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

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurna Bullock ◽  
Fay Crawford-Manning ◽  
Elizabeth Cottrell ◽  
Jane Fleming ◽  
Sarah Leyland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Fracture Liaison Service ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Secondary Fracture ◽  
Drug Treatments ◽  
Fracture Liaison

Abstract Summary 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.

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

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurna Bullock ◽  
Clare Jinks ◽  
Fay Crawford-Manning ◽  
Sarah Leyland ◽  
Jane Fleming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Study Team ◽  
Fracture Liaison

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Detection of vertebral fracture in an acute hospital setting: an intervention to reduce future fracture risk through fracture liaison service intervention?

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Toal ◽  
Connor McLoughlin ◽  
Nicole Pierce ◽  
Julie Moss ◽  
Sarah English ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Bone Density ◽  
Vertebral Fractures ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Fracture Liaison Service ◽  
Radiology Department ◽  
Secondary Fracture ◽  
Secondary Fracture Prevention ◽  
Prevention Services ◽  
Fracture Liaison

Abstract Summary We introduced a standardised reporting system in the radiology department to highlight vertebral fractures and to signpost fracture prevention services. Our quality improvement project achieved improved fracture reporting, access to the FLS service, bone density assessment and anti-fracture treatment. Purpose Identification of vertebral fragility fractures (VF) provides an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk who might benefit from secondary fracture prevention. We sought to standardise VF reporting and to signpost fracture prevention services. Our aim was to improve rates of VF detection and access to our fracture liaison service (FLS). Methods We introduced a standardised reporting tool within the radiology department to flag VFs with signposting for referral for bone densitometry (DXA) and osteoporosis assessment in line with Royal Osteoporosis Society guidelines. We monitored uptake of VF reporting during a quality improvement phase and case identification within the FLS service. Results Recruitment of individuals with VF to the FLS service increased from a baseline of 63 cases in 2017 (6%) to 95 (8%) in 2018 and 157 (8%) in 2019 and to 102 (12%) in the first 6 months of 2020 (p = 0.001). One hundred fifty-three patients with VFs were identified during the QI period (56 males; 97 females). Use of the terminology ‘fracture’ increased to 100% (mean age 70 years; SD 13) in computed tomography (n = 110), plain X-ray (n = 37) or magnetic resonance imaging (n = 6) reports within the cohort. Signposting to DXA and osteoporosis assessment was included in all reports (100%). DXA was arranged for 103/153; 12 failed to attend. Diagnostic categories were osteoporosis (31%), osteopenia (36%) or normal bone density (33%). A new prescription for bone protection therapy was issued in 63/153. Twelve of the series died during follow-up. Conclusions Standardisation of radiology reporting systems facilitates reporting of prevalent vertebral fractures and supports secondary fracture prevention strategies.

scholarly journals Evaluation of minimal fracture liaison service resource: costs and survival in secondary fracture prevention—a prospective one-year study in South-Finland

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Lüthje ◽  
I. Nurmi-Lüthje ◽  
N. Tavast ◽  
A. Villikka ◽  
M. Kataja
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Excess Mortality ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Fracture Liaison Service ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Secondary Fracture ◽  
Dxa Scans ◽  
Fracture Liaison

Abstract Background Fracture liaison service (FLS) is a secondary prevention model for identification of patients at risk for fragility fractures. Aims This study was conducted to evaluate the number and costs of secondary prevention of low-energy fractures in the city of Kouvola in Finland. Methods Women aged ≥ 45 years and men ≥ 60 years treated in the emergency department with a low-energy fracture were identified. Laboratory testing, BMI, and DXA scans were performed. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool was used. The direct FLS costs were calculated. Survival was analyzed using univariate and multivariate analysis and the life-table method. Results 525 patients with 570 fractures were identified. The mean age of women was 73.8 years and of men 75.9 years. Most patients sustained wrist (31%), hip (21%) or proximal humerus (12%) fractures. 41.5% of the patients had osteoporosis according to DXA scans. 62% of patients used calcium and vitamin D daily and 38% started anti-osteoporotic medication. Protective factors for survival were: age < 80 years, female sex, and S-25OHD concentration of 50–119 nmol/L. Excess mortality was highest among patients with a fracture of the femur. The total annual direct costs of FLS were 1.3% of the costs of all fractures. Discussion Many low-energy fracture types were associated with excess mortality. The use of anti-osteoporotic medication was not optimal. Conclusions FLS increased the catchment of low-energy fracture patients and was inexpensive. However, identification, evaluation and post-fracture assessment of patients should be expedited. Rehabilitation of hip fracture patients needs to be improved.

scholarly journals A New Fracture Liaison Service Design Using a Mobile Application and Medical Artificial Intelligence (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung Woo Kim ◽  
Young Jun Won
Keyword(s):  
Mobile Application ◽  
Osteoporotic Fractures ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Fracture Liaison Service ◽  
Secondary Fracture ◽  
Secondary Fracture Prevention ◽  
Open Policy ◽  
Android Os ◽  
Secondary Fractures ◽  
Fracture Liaison

BACKGROUND While the clinical design of a Fracture Liaison Service(FLS) has been used as a localized healthcare service in a previous study, thus far there has not been an international mobile application, such as a FLS using smart phones. OBJECTIVE The goal of our study is to improve the prevention of secondary fractures using a Mobile FLS Application. METHODS We have developed a Fracture Liaison Service as an Android-OS application and released this service as a secondary fracture prevention program for osteoporotic fracture patients. RESULTS We have released the final version of the FLS mobile application in Google’s PlayStore. The new model of the FLS mobile application can be practically commercialized, and the effective second-order fracture prevention system is based on an open policy platform. CONCLUSIONS We hope to contribute to the prevention and management of osteoporotic fractures and osteoporosis worldwide via this FLS mobile application. In the future, an intelligent personal FLS is definitely possible, by applying a Medical AI based on a huge DB.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e048811
Author(s):  
Zoe Paskins ◽  
Laurna Bullock ◽  
Fay Crawford-Manning ◽  
Elizabeth Cottrell ◽  
Jane Fleming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complex Intervention ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Secondary Fracture ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
North West ◽  
Drug Treatments

IntroductionPrevention 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 analysisThe 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 disseminationEthical 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 numberresearchregistry5041.

scholarly journals Fracture liaison services: do they reduce fracture rates?

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 157-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irma J. A. de Bruin ◽  
Caroline E. Wyers ◽  
Joop P. W. van den Bergh ◽  
Piet P. M. M. Geusens
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Fracture Liaison Service ◽  
Fracture Rate ◽  
Secondary Fracture ◽  
Subsequent Fracture ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fracture Liaison

The fracture liaison service (FLS) care is considered the most appropriate organizational approach for secondary fracture prevention. We performed a literature search to evaluate to what extent the introduction of a FLS reduced subsequent fracture rates. We identified five studies that compared subsequent fracture rates. These studies varied in study design, proportion of women, baseline and subsequent fracture type [vertebral fracture (VF), non-VF (NVF) or hip fractures], duration of follow-up, response rates of attending the FLS, as well as variables included in adjusted analyses (age, sex, baseline fracture, time dependency). In two studies comparing hospitals with and without a FLS, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for subsequent fractures was significantly lower in the FLS hospitals (HR: 0.84 during the first year, 0.44 during the second year for subsequent NVFs after baseline NVF, and 0.67 during the third year for subsequent VFs + NVFs after baseline VFs + NVFs). When comparing fracture rates before (pre-FLS) and after (post-FLS) introduction of a FLS, the adjusted HR for subsequent NVFs after baseline NVF was significantly lower in the post-FLS group after 2 years in one study (HR = 0.65) and nonsignificant in another study for subsequent hip fractures after baseline hip fracture. One study comparing pre-FLS and post-FLS with a follow-up of less than a year did not demonstrate a significant difference in subsequent fracture risk. In conclusion, only five FLS studies with heterogeneous study designs are available, three of them reported a lower subsequent fracture rate related to FLS care. Larger and long-term studies will be needed to further quantify the effect of FLS care on subsequent fracture risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document