Advertisement

Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 52–60 | Cite as

Best Practices in Secondary Fracture Prevention: Fracture Liaison Services

  • Paul J. MitchellEmail author
Current Therapeutics (SL Silverman, Section Editor)

Abstract

Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) have been demonstrated in many countries to provide an effective means to deliver secondary preventive care for patients presenting with fragility fractures. This review provides an update on journal articles, reports, guidelines and government policies, with relevance to FLS, which have been published during the period 2009–2012. International evidence of the extent and persistence of the secondary fracture prevention care gap has expanded during this period. Major professional and patient societies throughout the world, including the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, have supported international initiatives to disseminate best practice. Health economic analysis of FLS has developed considerably, with a consistent theme from investigator-led and government analyses that FLS provide highly cost-effective care. Opportunities to close the care gap, in a systematic way, for unrecognised vertebral fracture sufferers are also considered.

Keywords

Fracture liaison service Secondary fracture prevention Systems-based approach Fracture prevention policy Fragility fracture 

Notes

Disclosure

The author would like to disclose through Synthesis Medical Ltd in the UK and New Zealand, he has received honoraria for speaking at meetings on the subject of secondary fracture prevention and Fracture Liaison Services. During the period 2007–2012; these talks have been sponsored by MSD [Asia and NZ] and Roche UK.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Cooper C. Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone. 2001;29:517–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Global Coalition on Aging. Welcome to the Global Coalition on Aging. Available at: http://www.globalcoalitiononaging.com/. Accessed October 2012.
  3. 3.
    International Osteoporosis Foundation. Capture the fracture: a global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Nyon. 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallagher JC, Melton LJ, Riggs BL, Bergstrath E. Epidemiology of fractures of the proximal femur in Rochester, Minnesota. Clin Orthop. 1980;150:163–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Port L, Center J, Briffa NK, et al. Osteoporotic fracture: missed opportunity for intervention. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:780–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McLellan A, Reid D, Forbes K, et al. Effectiveness of strategies for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in Scotland (CEPS 99/03). NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards BJ, Bunta AD, Simonelli C, et al. Prior fractures are common in patients with subsequent hip fractures. Clin Orthop. 2007;461:226–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Lih A, Nandapalan H, Kim M, et al. Targeted intervention reduces refracture rates in patients with incident non-vertebral osteoporotic fractures: a 4-year prospective controlled study. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:849–58. Demonstrates that patients managed by a Fracture Liaison Service reduces refracture rates vs a valid control group.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    •• Cooper MS, Palmer AJ, Seibel MJ. Cost-effectiveness of the Concord Minimal Trauma Fracture Liaison service, a prospective, controlled fracture prevention study. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:97–107. Evidence that a Fracture Liaison Service delivers highly cost-effective care.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bogoch ER, Elliot-Gibson V, Beaton DE, et al. Effective initiation of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment for patients with a fragility fracture in an orthopaedic environment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:25–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sander B, Elliot-Gibson V, Beaton DE, et al. A coordinator program in post-fracture osteoporosis management improves outcomes and saves costs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLellan AR, Gallacher SJ, Fraser M, McQuillian C. The fracture liaison service: success of a program for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:1028–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• McLellan AR, Wolowacz SE, Zimovetz EA, et al. 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. 2011;22:2083–98. Evidence that a Fracture Liaison Service delivers highly cost-effective care.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dell R, Greene D, Schelkun SR, Williams K. Osteoporosis disease management: the role of the orthopaedic surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90 Suppl 4:188–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dell RM, Greene D, Anderson D, Williams K. Osteoporosis disease management: What every orthopaedic surgeon should know. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91 Suppl 6:79–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch ER, Jamal SA, Beaton DE. Practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15:767–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Cranney A, et al. Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006;35:293–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenspan SL, Wyman A, Hooven FH, et al. Predictors of treatment with osteoporosis medications after recent fragility fractures in a multinational cohort of postmenopausal women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:455–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Royal College of Physicians’ Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit. Falling standards, broken promises: report of the national audit of falls and bone health in older people 2010. 2011. An example of a comprehensive national audit program which has supported calls for national policy on FLS and reimbursment mechanisms for secondary fracture prevention.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheng H, Gary LC, Curtis JR, et al. Estimated prevalence and patterns of presumed osteoporosis among older Americans based on Medicare data. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:1507–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jennings LA, Auerbach AD, Maselli J, et al. Missed opportunities for osteoporosis treatment in patients hospitalized for hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:650–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gong HS, Oh WS, Chung MS, et al. Patients with wrist fractures are less likely to be evaluated and managed for osteoporosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2376–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hollingworth SA, Gunanti I, Nissen LM, Duncan EL. Secondary prevention of osteoporosis in Australia: analysis of government-dispensed prescription data. Drugs Aging. 