Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Implement a Fracture Liaison Service

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Orthogeriatrics

Part of the book series: Practical Issues in Geriatrics ((PIG))

  • 1060 Accesses

Abstract

The case for Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) for the prevention of secondary fractures is clear. With an ageing population, the burden of osteoporosis is set to increase. Despite evidence for the clinical effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention, translation in the real world setting remains disappointing: worldwide, eighty per cent of fragility fracture patients are neither assessed nor treated for osteoporosis or falls risk, with the aim of reducing future fracture incidence. If implemented, a wide variety of service models are used to deliver effective secondary fracture prevention. To support and promote the use of effective models of care across the globe, the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) launched the Capture the Fracture® (CTF) programme in 2013. This expert-led and evidence-based programme aims to reduce secondary fractures by facilitating the implementation of FLS on a global level. A primary resource developed by CTF is the Best Practice Framework (BPF), which sets standards for FLS, serves as a benchmark for existing FLS and serves as a guidance tool for developing FLS. In an effort to engage the global medical community, CTF offers a Best Practice Recognition programme where FLS can submit their service to IOF for evaluation against the BPF for a gold, silver or bronze star in recognition of achievements. The FLS is then included in the showcase of best practice and plotted on the CTF Map of Best Practice that displays participating FLS and their respective achievement level. To influence change, the map can be used as a visual representation of FLS available worldwide, their achievements, as well as the areas for opportunity and development in secondary fracture prevention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kanis JA et al (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int 11(8):669–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Melton LJ 3rd et al (1998) Bone density and fracture risk in men. J Bone Miner Res 13(12):1915–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Melton LJ 3rd et al (1992) Perspective. How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7(9):1005–1010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1726–1733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hernlund E et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359(9319):1761–1767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ (2012) Capture the fracture a global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. World Osteoporosis Day Report 2012. The report is available online: https://www.iofbonehealth.org/capture-fracture-report-2012.

  8. Kanis JA et al (2014) Goal-directed treatment of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 25(11):2533–2543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooper C et al (2012) Long-term treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: a review from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). Curr Med Res Opin 28(3):475–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Solomon DH et al (2014) Osteoporosis medication use after hip fracture in U.S. patients between 2002 and 2011. J Bone Miner Res 29(9):1929–1937

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Eisman JA et al (2012) Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention. J Bone Miner Res 27(10):2039–2046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marsh D et al (2011) Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2051–2065

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ganda K et al (2013) Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 24(2):393–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sale JE et al (2011) Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2067–2082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Akesson K et al (2013) Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 24(8):2135–2152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Mitchell PJ (2011) Fracture liaison services: the UK experience. Osteoporos Int 22(Suppl 3):487–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanis JA et al (2013) SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos 8:144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mithal A et al (2014) The Asia-pacific regional audit-epidemiology, costs, and burden of osteoporosis in India 2013: a report of international osteoporosis foundation. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 18(4):449–454

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures--an “OPTIMAL” model of care from Singapore. Chandran M, Tan MZ, Cheen M, Tan SB, Leong M, Lau TC. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(11):2809–17. doi: 10.1007/s00198-013-2368-8. Epub 2013 Apr 25. PMID: 23615816

  20. Australia /New Zealand:http://osteoporosis.org.nz/, Canada:http://www.osteoporosis.ca/fls/utm_source=Home+Page&utm_medium=Menu+Button&utm_campaign=FLS, UK:https://www.nos.org.uk/fls-resources, Singapore: PMID:23615816, USA: PMID: 24014197

  21. Ensrud KE, Schousboe JT (2011) Clinical practice. Vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 364(17):1634–1642

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lentle BC et al (2007) Recognizing and reporting vertebral fractures: reducing the risk of future osteoporotic fractures. Can Assoc Radiol J 58(1):27–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schousboe JT et al (2008) Vertebral fracture assessment: the 2007 ISCD official positions. J Clin Densitom 11(1):92–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cooper C et al (1992) Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 7(2):221–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Delmas PD et al (2005) Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 20(4):557–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lems WF (2007) Clinical relevance of vertebral fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 66(1):2–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Majumdar SR et al (2012) Interventions to increase osteoporosis treatment in patients with ‘incidentally’ detected vertebral fractures. Am J Med 125(9):929–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Currie CT, Hutchison JD (2005) Audit, guidelines and standards: clinical governance for hip fracture care in Scotland. Disabil Rehabil 27(18–19):1099–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heikkinen T et al (2005) Evaluation of 238 consecutive patients with the extended data set of the Standardised Audit for Hip Fractures in Europe (SAHFE). Disabil Rehabil 27(18–19):1107–1115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lindley RI (2014) Hip fracture: the case for a funded national registry. Med J Aust 201(7):368–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thorngren KG (2008) National registration of hip fractures. Acta Orthop 79(5):580–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kanis JA et al (2011) Partial adherence: a new perspective on health economic assessment in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 22(10):2565–2573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lekkerkerker F et al (2007) Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study. Osteoporos Int 18(10):1311–1317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rabenda V, Reginster JY (2010) Overcoming problems with adherence to osteoporosis medication. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10(6):677–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Burch J et al (2014) Systematic review of the use of bone turnover markers for monitoring the response to osteoporosis treatment: the secondary prevention of fractures, and primary prevention of fractures in high-risk groups. Health Technol Assess 18(11):1–180

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Vasikaran S et al (2011) International osteoporosis foundation and international federation of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine position on bone marker standards in osteoporosis. Clin Chem Lab Med 49(8):1271–1274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bell KJ et al (2009) Value of routine monitoring of bone mineral density after starting bisphosphonate treatment: secondary analysis of trial data. BMJ 338:b2266

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hiligsmann M et al (2013) Interventions to improve osteoporosis medication adherence and persistence: a systematic review and literature appraisal by the ISPOR Medication Adherence & Persistence Special Interest Group. Osteoporos Int 24(12):2907–2918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. White HJ et al (2010) A systematic review assessing the effectiveness of interventions to improve persistence with anti-resorptive therapy in women at high risk of clinical fracture. Fam Pract 27(6):593–603

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Javaid MK et al (2015) Effective secondary fracture prevention: implementation of a global benchmarking of clinical quality using the IOF Capture the Fracture(R) Best Practice Framework tool. Osteoporos Int 26(11):2573–2578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank all the FLS applicants for taking part of the CTF programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    C. Cooper & M. K. Javaid

  2. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK

    C. Cooper

  3. International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), Nyon, Switzerland

    M. C. Schneider

  4. Department of Orthopaedics, Malmö Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

    K. Åkesson

  5. Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA, 02111, USA

    B. Dawson-Hughes

  6. Division of Bone Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland

    R. Rizzoli

  7. Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK

    J. A. Kanis

  8. Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    J. Y. Reginster

Authors
  1. C. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. C. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. K. Javaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Åkesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. Dawson-Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Rizzoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. A. Kanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. Y. Reginster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Cooper .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Paolo Falaschi

  2. University College London , London, United Kingdom

    David R. Marsh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cooper, C. et al. (2017). How to Implement a Fracture Liaison Service. In: Falaschi, P., Marsh, D. (eds) Orthogeriatrics. Practical Issues in Geriatrics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43249-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43249-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43248-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43249-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation