Dataset Information

What is the Role of Coordinators in the Secondary Fracture Prevention Program?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study is to search for reports on the clinical effectiveness of FLS being implemented worldwide through the systematic review, analyze the roles of coordinators in each study, and provide basic data for the development of future coordinator education programs. METHODS:A systematic search of the literature using the Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library was conducted for using the following keywords: 'osteoporosis' AND 'fractures' AND 'secondary prevention'. Finally, 65 studies are included in this study. RESULTS:At the coordinator-based fracture liaison service (FLS) center, the coordinator (often a nurse) acts as a central player in the establishing of patient connections, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, and attending physicians. Coordinators help bridge the nursing gap by supporting identification, investigation, initiation of treatment, and patient follow-up. Medics has opened the way to effectively manage patients at high risk of developing another fracture. In addition, nurses are in a unique and important role as nurses responsible for enhancing their daily lives by building relationships with patients and families. CONCLUSIONS:The coordinator in the FLS program plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of vulnerable fractures, as well as in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis and in maintaining continuity of treatment. In the future, the broader role of coordinators should be systematically organized and developed into accredited educational programs.

SUBMITTER: Cha YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7571241 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What is the Role of Coordinators in the Secondary Fracture Prevention Program?

Cha Yong Han YH Ha Yong-Chan YC Park Ki-Soo KS Yoo Jun-Il JI

Journal of bone metabolism 20200831 3

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this study is to search for reports on the clinical effectiveness of FLS being implemented worldwide through the systematic review, analyze the roles of coordinators in each study, and provide basic data for the development of future coordinator education programs.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of the literature using the Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library was conducted for using the following keywords: 'osteoporosis' AND 'fractu ...[more]

PMID: 32911583

Similar Datasets

Project description:Fractures associated with bone fragility in older adults signal the potential for secondary fracture. Fragility fractures often precipitate further decline in health and loss of mobility, with high associated costs for patients, families, society and the healthcare system. Promptly initiating a coordinated, comprehensive pharmacological bone health and falls prevention program post-fracture may improve osteoporosis treatment compliance; and reduce rates of falls and secondary fractures, and associated morbidity, mortality and costs.This pragmatic, controlled trial at 11 hospital sites in eight regions in Quebec, Canada, will recruit community-dwelling patients over age 50 who have sustained a fragility fracture to an intervention coordinated program or to standard care, according to the site. Site study coordinators will identify and recruit 1,596 participants for each study arm. Coordinators at intervention sites will facilitate continuity of care for bone health, and arrange fall prevention programs including physical exercise. The intervention teams include medical bone specialists, primary care physicians, pharmacists, nurses, rehabilitation clinicians, and community program organizers.The primary outcome of this study is the incidence of secondary fragility fractures within an 18-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include initiation and compliance with bone health medication; time to first fall and number of clinically significant falls; fall-related hospitalization and mortality; physical activity; quality of life; fragility fracture-related costs; admission to a long term care facility; participants' perceptions of care integration, expectations and satisfaction with the program; and participants' compliance with the fall prevention program. Finally, professionals at intervention sites will participate in focus groups to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the integrated fragility fracture prevention program.This integrated program will facilitate knowledge translation and dissemination via the following: involvement of various collaborators during the development and set-up of the integrated program; distribution of pamphlets about osteoporosis and fall prevention strategies to primary care physicians in the intervention group and patients in the control group; participation in evaluation activities; and eventual dissemination of study results.

Project description:AimsPatients who present with fragility fractures are consistently under-evaluated and under-treated for underlying osteoporosis. This point-of-care represents a lost opportunity to prevent future fractures. This 2-arm study evaluated the success by an orthopaedic department in osteoporosis evaluation and initiating treatment.MethodsPatients over the age of 50 years with a fragility fracture of the hip were candidates for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included end-of-life care and moderate or severe dementia. Patients were prospectively randomized into 1 of 2 groups. The Letter group received a letter at the time of discharge encouraging their primary care physician to start medication for osteoporosis (Letter group). The intervention group had 4 interventions including printed information, a DEXA scan, a specific treatment recommendation, and monthly phone calls for 4 months (Intervention group). The primary outcome measure was whether the patient was on recommended treatment at 4 months from the fracture.ResultsThere were 200 patients in the study, 100 in the Letter, and 100 in the Intervention group. Sixteen patients were removed from the study since they either died (9) within 4 months of their fracture, were transferred for end-of-life care (7), and 4 dropped out. This left 180 patients for analysis. The Letter group had only 6 patients (6.2%) on recommended treatment compared with the Intervention group with 64 patients (77.1%). This was statistically significant (P < 0.0001).ConclusionOsteoporosis is a worldwide epidemic. Internationally, only about 20% of patients after a hip fracture are treated for their underlying weak bone. The most effective systems use a fracture liaison service (FLS) model. We present a 4-part intervention program that uses an FLS coordinator within the orthopaedic department. We encourage orthopaedic programs to adopt this or other models with the goal of taking the first step toward responsibility for bone health.An FLS program within an orthopaedic department can successfully initiate treatment for underlying osteoporosis.

