 71%, p = 0.777) was found. Patients attending HiROC lived closer (11 vs. 43 miles, p < 0.001) and more likely to follow-up in surgery clinic (95% vs. 61%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Patient navigation did not improve transition to HiROC. Longer travel distance may be a barrier-unaffected by patient navigation. Identifying barriers may inform best practices for Fracture Liaison Service programs.
Collapse
|
8
|
Lebanon OT, Netzer D, Yaacobi E, Berner Y, Spiegel D, Bacharach R, Nabriski D, Nyska M, Brin Y, Rotman-Pikielny P. VIRTUAL ORTHOPEDIC-REHABILITATION-METABOLIC COLLABORATION FOR TREATING OSTEOPOROTIC HIP FRACTURES. Endocr Pract 2019; 26:332-339. [PMID: 31859555 DOI: 10.4158/ep-2019-0391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a virtual, closed-loop protocol that treated hip fracture patients without formal clinic visits. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, an intervention group of 85 hip fracture patients (33.6%) with vitamin D levels ≥65 nmol/L who received recommendations for osteoporosis treatment, was compared to a nonintervention group of 168 (66.4%), with vitamin D <65 nmol/L. Treatment included vitamin D loading in orthopedic and rehabilitation departments for patients from both groups, and virtual, osteoporosis treatment recommendations by Metabolic Clinic physicians to patients from the intervention group upon achieving a vitamin D level ≥65 nmol/L. Recommendations were given without requiring clinic visits. Osteoporosis drug recommendations were relayed to primary care physicians. The primary endpoint was patients receiving osteoporosis drugs within 12-months post-surgery. Secondary endpoints were patients issued drugs within 3- and 6-months post-surgery, and 1-year post-fracture mortality rates. Results: Among 253 hip fracture patients (81.3 ± 10.7 years-of-age, 68.8% women), the postintervention osteoporosis medication issue rate was higher than in the nonintervention group (48.2% versus 22.0%, respectively; P<.001). More intervention group patients received drugs 3 months (18.8% versus 2.9%; P<.001) and 6 months after surgery (40% versus 5.9%; P<.001). One-year mortality was lower among patients who received any osteoporosis medications (either through our intervention or from community physicians) than among untreated patients (5.1% versus 26.3%; P<.001). Conclusion: Virtual orthopedic-rehabilitation-metabolic collaboration increased osteoporosis treatment rates post-hip fracture. Yet, treatment rates remained <50%. Additional research is required to increase treatment rates further, such as providing drug therapy shortly after surgery, perhaps during rehabilitation, or lowering the vita-min D threshold. Abbreviations: CHS = Clalit Health Services; FLS = Fracture liaison service; HMO = Health Maintenance Organization; MMC = Meir Medical Center; PCP = primary care physician.
Collapse
|