M K Javaid1, C Kyer2, P J Mitchell3,4, J Chana5, C Moss6, M H Edwards6, A R McLellan7, J Stenmark2, D D Pierroz2, M C Schneider2, J A Kanis8, K Akesson9, C Cooper10,11. 1. NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), Nyon, Switzerland. 3. Synthesis Medical NZ Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia. 5. Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK. 6. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK. 7. Endocrinology, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, UK. 8. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK. 9. Department of Orthopaedics, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. 10. NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. cc@mrc.soton.ac.uk. 11. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK. cc@mrc.soton.ac.uk.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Fracture Liaison Services are the best model to prevent secondary fractures. The International Osteoporosis Foundation developed a Best Practice Framework to provide a quality benchmark. After a year of implementation, we confirmed that a single framework with set criteria is able to benchmark services across healthcare systems worldwide. INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence for the clinical effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention, translation in the real-world setting remains disappointing. Where implemented, a wide variety of service models are used to deliver effective secondary fracture prevention. To support use of effective models of care across the globe, the International Osteoporosis Foundation's Capture the Fracture® programme developed a Best Practice Framework (BPF) tool of criteria and standards to provide a quality benchmark. We now report findings after the first 12 months of implementation. METHODS: A questionnaire for the BPF was created and made available to institutions on the Capture the Fracture website. Responses from institutions were used to assign gold, silver, bronze or black (insufficient) level of achievements mapped across five domains. Through an interactive process with the institution, a final score was determined and published on the Capture the Fracture website Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) map. RESULTS: Sixty hospitals across six continents submitted their questionnaires. The hospitals served populations from 20,000 to 15 million and were a mix of private and publicly funded. Each FLS managed 146 to 6200 fragility fracture patients per year with a total of 55,160 patients across all sites. Overall, 27 hospitals scored gold, 23 silver and 10 bronze. The pathway for the hip fracture patients had the highest proportion of gold grading while vertebral fracture the lowest. CONCLUSION: In the first 12 months, we have successfully tested the BPF tool in a range of health settings across the globe. Initial findings confirm a significant heterogeneity in service provision and highlight the importance of a global approach to ensure high quality secondary fracture prevention services.
UNLABELLED: Fracture Liaison Services are the best model to prevent secondary fractures. The International Osteoporosis Foundation developed a Best Practice Framework to provide a quality benchmark. After a year of implementation, we confirmed that a single framework with set criteria is able to benchmark services across healthcare systems worldwide. INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence for the clinical effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention, translation in the real-world setting remains disappointing. Where implemented, a wide variety of service models are used to deliver effective secondary fracture prevention. To support use of effective models of care across the globe, the International Osteoporosis Foundation's Capture the Fracture® programme developed a Best Practice Framework (BPF) tool of criteria and standards to provide a quality benchmark. We now report findings after the first 12 months of implementation. METHODS: A questionnaire for the BPF was created and made available to institutions on the Capture the Fracture website. Responses from institutions were used to assign gold, silver, bronze or black (insufficient) level of achievements mapped across five domains. Through an interactive process with the institution, a final score was determined and published on the Capture the Fracture website Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) map. RESULTS: Sixty hospitals across six continents submitted their questionnaires. The hospitals served populations from 20,000 to 15 million and were a mix of private and publicly funded. Each FLS managed 146 to 6200 fragility fracture patients per year with a total of 55,160 patients across all sites. Overall, 27 hospitals scored gold, 23 silver and 10 bronze. The pathway for the hip fracture patients had the highest proportion of gold grading while vertebral fracture the lowest. CONCLUSION: In the first 12 months, we have successfully tested the BPF tool in a range of health settings across the globe. Initial findings confirm a significant heterogeneity in service provision and highlight the importance of a global approach to ensure high quality secondary fracture prevention services.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adherence; Best Practice Framework; Falls prevention; Fracture Liaison Service; Hip fracture; Osteoporosis; Secondary fracture prevention; Vertebral fracture
Authors: D Marsh; K Akesson; D E Beaton; E R Bogoch; S Boonen; M-L Brandi; A R McLellan; P J Mitchell; J E M Sale; D A Wahl Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Samuel Vasikaran; Cyrus Cooper; Richard Eastell; Andrea Griesmacher; Howard A Morris; Tommaso Trenti; John A Kanis Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: E Hernlund; A Svedbom; M Ivergård; J Compston; C Cooper; J Stenmark; E V McCloskey; B Jönsson; J A Kanis Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: J A Kanis; F Borgström; J Compston; K Dreinhöfer; E Nolte; L Jonsson; W F Lems; E V McCloskey; R Rizzoli; J Stenmark Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: K Akesson; D Marsh; P J Mitchell; A R McLellan; J Stenmark; D D Pierroz; C Kyer; C Cooper Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Jose Leal; Alastair M Gray; Samuel Hawley; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra; Antonella Delmestri; Nigel K Arden; Cyrus Cooper; M Kassim Javaid; Andrew Judge Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: J A Kanis; H Johansson; A Odén; N C Harvey; V Gudnason; K M Sanders; G Sigurdsson; K Siggeirsdottir; L A Fitzpatrick; F Borgström; E V McCloskey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Antonio De Vincentis; Astrid Ursula Behr; Giuseppe Bellelli; Marco Bravi; Anna Castaldo; Lucia Galluzzo; Giovanni Iolascon; Stefania Maggi; Emilio Martini; Alberto Momoli; Graziano Onder; Marco Paoletta; Luca Pietrogrande; Mauro Roselli; Mauro Ruggeri; Carmelinda Ruggiero; Fabio Santacaterina; Luigi Tritapepe; Amedeo Zurlo; Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: A Pflimlin; A Gournay; I Delabrière; C Chantelot; F Puisieux; B Cortet; J Paccou Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: H Spechbach; I Fabreguet; E Saule; M Hars; J Stirnemann; S Ferrari; R Rizzoli; T Chevalley Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Paul J Mitchell; Cyrus Cooper; Masaki Fujita; Philippe Halbout; Kristina Åkesson; Matthew Costa; Karsten E Dreinhöfer; David R Marsh; Joon-Kiong Lee; Ding-Cheng Derrick Chan; M Kassim Javaid Journal: Curr Osteoporos Rep Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.096
Authors: E Jonsson; A Hansson-Hedblom; Ö Ljunggren; K Åkesson; A Spångeus; J A Kanis; F Borgström Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 4.507