Project description:IntroductionThe most successful programme for secondary fracture prevention is the FLS (fracture liaison service) model. Our orthopaedic department carried out a prospective randomised study to measure the effectiveness of a 4-step intervention programme. The findings in this study reveal important additional clinical benefits to having an orthopaedic-based FLS programme and evaluates the usefulness of fracture risk tools.MethodsWe carried out a prospective study to evaluate patients with a fragility fracture of the hip. There were 2 groups, intervention and control (each 100 patients). Of these, 20 were either removed from the study or dropped out, leaving 180 for analysis. In addition to routine preoperative blood tests, albumin and thyroid function levels were obtained and PTH (parathyroid hormone) levels when indicated.The intervention group (83 patients) had a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan performed and fracture risk (FRAX) was calculated.Results12 patients (6.7%) had blood results which showed a potentially treatable cause for osteoporosis and 36 (20%) had blood results that changed their medical care.FRAX scores (180 patients) showed that the major osteoporotic fracture score correctly predicted the hip fracture in only 49%. The hip fracture score correctly predicted the hip fracture in 83%.DEXA scores (65 patients) showed osteoporosis in only 46% of hips and in only 26% of spines.An abnormal FRAX score or DEXA scan would have predicted a fragility fracture 93% of the time.ConclusionsIn addition to reducing secondary fractures, FLS programmes can provide fundamental benefits to the health of the patient. The intervention programme in this study identified patients with underlying treatable causes, correctable clinical conditions and patients with an unusually low bone density. When used together, FRAX and DEXA are more sensitive predictors for hip fracture risk than either are individually.Trial registry201497CTIL (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02239523).

Project description:Fragility fractures of the hip have a major impact on the lives of patients and their families. This study highlights significant geographical variation in secondary fracture prevention with even the highest performing regions failing the majority of patients despite robust evidence supporting the benefits of diagnosis and treatment.IntroductionThe purpose of the study is to describe the geographic variation in anti-osteoporosis drug therapy prescriptions before and after a hip fracture during 1999-2013 in the UK.MethodsWe used primary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) to identify patients with a hip fracture and primary care prescriptions of any anti-osteoporosis drugs prior to the index hip fracture and up to 5 years after. Geographic variations in prescribing before and after availability of generic oral bisphosphonates were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for gender, age and body mass index (BMI).ResultsThirteen thousand sixty-nine patients (76 % female) diagnosed with a hip fracture during 1999-2013 were identified. Eleven per cent had any anti-osteoporosis drug prescription in the 6 months prior to the index hip fracture. In the 0-4 months following a hip fracture, 5 % of patients were prescribed anti-osteoporosis drugs in 1999, increasing to 51 % in 2011 and then decreasing to 39 % in 2013. The independent predictors (OR (95 % CI)) of treatment initiation included gender (male 0.42 (0.36-0.49)), BMI (0.98 per kg/m2 increase (0.97-1.00)) and geographic region (1.29 (0.89-1.87) North East vs. 0.56 (0.43-0.73) South Central region). Geographic differences in prescribing persisted over the 5-year follow-up. If all patients were treated at the rate of the highest performing region, then nationally, an additional 3214 hip fracture patients would be initiated on therapy every year.ConclusionsSignificant geographic differences exist in prescribing of anti-osteoporosis drugs after hip fracture despite adjustment for potential confounders. Further work examining differences in health care provision may inform strategies to improve secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture.

Project description:BackgroundFractures are a major health problem in aging societies. Preventive approaches combining bone health and fall prevention are rare. The osteoporotic fracture prevention program in rural areas (OFRA) is a health care fund-driven program for older people in randomly selected districts in Germany. The components of the program were falls prevention exercise classes, examination of bone health by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, and a consultation about "safety in the living environment." The aim of this study was to evaluate this complex preventive intervention in a routine health care setting.MethodsThis cluster-randomized trial was performed from October 2015 to October 2018 and took place in 186 administrative districts in five federal states, 47 districts served as intervention districts, and 139, as controls. Within these districts, we included (a) all community-living women and men aged 70-85 years with prior fragility fractures and (b) all community-living women aged 75-80 years. The analysis used routine data collected by a health insurance company. The primary endpoint was all fragility fractures combined. Fracture types, mortality, and nursing home admission were explorative endpoints. Cox frailty models were used for comparative analyses with a median follow-up time of 365 days (interquartile range: 0 days).ResultsNine thousand four hundred eight individuals were approached to participate in one of the program components, 27,318 individuals served as controls. The mean age was 78.7 years. Of those approached to participate, nearly 30% joined the exercise classes. DXA measurement was reimbursed for 13.6%, and 51.8% received advice about measures to increase "safety in the living environment." The incidence of fragility fractures did not differ between the intervention and the control group (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11). However, femoral fractures, the most frequent fracture type, were reduced in the intervention group (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.99). Mortality and nursing home admission did not differ between the intervention and the control group.ConclusionsA comprehensive fracture prevention program for older people living in rural areas was implemented. The program did not affect the primary endpoint of all fragility fractures combined. It has to be considered that we used a modified intention to treat approach based on geographic randomization and information about endpoints relied exclusively on routine data of the health care insurance.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: 00009000.

Dataset Information

What is the Role of Coordinators in the Secondary Fracture Prevention Program?

Publications

What is the Role of Coordinators in the Secondary Fracture Prevention Program?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets