Osteoporosis International

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 2555–2560 | Cite as

Multimodal intervention to improve osteoporosis care in home health settings: results from a cluster randomized trial

  • M. L. Kilgore
  • R. Outman
  • J. L. Locher
  • J. J. Allison
  • A. Mudano
  • B. Kitchin
  • K. G. Saag
  • J. R. Curtis
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

We conducted a cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of an intervention to increase the use of osteoporosis medications in high-risk patients receiving home health care. The trial did not find a significant difference in medication use in the intervention arm.

Introduction

This study aims to test an evidence implementation intervention to improve the quality of care in the home health care setting for patients at high risk for fractures.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomized trial of a multimodal intervention targeted at home care for high-risk patients (prior fracture or physician-diagnosed osteoporosis) receiving care in a statewide home health agency in Alabama. Offices throughout the state were randomized to receive the intervention or to usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of high-risk home health patients treated with osteoporosis medications. A t test of difference in proportions was conducted between intervention and control arms and constituted the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included logistic regression estimating the effect of individual patients being treated in an intervention arm office on the likelihood of a patient receiving osteoporosis medications. A follow-on analysis examined the effect of an automated alert built into the electronic medical record that prompted the home health care nurses to deploy the intervention for high-risk patients using a pre–post design.

Results

There were 11 offices randomized to each of the treatment and control arms; these offices treated 337 and 330 eligible patients, respectively. Among the offices in the intervention arm, the average proportion of eligible patients receiving osteoporosis medications post-intervention was 19.1 %, compared with 15.7 % in the usual care arm (difference in proportions 3.4 %, 95 % CI, −2.6 to 9.5 %). The overall rates of osteoporosis medication use increased from 14.8 % prior to activation of the automated alert to 17.6 % afterward, a nonsignificant difference.

Conclusions

The home health intervention did not result in a significant improvement in use of osteoporosis medications in high-risk patients.

Keywords

Home care services Osteoporosis Quality improvement Secondary prevention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U18 HS10389-06S1, Deep South Musculoskeletal Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics. Dr. Curtis is supported by the NIH (AR 05331).

Conflicts of interest

Meredith Kilgore received grants/research support from Amgen, Inc. Dr. Kenneth Saag received grants/research support from NIH, AHRQ, ACR, Amgen, Lilly, and Merck. He is also a consultant/honorarium at Amgen, Lilly, and Merck. Dr. Jeffrey Curtis received grants/research support/consulting from Amgen, Merck, Lilly.

References

  1. 1.
    Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A (2007) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kilgore ML, Morrisey MA, Becker DJ, Gary LC, Curtis JR, Saag KG, Yun H, Matthews R, Smith W, Taylor A, Arora T, Delzell E (2009) Health care expenditures associated with skeletal fractures among Medicare beneficiaries, 1999–2005. J Bone Miner Res 24(12):2050–2055PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curtis J, Arora T, Matthews RS, Taylor A, Becker DJ, Colon-Emeric C, Kilgore ML, Morrisey MA, Saag KG, Safford MM, Warriner A, Delzell E (2010) Is withholding osteoporosis medication after fracture sometimes rational? A comparison of the risk for second fracture versus death. J Am Med Dir Assoc 11(8):584–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lyles KW, Colón-Emeric CS, Magaziner JS et al (2007) Zoledronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med 357(18):1799–1809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McLellan AR, Wolowacz SE, Zimovetz EA, Beard SM, Lock S, McCrink L, Adekunle F, Roberts D (2011) 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. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2083–2098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell PJ (2011) Fracture liaison services: the UK experience. Osteoporos Int 22(Suppl 3):487–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Solomon DH (2011) Postfracture interventions disseminated through health care and drug insurers: attempting to integrate fragmented health care delivery. Osteoporos Int 22(Suppl 3):465–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adler RA, Bates DW, Dell RM, LeBoff MS, Majumdar SR, Saag KG, Solomon DH, Suarez-Almazor ME (2011) Systems-based approaches to osteoporosis and fracture care: policy and research recommendations from the workgroups. Osteoporos Int 22(Suppl 3):495–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker DJ, Yun H, Kilgore ML, Morrisey MA, Gary LC, Curtis JR, Saag KG, Matthews R, Smith W, Taylor A, Arora T, Delzell E (2010) Health services utilization after fractures: recent evidence from Medicare. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 65(9):1012–1020, PMID: 20530242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curtis JR, Kim Y, Bryant T, Allison J, Scott D, Saag KG (2006) Osteoporosis in the home health care setting: a window of opportunity? Arthritis Rheum 55:971–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Outman RC, Curtis JR, Locher JL, Allison JJ, Saag KG, Kilgore ML (2012) Improving osteoporosis care in high-risk home health patients through a high intensity intervention. Contemp Clin Trials 33(1):206–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warriner AH, Outman RC, Saag KG, Berry SD, Colón-Emeric C, Flood KL, Lyles KW, Tanner SB, Watts NB, Curtis JR (2009) Management of osteoporosis among home health and long-term care patients with a prior fracture. South Med J 102(4):397–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McBean AM, Yu X, Virnig BA (2009) Screening mammography rate and predictors following treatment for colorectal cancer. J Cancer Surv 3:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaen CR, Stange KC, Nutting PA (1994) The use of preventive health services among elderly cancer survivors. J Fam Pract 38:166–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herrin J, da Graca B, Nicewander D, Fullerton C, Aponte P, Stanek G, Cowling T, Collinsworth A, Fleming NS, Ballard DJ (2012) The effectiveness of implementing an electronic health record on diabetes care and outcomes. Health Serv Res 47(4):1522–1540, PMID: 22250953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sale JE, Beaton D, Posen J, Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch E (2011) Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2067–2082, PubMed PMID: 21607808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Kilgore
    • 1
  • R. Outman
    • 2
  • J. L. Locher
    • 2
  • J. J. Allison
    • 3
  • A. Mudano
    • 2
  • B. Kitchin
    • 4
  • K. G. Saag
    • 2
  • J. R. Curtis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health Care Organization and PolicyUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)BirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUABBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of MassachusettsBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Nutrition ScienceUABBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations