Laurna Bullock1, Fay Crawford-Manning2,3, Elizabeth Cottrell2, Jane Fleming4, Sarah Leyland5, John Edwards2, Emma M Clark6, Simon Thomas7, Stephen Chapman7, Christopher Gidlow8, Cynthia P Iglesias9,10, Joanne Protheroe2, Robert Horne11, Terence W O'Neill12, Christian Mallen2, Clare Jinks2, Zoe Paskins2,3. 1. School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK. l.bullock@keele.ac.uk. 2. School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK. 3. Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK. 4. Cambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital Fracture Liaison Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK. 5. Royal Osteoporosis Society, Bath, UK. 6. Bristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences,, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 7. School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University, Newcastle, Staffordshire, UK. 8. Centre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK. 9. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK. 10. Danish Centre for Healthcare Improvement (CHI), Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 11. Centre for Behavioural Medicine, UCL School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK. 12. Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, University of Manchester & NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation. PURPOSE: The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the 'model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation' within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study. METHODS: A Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was 'essential' and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content. RESULTS: Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.
Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation. PURPOSE: The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the 'model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation' within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study. METHODS: A Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was 'essential' and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content. RESULTS: Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.
Authors: M R DiMatteo; C D Sherbourne; R D Hays; L Ordway; R L Kravitz; E A McGlynn; S Kaplan; W H Rogers Journal: Health Psychol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Rob Horne; Sarah C E Chapman; Rhian Parham; Nick Freemantle; Alastair Forbes; Vanessa Cooper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lisa A Wozniak; Lauren A Beaupre; Angela Juby; Paul Kivi; Sumit R Majumdar; Heather M Hanson Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: J A Kanis; N C Harvey; E McCloskey; O Bruyère; N Veronese; M Lorentzon; C Cooper; R Rizzoli; G Adib; N Al-Daghri; C Campusano; M Chandran; B Dawson-Hughes; K Javaid; F Jiwa; H Johansson; J K Lee; E Liu; D Messina; O Mkinsi; D Pinto; D Prieto-Alhambra; K Saag; W Xia; L Zakraoui; J -Y Reginster Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: J A Kanis; N Burlet; C Cooper; P D Delmas; J-Y Reginster; F Borgstrom; R Rizzoli Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2008-02-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Celia L Gregson; David J Armstrong; Jean Bowden; Cyrus Cooper; John Edwards; Neil J L Gittoes; Nicholas Harvey; John Kanis; Sarah Leyland; Rebecca Low; Eugene McCloskey; Katie Moss; Jane Parker; Zoe Paskins; Kenneth Poole; David M Reid; Mike Stone; Julia Thomson; Nic Vine; Juliet Compston Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 2.879