Management of patients admitted to hospital with acute vertebral fragility fractures: a modified Delphi study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence Ong ◽  
Opinder Sahota ◽  
John R F Gladman
Keyword(s):  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Hospital Care ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Clinical Area ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Line Imaging ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
Vertebral Fragility Fracture

Abstract Introduction Acute vertebral fragility fracture requiring hospital admission is common, painful and disabling. No comprehensive clinical guideline for their care exists. To support the development of such a guideline, we sought the views of experts in the field. Methods A modified Delphi study was used. A total of 70 statements were presented, using an online platform, over three consensus-seeking rounds, to participants with experience in the hospital care of patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures from UK-based specialist societies. Participants rated the level of their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined at 70% of respondents choosing either agree/strongly agree or disagree/strong disagree. Over the first two rounds, statements not reaching consensus were modified in subsequent rounds, and new statements proposed by participants and agreed by the research team could be added. Results There were 71 participants in the first round, 37 in the second round and 28 (most of whom were geriatricians) in the third round. Consensus was reached in 52 statements covering fracture diagnosis, second-line imaging, organisation of hospital care, pain management and falls and bone health assessment. Consensus was not achieved for whether vertebral fragility fractures should be managed in a specific clinical area. Discussion These findings provide the basis for the development of clinical guidelines and quality improvement initiatives. They also help to justify research into the merits of managing acute vertebral fragility fracture patients in a specific clinical area.

The presentation of older people with vertebral fragility fractures to a university hospital: a cross-sectional analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence Ong ◽  
Syed Ajmal bin Syed Ali ◽  
Opinder Sahota
Keyword(s):  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
Geriatric Medicine ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Hospital Services ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Thoracolumbar Region ◽  
Vertebral Fragility Fracture

Introduction: There is a lack of robust data on hospitalised acute vertebral fragility fractures. This analysis aimed to report on the number of hospitalised vertebral fragility fractures treated in a large UK teaching hospital. This information would support better design of hospital services and resource allocation to manage this group of patients. Method: Patients aged 50 years and over hospitalised with a vertebral fragility fracture from 1/2/2016 to 31/1/2017 were identified from radiology and hospital records. Patients sustaining vertebral fractures due to either major trauma or malignancy were excluded. Data was collected on patient demographics, fracture details, hospitalisation details and health outcomes. Results: 208 patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures were hospitalised over a 12 month period. The mean(SD) age was 80.5(11) years, of which 68% were female. 94% presented to the Emergency Department (ED) as their first point of contact of which 70% were subsequently hospitalised. Two-thirds presented with a single level vertebral fracture predominantly around the thoracolumbar region. The majority (87%) were non-operatively managed by general physicians of which most were under Geriatric Medicine. The median length of stay was 12 (IQR 6-20) days and in-patient mortality was 3%. 52% of patients went on to have a bone health assessment. Conclusion: We have reported on the number of patients presenting to hospital with an acute vertebral fragility fracture over 12 months. This helps identify resources needed to design hospital services to manage them adequately.

151 Optimising Bone Health on Sheffield Frailty Unit Through Quality Improvement

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i12-i42
Author(s):  
C M Orton ◽  
N E Sinson ◽  
R Blythe ◽  
J Hogan ◽  
N A Vethanayagam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
Bone Health ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Fracture Risk Assessment Tool

Abstract Introduction NICE and the National Osteoporosis Guidance Group (NOGG) advise on evaluation of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment1,2, with evidence suggesting that screening and treatment reduces the risk of fragility fractures 3,4,5. However, it is often overlooked in the management of older patients within secondary care. Audit data from Sheffield Frailty Unit (SFU) in 2018 showed that national guidance was not routinely followed. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) scores were not calculated and bone health was poorly managed. Therefore, we undertook a quality improvement project aiming to optimise bone health in patients presenting to SFU. Method & Intervention In January 2019 we collaborated with Sheffield Metabolic Bone Centre (MBC) to develop a pathway aiming to improve bone health assessment and management in patients presenting to SFU with a fall or fragility fracture. This included a user-friendly flow chart with accompanying guidelines, alongside education for staff. Performance was re-evaluated in May 2019, following which a tick box prompt was added to post take ward round documentation. A re-audit was performed in March 2020. Results In March 2018 0% of patients presenting with a fall had a FRAX® score calculated and only 40% of those with a new fragility fracture were managed according to guidelines. In May 2019, this had improved to 18% and 100% respectively. In March 2020 86% of patients had a FRAX® score calculated appropriately and 100% of fragility fractures were managed according to guidelines. In both re-audits 100% of FRAX® scores were acted on appropriately. Conclusions There has been a significant increase in the number of patients who have their bone health appropriately assessed and managed after presenting to SFU. However, achieving optimum care is under constant review with the aim to deliver more treatment on SFU, thereby reducing the need for repeat visits to the MBC.

Development of best practices in the utilization and implementation of pediatric cervical spine traction: a modified Delphi study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Nikita G. Alexiades ◽  
Belinda Shao ◽  
Bruno P. Braga ◽  
Christopher M. Bonfield ◽  
Douglas L. Brockmeyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Cervical Traction ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Strongly Agree

OBJECTIVE Cervical traction in pediatric patients is an uncommon but invaluable technique in the management of cervical trauma and deformity. Despite its utility, little empirical evidence exists to guide its implementation, with most practitioners employing custom or modified adult protocols. Expert-based best practices may improve the care of children undergoing cervical traction. In this study, the authors aimed to build consensus and establish best practices for the use of pediatric cervical traction in order to enhance its utilization, safety, and efficacy. METHODS A modified Delphi method was employed to try to identify areas of consensus regarding the utilization and implementation of pediatric cervical spine traction. A literature review of pediatric cervical traction was distributed electronically along with a survey of current practices to a group of 20 board-certified pediatric neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons with expertise in the pediatric cervical spine. Sixty statements were then formulated and distributed to the group. The results of the second survey were discussed during an in-person meeting leading to further consensus. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree). RESULTS After the initial round, consensus was achieved with 40 statements regarding the following topics: goals, indications, and contraindications of traction (12), pretraction imaging (6), practical application and initiation of various traction techniques (8), protocols in trauma and deformity patients (8), and management of traction-related complications (6). Following the second round, an additional 9 statements reached consensus related to goals/indications/contraindications of traction (4), related to initiation of traction (4), and related to complication management (1). All participants were willing to incorporate the consensus statements into their practice. CONCLUSIONS In an attempt to improve and standardize the use of cervical traction in pediatric patients, the authors have identified 49 best-practice recommendations, which were generated by reaching consensus among a multidisciplinary group of pediatric spine experts using a modified Delphi technique. Further study is required to determine if implementation of these practices can lead to reduced complications and improved outcomes for children.

scholarly journals Establishing Consensus on a Screening Tool for the Neglected Sexual SIde Effects after Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Modified E-Delphi Study.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Roscher ◽  
Kimesh Naidoo ◽  
Joanne Milios ◽  
Jacqueline van Wyk
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Penile Curvature ◽  
Prostate Cancer Treatment ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Sexual Side Effects ◽  
Strongly Agree

Abstract BackgroundNeglected sexual side effects are a group of less common sexual side effects after Prostate that may present after Prostate Cancer treatment. There is currently no valid and reliable tool to identify these side effects. A modified Delphi study is an effective way of developing and validating such a screening tool.MethodsA modified Delphi study was used to obtain consensus from a multi-disciplinary group of experts over three rounds. Ten statements were presented containing 8 close ended statements on individual NSSEs, and 2 open ended statements on Psychosocial impact related to NSSE. Consensus was defined as a 75% strongly agree achievement on each statement, or the final statement evolution at the end of 3 rounds. Statement support in each round was determined by mean, standard deviation and range, after a numerical value was allocated to each statement during specific rounds. All three rounds were structured and suggestions and additions were incorporated in the statement evolution of the three rounds.ResultsThirty five participants were invited, and 27 completed Round 1(RD 1), 23 participants completed RD2, and 20 participants completed RD3. All 3 rounds were completed in 12 weeks. Statement 1(sexual arousal incontinence), statement 2(climacturia) and statement 3 (orgasm intensity) reached consensus after RD2, and statement 9 (sexual dysfunction impact) and statement 10 (experiences) were removed after RD3. Statement 4 (orgasmic pain), statement 5 (anejaculation), statement 6(sensory disturbances), statement 7 (penile length shortening) and statement 8 (penile curvature) were finalised after the conclusion of RD3. Statement 1-3 were the most stable statements with the most support and least amount of disagreement. Statements 4-8 were less stable, but support for them improved over the 3 rounds. Statement 9-10 both had good stability, but the support indicated that they needed to be removed from the set of statements. Statement 5 had the poorest range due to an outlier opinion.ConclusionsConsensus was reached on the statements making up the NSSE screening tool. Health care practitioners will be able to use this tool to identify NSSE after prostate cancer treatment. Further reliability testing on this tool is needed.

scholarly journals Perceived Barriers, Enablers and Modifications to Tests Assessing Pediatric Lower Limb Neurological Impairment: An International Delphi Survey

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramona Clark ◽  
Emmah Baque ◽  
Cherie Wells ◽  
Andrea Bialocerkowski
Keyword(s):  
Lower Limb ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Neurological Impairment ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Neurological Conditions ◽  
Strongly Agree

Abstract Objectives: Accurate, clinically meaningful outcome measures that are responsive to change are essential for selecting interventions and assessing their effects. Little guidance exists on the selection and administration of neurological impairment tests in children with a neurological condition. Clinicians, therefore, frequently modify adult assessments for use in children, yet the literature is inconsistent. This study aims to establish consensus on neurological conditions most likely to require neurological impairment test in pediatrics and the barriers, enablers and modifications perceived to enhance test reliability. Methods: Over a 2-round modified Delphi study, a panel of experts (n = 24) identified neurological conditions perceived to typically require pediatric neurological testing and the modifications to address barriers/enablers to testing. Experts comprised of physical therapists with evidence of advanced training or research in pediatrics. Using a 6-point Likert scale, (6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree), experts rated statements from existing literature. Thematic analyses were conducted on responses to open-ended questions. A-priori consensus was pre-set at 65% agreement/disagreement. Median, mode and interquartile ranges estimated perceived importance. Cessation was pre-determined by non-consensus items < 10% and panel fatigue. Results: Experts reached consensus on 107/112 (96%) items, including identifying 25/26 (96%) neurological conditions they perceived to require routine neurological testing. Experts strongly agreed with high importance that appropriately trained, experienced therapists are less variable when testing children. Communication modifications were perceived most important. Conclusions: High levels of consensus support the use of lower limb neurological testing in a range of pediatric neurological conditions. Trained clinicians should document modifications such as visual aid use. Using recommended modifications could encourage consistency amongst clinicians. Impact: This is the first study to identify the barriers and enablers to pediatric neurological testing. Barriers and enablers were partially addressed through suggested modifications. Further rigorous examination of these modifications is required to support their use.

Systematic approaches to fragility fracture prevention

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 39-44
Author(s):  
D. B. Lee ◽  
P. J. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fracture Liaison Service ◽  
Reimbursement Mechanisms ◽  
Future Fracture ◽  
National Coalition ◽  
Fracture Liaison

SummaryIndividuals who have suffered fractures caused by osteoporosis – also known as fragility fractures – are the most readily identifiable group at high risk of suffering future fractures. Globally, the majority of these individuals do not receive the secondary preventive care that they need. The Fracture Liaison Service model (FLS) has been developed to ensure that fragility fracture patients are reliably identified, investigated for future fracture and falls risk, and initiated on treatment in accordance with national clinical guidelines. FLS have been successfully established in Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania, and their widespread implementation is endorsed by leading national and international osteoporosis organisations. Multi-sector coalitions have expedited inclusion of FLS into national policy and reimbursement mechanisms. The largest national coalition, the National Bone Health Alliance (NBHA) in the United States, provides an exemplar of achieving participation and consensus across sectors. Initiatives developed by NBHA could serve to inform activities of new and emerging coalitions in other countries.

scholarly journals European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education: a protocol for a modified Delphi study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e045635
Author(s):  
Erik Donker ◽  
David Brinkman ◽  
Milan Richir ◽  
Paraskevi Papaioannidou ◽  
Robert Likic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Junior Doctors ◽  
Direct Supervision ◽  
Modified Delphi

IntroductionJunior doctors are responsible for a substantial number of prescribing errors, and final-year medical students lack sufficient prescribing knowledge and skills just before they graduate. Various national and international projects have been initiated to reform the teaching of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) during undergraduate medical training. However, there is as yet no list of commonly prescribed and available medicines that European doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. Such a list could form the basis for a European Prescribing Exam and would harmonise European CP&T education. Therefore, the aim of this study is to reach consensus on a list of widely prescribed medicines, available in most European countries, that European junior doctors should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision: the European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education.Methods and analysisThis modified Delphi study will recruit European CP&T teachers (expert group). Two Delphi rounds will be carried out to enable a list to be drawn up of medicines that are available in ≥80% of European countries, which are considered standard prescribing practice, and which junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without supervision.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center (no. 2020.335) and by the Ethical Review Board of the Netherlands Association for Medical Education (approved project no. NVMO‐ERB 2020.4.8). The European List of Essential Medicines for Medical Education will be presented at national and international conferences and will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. It will also be used to develop and implement the European Prescribing Exam.

scholarly journals POS0163 INCIDENT FRACTURE RISK PREDICTION USING THE FRAGILITY SCORE CALCULATED BY LUMBAR SPINE RADIOFREQUENCY ECHOGRAPHIC MULTI SPECTROMETRY (REMS) SCANS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 294.2-294
Author(s):  
D. Ciardo ◽  
P. Pisani ◽  
F. A. Lombardi ◽  
R. Franchini ◽  
F. Conversano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
Osteoporotic Fractures ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Bone Fragility ◽  
P Value ◽  
T Score ◽  
Caucasian Women

Background:The main consequence of osteoporosis is the occurrence of fractures due to bone fragility, with important sequelae in terms of disability and mortality. It has been already demonstrated that the information about bone mass density (BMD) alone is not sufficient to predict the risk of fragility fractures, since several fractures occur in patients with normal BMD [1].The Fragility Score is a parameter that allows to estimate skeletal fragility thanks to a trans-abdominal ultrasound scan performed with Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) technology. It is calculated by comparing the results of the spectral analysis of the patient’s raw ultrasound signals with reference models representative of fragile and non-fragile bones [2]. It is a dimensionless parameter, which can vary from 0 to 100, in proportion to the degree of fragility, independently from BMD.Objectives:This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Fragility Score, measured during a bone densitometry exam performed with REMS technology at lumbar spine, in identifying patients at risk of incident osteoporotic fractures at a follow-up period of 5 years.Methods:Caucasian women with age between 30 and 90 were scanned with spinal REMS and DXA. The incidence of osteoporotic fractures was assessed during a follow-up period of 5 years. The ability of the Fragility Score to discriminate between patients with and without incident fragility fractures was subsequently evaluated and compared with the discriminatory ability of the T-score calculated with DXA and with REMS.Results:Overall, 533 women (median age: 60 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 54-66 years) completed the follow-up (median 42 months; IQR: 35-56 months), during which 73 patients had sustained an incident fracture.Both median REMS and DXA measured T-score values were significantly lower in fractured patients than for non-fractured ones, conversely, REMS Fragility Score was significantly higher (Table 1).Table 1.Analysis of T-score values calculated with REMS and DXA and Fragility Score calculated with REMS. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQR) are reported. The p-value is derived from the Mann-Whitney test.Patients without incident fragility fracturePatients with incident fragility fracturep-valueT-score DXA[median (IQR)]-1.9 (-2.7 to -1.0)-2.6 (-3.3 to -1.7)0.0001T-score REMS[median (IQR)]-2.0 (-2.8 to -1.1)-2.7 (-3.5 to -1.9)<0.0001Fragility Score[median (IQR)]29.9 (25.7 to 36.2)53.0 (34.2 to 62.5)<0.0001By evaluating the capability to discriminate patients with/without fragility fractures, the Fragility Score obtained a value of the ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80, higher than the AUC of the REMS T-score (0.66) and of the T-score DXA (0.64), and the difference was statistically significant (Figure 1).Figure 1.ROC curve comparison of Fragility Score, REMS and DXA T-score values in the classification of patients with incident fragility fractures.Furthermore, the correlation between the Fragility Score and the T-score values was low, with Pearson correlation coefficient r=-0.19 between Fragility Score and DXA T-score and -0.18 between the Fragility Score and the REMS T-score.Conclusion:The Fragility Score was found to be an effective tool for the prediction of fracture risk in a population of Caucasian women, with performances superior to those of the T-score values. Therefore, this tool presents a high potential as an effective diagnostic tool for the early identification and subsequent early treatment of bone fragility.References:[1]Diez Perez A et al. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019; 31(10):1375-1389.[2]Pisani P et al. Measurement 2017; 101:243–249.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document