Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey

We conducted a survey of FLSs' consultation conduct and content which identified marked variation in whether FLS HCPs discussed osteoporosis medicine with patients. A review of service pro formas showed more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening' than to 'informing'. We propose an expanded FLS typology and model FLS pro forma.

PURPOSE

To investigate the nature of direct patient contact in fracture liaison service (FLS) delivery, examine the use and content of pro formas to guide information eliciting and sharing in FLS consultations, and determine service changes which were implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An electronic survey of UK FLS healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was distributed through clinical networks, social media, and other professional networks. Participants were asked to upload service pro formas used to guide consultation content. Documentary analysis findings were mapped to UK FLS clinical standards.

RESULTS

Forty-seven HCPs responded, providing data on 39 UK FLSs, over half of all 74 FLSs reporting to FLS-database. Results showed variation in which HCP made clinical decisions, whether medicines were discussed with patients or not, and in prescribing practice. Services were variably affected by COVID, with most reporting a move to more remote consulting. The documentary analysis of eight service pro formas showed that these contained more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening', with fewer pro formas prompting the clinician to offer information and support (e.g., about coping with pain). Based on our findings we propose an expanded FLS typology and have developed a model FLS pro forma.

CONCLUSION

There is marked variation in the delivery of services and content of consultations in UK FLSs including discussion about osteoporosis medications. Clinical standards for FLSs should clarify the roles of primary and secondary HCPs and the importance of holistic approaches to patient care.

Strong, steady and straight: UK consensus statement on physical activity and exercise for osteoporosis

Exercise and physical activity can improve bone strength and the risk of falls, which may offer benefits in the prevention and management of osteoporosis. However, uncertainty about the types of exercise that are safe and effective instigates lack of confidence in people with osteoporosis and health professionals. Existing guidelines leave some questions unresolved. This consensus statement aimed to determine the physical activity and exercise needed to optimise bone strength, reduce fall and fracture risk, improve posture and manage vertebral fracture symptoms, while minimising potential risks in people with osteoporosis. The scope of this statement was developed following stakeholder consultation. Meta-analyses were reviewed and where evidence was lacking, individual studies or expert opinion were used to develop recommendations. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed evidence to make recommendations, by consensus when evidence was not available. Key recommendations are that people with osteoporosis should undertake (1) resistance and impact exercise to maximise bone strength; (2) activities to improve strength and balance to reduce falls; (3) spinal extension exercise to improve posture and potentially reduce risk of falls and vertebral fractures. For safety, we recommend avoiding postures involving a high degree of spinal flexion during exercise or daily life. People with vertebral fracture or multiple low trauma fractures should usually exercise only up to an impact equivalent to brisk walking. Those at risk of falls should start with targeted strength and balance training. Vertebral fracture symptoms may benefit from exercise to reduce pain, improve mobility and quality of life, ideally with specialist advice to encourage return to normal activities. Everyone with osteoporosis may benefit from guidance on adapting postures and movements. There is little evidence that physical activity is associated with significant harm, and the benefits, in general, outweigh the risks.

UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management.

INTRODUCTION

The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older.

METHODS

Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence.

RESULTS

Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement.

CONCLUSION

The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D)

INTRODUCTION

Prevention of fragility fractures, a source of significant economic and personal burden, is hindered by poor uptake of fracture prevention medicines. Enhancing communication of scientific evidence and elicitation of patient medication-related beliefs has the potential to increase patient commitment to treatment. The Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) programme aims to develop and evaluate a theoretically informed, complex intervention consisting of a computerised web-based decision support tool, training package and information resources, to facilitate informed decision-making about fracture prevention treatment, with a long-term aim of improving informed treatment adherence. This protocol focuses on the iFraP Development (iFraP-D) work.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The approach to iFraP-D is informed by the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation framework and the three-step implementation of change model. The context for the study is UK fracture liaison services (FLS), which enact secondary fracture prevention. An evidence synthesis of clinical guidelines and Delphi exercise will be conducted to identify content for the intervention. Focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians and general practitioners and a usual care survey will facilitate understanding of current practice, and investigate barriers and facilitators to change. Design of the iFraP intervention will be informed by decision aid development standards and theories of implementation, behaviour change, acceptability and medicines adherence. The principles of co-design will underpin all elements of the study through a dedicated iFraP community of practice including key stakeholders and patient advisory groups. In-practice testing of the prototype intervention will inform revisions ready for further testing in a subsequent pilot and feasibility randomised trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0559). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through national bodies and networks, publications and presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

researchregistry5041.

Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement

Patient information is important to help patients fully participate in their healthcare. Commonly accessed osteoporosis patient information resources were identified and assessed for readability, quality, accuracy and consistency. Resources contained inconsistencies and scored low when assessed for quality and readability. We recommend optimal language and identify information gaps to address.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to identify commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment, appraise the quality and make recommendations for improvement.

METHODS

Patient information resources were purposively sampled and text extracted. Data extracts underwent assessment of readability (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) and quality (modified International Patient Decision Aid Standards (m-IPDAS)). A thematic analysis was conducted, and keywords and phrases were used to describe osteoporosis and its treatment identified. Findings were presented to a stakeholder group who identified inaccuracies and contradictions and discussed optimal language.

RESULTS

Nine patient information resources were selected, including webpages, a video and booklets (available online), from government, charity and private healthcare providers. No resource met acceptable readability scores for both measures of osteoporosis information and drug information. Quality scores from the modified IPDAS ranged from 21 to 64% (7-21/33). Thematic analysis was informed by Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of Disease. Thirteen subthemes relating to the identity, causes, timeline, consequences and controllability of osteoporosis were identified. Phrases and words from 9 subthemes were presented to the stakeholder group who identified a predominance of medical technical language, misleading terms about osteoporotic bone and treatment benefits, and contradictions about symptoms. They recommended key descriptors for providers to use to describe osteoporosis and treatment benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis have highly variable quality, scored poorly on readability assessments and contained inconsistencies and inaccuracies. We produced practical recommendations for information providers to support improvements in understanding, relevance, balance and bias, and to address information gaps.

P117 Exploring experiences of Fracture Liaison Services and perceptions of a new decision tool to support patient and clinician decisions: a focus group study

Background/Aims 

The iFraP study (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention Treatments) is developing a computerised decision-support tool to support clinician decision-making, risk communication and informed patient decision-making in Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultations. To inform iFraP intervention development, this study explored 1) patient and clinician experiences of FLSs and 2) perspectives towards the new iFraP tool.

Methods 

Four focus groups and supplementary interviews included 9 FLS clinicians, 7 General Practitioners (GPs), and 8 patients who recently attended an FLS consultation. Theoretically-informed thematic analysis was conducted to facilitate understanding of current FLS practice, potential intervention acceptability and possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation.

Results 

FLS clinicians and GPs suggested that FLSs worked well to identify patients at high risk of future fracture and to recommend medication. FLS clinicians were confident in their role and felt their consultations were person-centred and addressed information needs. However, some FLS clinicians described communicating risk as difficult and gave examples of when they are uncertain whether medication should be recommended (e.g. patient with osteopenic bone mineral density). FLS clinicians had varying perceptions of their roles in discussing medications, with some not viewing this as their responsibility; whereas GPs reported that medication discussions were an important aspect of the FLS clinician role. When medication recommendations (and discussion) were delivered, the setting varied across services including face-to-face in clinic or at the patient’s home, by letter, or by telephone. On the whole, patients reflected positively on their FLS appointment. However, some patients described unmet information needs, such as risk of future fractures, potential benefits and risks of medications, and information about follow-up.Many FLS clinicians and GPs reflected upon the potential value of the tool, including the inclusion of visual images to facilitate understanding of fracture risk, and to promote consistent messages across FLSs and between primary and secondary care. Barriers to intervention implementation were also identified. Clinicians expressed concern that evidence-based Cates plots to support explanations of medication effectiveness may make patients believe medications are not ‘worthwhile’. This suggests that clinicians prioritised promotion of medication adherence over informed decision-making, highlighting that the goal of FLS clinicians and iFraP may not align. Furthermore, concern was expressed that use of a computerised tool may detract from the clinician-patient relationship.

