INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different ways of referring patients to an osteoporosis assessment service at an orthopaedic fracture clinic of a hospital in the UK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three methods of identifying and referring to an osteoporosis assessment service were evaluated. RESULTS: Relying on doctors for such a referral gave a catchment rate of only 1.6%. Involving patients themselves, asking them to self-refer, increased the catchment rate to 63% (P < 0.0001). Having a specialist osteoporosis and fracture liaison nurse present in clinic and reviewing the notes of patients checking in, to see if they match criteria for osteoporosis assessment, further increased catchment to 77% (P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Simply having an osteoporosis assessment service and strict criteria to identify which patients should be referred to such a service will not necessarily increase catchment rate for osteoporosis patients. A nurse physically present in the clinic provided the best result, and supports the need of investing in an osteoporosis and fracture liaison nurse.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different ways of referring patients to an osteoporosis assessment service at an orthopaedic fracture clinic of a hospital in the UK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three methods of identifying and referring to an osteoporosis assessment service were evaluated. RESULTS: Relying on doctors for such a referral gave a catchment rate of only 1.6%. Involving patients themselves, asking them to self-refer, increased the catchment rate to 63% (P < 0.0001). Having a specialist osteoporosis and fracture liaison nurse present in clinic and reviewing the notes of patients checking in, to see if they match criteria for osteoporosis assessment, further increased catchment to 77% (P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Simply having an osteoporosis assessment service and strict criteria to identify which patients should be referred to such a service will not necessarily increase catchment rate for osteoporosispatients. A nurse physically present in the clinic provided the best result, and supports the need of investing in an osteoporosis and fracture liaison nurse.
Authors: D M Black; D E Thompson; D C Bauer; K Ensrud; T Musliner; M C Hochberg; M C Nevitt; S Suryawanshi; S R Cummings Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Marc C Hochberg; Desmond E Thompson; Dennis M Black; Sara A Quandt; Jane Cauley; Piet Geusens; Philip D Ross; Dan Baran Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2005-01-18 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Brett A Freedman; Benjamin K Potter; Leon J Nesti; Timothy Cho; Timothy R Kuklo Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Charles H Chesnut; Arne Skag; Claus Christiansen; Robert Recker; Jacob A Stakkestad; Arne Hoiseth; Dieter Felsenberg; Hermann Huss; Jennifer Gilbride; Ralph C Schimmer; Pierre D Delmas Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-03-29 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: T P Olenginski; G Maloney-Saxon; C K Matzko; K Mackiewicz; H L Kirchner; A Bengier; E D Newman Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; David Zelman; Sally Plummer; Brandi E Robinson; Yiyue Lou; Stephanie W Edmonds; Fredric D Wolinsky; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram Journal: Perm J Date: 2017
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Stephen S Johnston; Natalie N Boytsov; Donna McMorrow; Joseph M Lane; Kelly D Krohn Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 6.741