Literature DB >> 27193285

Delivering a quality-assured fracture liaison service in a UK teaching hospital-is it achievable?

K E Shipman1, J Stammers2, A Doyle3, N Gittoes4.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: To determine whether new national guidance on the specifications of a fracture liaison service are realistically deliverable, 1 year of data on the performance of such a service were audited. Audit targets were mostly met. This audit demonstrates that these standards are deliverable in a real world setting.
INTRODUCTION: UK service specifications for a fracture liaison service (FLS) have been produced (National Osteoporosis Society, NOS) to promote effective commissioning and delivery of the highest quality care to patients with fragility fractures. How deliverable these standards are has not as yet been methodically reported. Our FLS was modelled on the ten NOS standards; performance was audited after 1 year to determine whether these standards could be delivered and to describe the lessons learnt.
METHODS: Performance was audited against the NOS FLS Service Standards, with management based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®), the four-item Falls Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Osteoporosis Guideline Groups (NOGG) guidance. Data were recorded prospectively on a database. The FLS commenced in May 2014, was fully operational in August 2014 and data were captured from 1 September 2014 to 1 September 2015.
RESULTS: The FLS detected 1773 patients and standards were largely achieved. Most, 94 %, patients were seen within 6 weeks, 533 DXA requests were generated, 804 outpatient FRAT assessments were recorded (134 required falls intervention) and 773 patients had bone treatments started. On follow-up at 3 months, between 78-79 % were still taking medication.
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evaluation of a FLS implemented according to UK NOS standards demonstrates that the model is practical to apply to a large teaching hospital population. Collection and review of outcome and cost effectiveness data is required to determine the performance of this model in comparison with existing models.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audit; Falls; Fracture liaison service; Fragility fracture; Management; Osteoporosis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27193285     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-016-3639-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  13 in total

Review 1.  Fracture Liaison Services in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Paul J Mitchell
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.096

2.  Cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service--a real-world evaluation after 6 years of service provision.

Authors:  J H E Yong; L Masucci; J S Hoch; R Sujic; D Beaton
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Four-item fall risk screening tool for subacute and residential aged care: The first step in fall prevention.

Authors:  Caroline Stapleton; Peter Hough; Leonie Oldmeadow; Karen Bull; Keith Hill; Kenneth Greenwood
Journal:  Australas J Ageing       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.111

4.  Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales.

Authors:  T P van Staa; E M Dennison; H G Leufkens; C Cooper
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 5.  Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients.

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

6.  Fracture liaison services for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture: a cost-effectiveness evaluation based on data collected over 8 years of service provision.

Authors:  A R McLellan; S E Wolowacz; E A Zimovetz; S M Beard; S Lock; L McCrink; F Adekunle; D Roberts
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality.

Authors:  Kirsten M B Huntjens; Tineke A C M van Geel; Joop P W van den Bergh; Svenhjalmar van Helden; Paul Willems; Bjorn Winkens; John A Eisman; Piet P Geusens; Peter R G Brink
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Prior fractures are common in patients with subsequent hip fractures.

Authors:  Beatrice J Edwards; Andrew D Bunta; Christine Simonelli; Mark Bolander; Lorraine A Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Effective secondary fracture prevention: implementation of a global benchmarking of clinical quality using the IOF Capture the Fracture® Best Practice Framework tool.

Authors:  M K Javaid; C Kyer; P J Mitchell; J Chana; C Moss; M H Edwards; A R McLellan; J Stenmark; D D Pierroz; M C Schneider; J A Kanis; K Akesson; C Cooper
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-06-13       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate.

Authors:  A Nakayama; G Major; E Holliday; J Attia; N Bogduk
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 4.507

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Barriers and Facilitators to Older Adults Participating in Fall-Prevention Strategies After Transitioning Home from Acute Hospitalization: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Huey-Ming Tzeng; Udoka Okpalauwaekwe; Elizabeth J Lyons
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 4.458

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.