Conclusion 

These novel findings illustrate the experience of FLS consultations from three perspectives. They highlight FLS clinicians’ clinical decision-support needs and patients’ unmet need for clear information that addresses their medication concerns. Overall, the iFraP intervention was viewed as acceptable, with the potential to support clinicians’ decision-making and to facilitate informed decision-making. Differences in FLS configuration and a move to more remote consulting may mean the intervention needs to be adaptable to different settings to address barriers to implementation.

Disclosure 

L. Bullock: None. C. Jinks: Grants/research support; CJ is part funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. A. Hawarden: Grants/research support; AH is a NIHR funded Academic Clinical Fellow. F. Crawford-Manning: Grants/research support; FCM is part funded by the NIHR Clinical Research Network Scholar Programme. S. Leyland: None. J. Fleming: None. E.M. Clark: None. E. Cottrell: None. J. Edwards: Grants/research support; JE is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer in Primary Care (CL-2016-10-003). Z. Paskins: Grants/research support; ZP is funded by the NIHR, Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy.

P118 Co-design of a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation: a Delphi survey with patients and clinicians

Background/Aims 

Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs) are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. As part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) research programme this study aimed to 1) co-design content for a ‘model FLS consultation’ and 2) gain consensus on the appropriateness of osteoporosis clinical guidelines in the context of FLSs.

Methods 

Three rounds of modified Delphi survey were sent to patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, carers, and clinicians. Participants were presented with potential consultation content derived from an evidence synthesis of current guidelines, frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence, and stakeholder consultation. Participants were asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and elaborate using free-text boxes. In Round 2, participants were shown mean scores of importance from Round 1. Statements identified as of ‘low importance’ at the end of Rounds 1 and 2 were discussed by the study team, including patient contributors, and were removed or amended. In Round 3, participants were asked whether the statement was ‘essential’ or ‘optional’ in a time-limited FLS consultation. Percentage agreement with each statement was ranked. The threshold for ‘essential’ versus ‘optional’ was determined by the study team.

Results 

391 invitations to participate were sent, with 72, 49, and 52 responders to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Throughout Rounds 1-3 participants considered 122 statements. By Round 3, 81 statements were deemed essential, with an additional 14 optional statements. Essential statements were distilled into 18 recommendations constituting the ‘model FLS consultation’. Statements related to stages of the consultation, including: introductions; gather information; consider therapeutic options; elicit patient perceptions; establish shared decision-making preferences; share information about condition and treatment; check understanding; and signpost next steps. There was consensus that FLS clinicians should discuss the benefits and risks of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates and denosumab. Optional consultation content included a statement suggesting clinicians should observe the patient to look for signs of fractures in their spine, with free-text responses suggesting that FLS clinicians may not ‘be best qualified’ to perform physical examinations. Removed statements included those relating to the discussion of Hormone Replacement Therapy, Raloxifene and Teriparatide, with free-text statements suggesting that ‘specialists’ (e.g. Rheumatologists) should discuss these medications. Additionally, statements that described the potential consequences of fracture (e.g. ‘the clinician should explain that one in ten patients with a hip fracture will die within 12 months of fracture.’) were removed. Free-text comments described these statements as potentially ‘scary’.

Conclusion 

The Delphi survey has informed iFraP intervention development by highlighting essential and optional FLS consultation content. Findings also provide insight into aspects of current osteoporosis clinical guidelines deemed appropriate in nurse/allied health professional led FLSs.

Disclosure 

L. Bullock: None. C. Jinks: Grants/research support; CJ is part funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. F. Crawford-Manning: Grants/research support; FCM is part funded by the NIHR Clinical Research Network Scholar Programme. S. Leyland: None. J. Fleming: None. E.M. Clark: None. E. Cottrell: None. J. Edwards: Grants/research support; JE is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer in Primary Care (CL-2016-10-003). Z. Paskins: Grants/research support; ZP is funded by the NIHR, Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy.

Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention

Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation.

PURPOSE

The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the 'model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation' within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study.

METHODS

A Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was 'essential' and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content.

RESULTS

Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.

British Association of Critical Care Nurses: Evidence-based consensus paper for oral care within adult critical care units

BACKGROUND

Patients who are critically ill are at increased risk of hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia. Effective evidence based oral care may reduce the incidence of such iatrogenic infection.

AIM

To provide an evidence-based British Association of Critical Care Nurses endorsed consensus paper for best practice relating to implementing oral care, with the intention of promoting patient comfort and reducing hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

A nominal group technique was adopted. A consensus committee of adult critical care nursing experts from the United Kingdom met in 2018 to evaluate and review the literature relating to oral care, its application in reducing pneumonia in critically ill adults and to make recommendations for practice. An elected national board member for the British Association of Critical Care Nurses chaired the round table discussion.

METHODS

The committee focused on 5 aspects of oral care practice relating to critically ill adult patients. The evidence was evaluated for each practice within the context of reducing pneumonia in the mechanically ventilated patient or pneumonia in the non-ventilated patient. The five practices included the frequency for oral care; tools for oral care; oral care technique; solutions used and oral care in the non-ventilated patient who is critically ill and is at risk of aspiration. The group searched the best available evidence and evaluated this using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong, moderate, weak, or best practice consensus statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The consensus group generated recommendations, delineating an approach to best practice for oral care in critically ill adult patients. Recommendations included guidance for frequency and procedure for oral assessment, toothbrushing, and moisturising the mouth. Evidence on the use of chlorhexidine is not consistent and caution is advised with its routine use.

CONCLUSION

Oral care is an important part of the care of critically ill patients, both ventilated and non-ventilated. An effective oral care programme reduces the incidence of pneumonia and promotes patient comfort.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Effective oral care is integral to safe patient care in critical care.

Adverse events and safety issues associated with physical activity and exercise for adults with osteoporosis and osteopenia: A systematic review of observational studies and an updated review of interventional studies

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review to identify adverse effects of physical activity and/or exercise for adults with osteoporosis/osteopenia. We synthesised evidence from observational studies, and updated three previously published systematic reviews.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, grey literature and reference lists of relevant studies. Selection criteria were: (1) observational studies in patients with osteoporosis/osteopenia; and (2) in accordance with the criteria used in the previous reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted for the observational data. Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken for the review updates.

RESULTS

For the observational synthesis 14 studies were included. The majority of studies reported no adverse events, reduced incidence/improvement, or no significant change after physical activity or exercise. Activities that involved spinal flexion (certain yoga moves and sit-ups) were associated with a greater risk of vertebral fractures but these events were rare. For the update of reviews, 57 additional studies were identified. Exercise was generally associated with a greater number of minor adverse events including mild muscle/joint pain. Serious adverse events were rare and could not be attributed to the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Patients with osteoporosis/osteopenia can safely participate in structured exercise programmes, whether at home or in supervised facilities. Systematic review registration for observational studies: PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017070551.

A unique tubulin antiserum attenuates the rate of poleward chromosome movement in anaphase

An antiserum against tubulin, NS20, was previously shown to specifically attenuate both fast axonal transport in vivo (Johnston, K. M. et al., Brain Res. 385, 38-45 (1986)) and in vitro (Johnston, K. M. et al., Cell Motil. Cytoskel. 7, 110-115 (1987)) and flagellar motility (Goldsmith, M. et al., Cell Motil. Cytoskel. 20, 249-262 (1991)). We hypothesized that NS20 blocked motility by binding to a multifunctional motor binding domain on the microtubules (MTs), or axonemes. Here we have examined the effect of microinjecting NS20, at metaphase, into dividing PtK2 cells. Plotting chromosome separation (CS) as a function of time, we report here that CS rates for anaphase A (chromosome-to-pole movement) were reduced by approximately 50% relative to uninjected controls. CS rates for anaphase B (spindle pole elongation) were unaffected by the NS20 antiserum. The inhibition of CS rate during anaphase A by NS20 was significantly greater than the inhibition caused by a control antitubulin serum (PC5). Two possible mechanisms underlying NS20's inhibition of CS during anaphase A were considered. NS20 could block the binding of a kinetochore-associated motor to kinetochore MTs (kMTs) or, alternatively, NS20 could stabilize kMTs against depolymerization. Our results favor the first alternative. In a cold-induced depolymerization assay, NS20 had no selective stabilizing effect on MTs. Moreover, we show that NS20 can selectively block the binding of a well characterized MT-associated motor (kinesin) to MTs, in vitro. These results suggest that NS20 may be defining a unique tubulin binding domain common to the motors underlying vesicle transport, flagellar motility, and chromosome movements during anaphase A.