SUMMARY: We studied nursing home residents with osteoporosis or recent fracture to determine the frequency and predictors of osteoporosis treatment. There was wide variation in performance, and both clinical and systems variables predicted use. This study shows that improvement in osteoporosis care is possible and important for many nursing homes. INTRODUCTION: We determined the prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in high-risk nursing home residents. METHODS: We identified 67 nursing facilities in North Carolina and Arizona with > 10 residents with osteoporosis or recent hip fracture. Medical records (n=895) were abstracted for osteoporosis evaluation [dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), vitamin D level, serum calcium), treatment (calcium, vitamin D, osteoporosis medication, hip protectors), clinical, and systems covariates. Data were analyzed at the facility level using mixed models to account for the complex nesting of residents within providers and nursing facilities. RESULTS: Calcium and vitamin D was prescribed for 69% of residents, bisphosphonates for 19%, calcitonin for 14%, other pharmacologic therapies for 6%, and hip protectors for 2%. Overall, 36% received any bone protection (medication or hip protectors), with wide variation among facilities (0-85%). Factors significantly associated with any bone protection included female gender [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, (1.5-3.7)] and nonurban/suburban location [1.5, (1.1-2.2)]. Residents with esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), or dysphagia [0.6, (0.4-0.9)] and alcohol abuse [0.2, (0.0-0.9)] were less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the quality of osteoporosis treatment across nursing homes. Interventions that improve osteoporosis quality of care are needed.
SUMMARY: We studied nursing home residents with osteoporosis or recent fracture to determine the frequency and predictors of osteoporosis treatment. There was wide variation in performance, and both clinical and systems variables predicted use. This study shows that improvement in osteoporosis care is possible and important for many nursing homes. INTRODUCTION: We determined the prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in high-risk nursing home residents. METHODS: We identified 67 nursing facilities in North Carolina and Arizona with > 10 residents with osteoporosis or recent hip fracture. Medical records (n=895) were abstracted for osteoporosis evaluation [dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), vitamin D level, serum calcium), treatment (calcium, vitamin D, osteoporosis medication, hip protectors), clinical, and systems covariates. Data were analyzed at the facility level using mixed models to account for the complex nesting of residents within providers and nursing facilities. RESULTS:Calcium and vitamin D was prescribed for 69% of residents, bisphosphonates for 19%, calcitonin for 14%, other pharmacologic therapies for 6%, and hip protectors for 2%. Overall, 36% received any bone protection (medication or hip protectors), with wide variation among facilities (0-85%). Factors significantly associated with any bone protection included female gender [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, (1.5-3.7)] and nonurban/suburban location [1.5, (1.1-2.2)]. Residents with esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), or dysphagia [0.6, (0.4-0.9)] and alcohol abuse [0.2, (0.0-0.9)] were less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the quality of osteoporosis treatment across nursing homes. Interventions that improve osteoporosis quality of care are needed.
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Jerry Avorn; Jeffrey N Katz; Joel S Finkelstein; Marilyn Arnold; Jennifer M Polinski; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-11-14
Authors: Susan L Greenspan; Diane L Schneider; Michael R McClung; Paul D Miller; Thomas J Schnitzer; Randi Bonin; Mary Elizabeth Smith; Paul DeLucca; Glenn J Gormley; Mary E Melton Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Carolyn M Jachna; Theresa I Shireman; Jeff Whittle; Edward F Ellerbeck; Sally K Rigler Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sheryl Zimmerman; Julie M Chandler; William Hawkes; Philip D Sloane; J Richard Hebel; Jay Magaziner; Allison R Martin; Cynthia J Girman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-07-08
Authors: Mary E Elliott; Neil C Binkley; Molly Carnes; David R Zimmerman; Kim Petersen; Kathy Knapp; Jessica M Behlke; Nancy Ahmann; Mara A Kieser Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Susan L Greenspan; Subashan Perera; David Nace; Kimberly S Zukowski; Mary A Ferchak; Carroll J Lee; Smita Nayak; Neil M Resnick Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Kenneth W Lyles; Paul House; Deborah A Levine; Anna P Schenck; Jeroan Allison; Joel Gorospe; Mary Fermazin; Kristi Oliver; Jeffrey R Curtis; Norman Weissman; Aiyuan Xie; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Am J Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Sarah D Berry; Andrew R Zullo; Yoojin Lee; Vincent Mor; Kevin W McConeghy; Geetanjoli Banerjee; Ralph B D'Agostino; Lori Daiello; David Dosa; Douglas P Kiel Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Y Rolland; P de Souto Barreto; G Abellan Van Kan; C Annweiler; O Beauchet; H Bischoff-Ferrari; G Berrut; H Blain; M Bonnefoy; M Cesari; G Duque; M Ferry; O Guerin; O Hanon; B Lesourd; J Morley; A Raynaud-Simon; G Ruault; J-C Souberbielle; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.075