2010;27:255–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teede HJ, Jayasuriya IA, Gilfillan CP. Fracture prevention strategies in patients presenting to Australian hospitals with minimal-trauma fractures: a major treatment gap. Intern Med J. 2007;37:674–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fraser LA, Ioannidis G, Adachi JD, et al. Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap in women: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:789–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hagino H, Sawaguchi T, Endo N, et al. The risk of a second hip fracture in patients after their first hip fracture. Calcif Tissue Int. 2012;90:14–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leslie WD, Giangregorio LM, Yogendran M, et al. A population-based analysis of the post-fracture care gap 1996-2008: the situation is not improving. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:1623–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Premaor MO, Pilbrow L, Tonkin C, et al. Low rates of treatment in postmenopausal women with a history of low trauma fractures: results of audit in a Fracture Liaison Service. QJM. 2010;103:33–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barrack CM, McGirr EE, Fuller JD, et al. Secondary prevention of osteoporosis post minimal trauma fracture in an Australian regional and rural population. Aust J Rural Heal. 2009;17:310–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giammattei F, Giammattei J, Howland V. Physician follow-up care for osteoporosis after fragility fractures. Phys Sportsmed. 2009;37:62–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Otmar R, Henry MJ, Kotowicz MA, et al. Patterns of treatment in Australian men following fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:249–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Augat P, Weyand D, Panzer S, Klier T. Osteoporosis prevalence and fracture characteristics in elderly female patients with fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130:1405–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bloomfield K, Singh J. Secondary prevention of vertebral fractures in a large New Zealand District Health Board. N Z Med J. 2011;124:26–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    •• Marsh D, Akesson K, Beaton DE, et al. Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2051–65. A position paper from the International Osteoporosis Foundation calling for global implementation of Fracture Liaison Services.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Sale JE, Beaton D, Posen J, et al. Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2067–82. This systematic review highlights that 65 % of published models on systems to deliver post-fracture care report having a dedicated coordinator.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    •• International Osteoporosis Foundation. Capture the Fracture: break the worldwide fragility fracture cycle. Available at: http://www.iofbonehealth.org/capture-fracture. 2012. Accessed November 2012. The World Osteoporosis Day Report for 2012 which describes the secondary prevention care gap reported in numerous countries and FLS systems that have been shown to close that gap. Capture the Fracture provides a call for specific actions from policymakers, professional organizations, patient societies, payers, and the private sector.
  37. 37.
    •• Eisman JA, Bogoch ER, Dell R, et al. Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:2039–46. A summary of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research Task Force Report on Secondary Fracture Prevention. The Task Force was comprised of 65 experts from 36 countries, demonstrating the FLS provides a global solution to the secondary fracture prevention care gap.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    •• Eisman JA, Bogoch ER, Dell R, et al. Appendix A to 'Making the first fracture the last fracture': ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.1698/suppinfo. Accessed November 2012. A ‘toolkit’ of resoruces to support clinicians and commissioners of services to implement FLS.
  39. 39.
    The National Falls Program in association with WorksOut. Up and about or falling short? A report of the findings of a mapping of services for falls prevention and management and fracture prevention in older people in Scotland. The Scottish Government. Edinburgh. 2012.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    British Orthopaedic Association, British Geriatrics Society. The care of patients with fragility fracture. 2nd edition. 2007.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Royal College of Physicians. National audit of falls and bone health in older people. Available at: http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/resources/national-audit-falls-and-bone-health-older-people. Accessed November 2012.
  42. 42.
    British Orthopaedic Association, British Geriatrics Society, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. The National Hip Fracture Database. Available at: http://www.nhfd.co.uk/. Accessed November 2012.
  43. 43.
    National Osteoporosis Society. Protecting fragile bones: a strategy to reduce the impact of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. 2009.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Department of Health in England. Prevention speech: old age is the new middle age, by the Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, Secretary of State for Health, 21 May 2008. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/MediaCentre/Speeches/DH_085020. Accessed November 2012.
  45. 45.
    Department of Health. Falls and fractures: effective interventions in health and social care. HMSO 2009.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Department of Health. Fracture prevention services: an economic evaluation. HMSO 2009.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    British Geriatrics Society. Best Practice Tariff for hip fracture - making ends meet. Available at: http://www.bgs.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=700:tariffhipfracture&catid=47:fallsandbones&Itemid=307. Accessed November 2012.
  48. 48.
    Department of Health. The operating framework for the NHS in England 2012–13. London: HMSO, 2011.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Department of Health. Payment by results guidance for 2012–13. Leeds: HMSO, 2012.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    NHS Employers (2011) Summary of 2012/13 QOF changes. Available at: http://www.nhsemployers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Summary%20of%20QOF%20changes%20for%202012-13%20-ja21111.pdf. Accessed November 2012.
  51. 51.
    National Osteoporosis Society. The falls and fractures declaration. Available at: http://www.nos.org.uk/page.aspx?pid=1248. Accessed November 2012
  52. 52.
    Osteoporosis Canada. Osteoporosis: towards a fracture free future. Toronto: Osteoporosis Canada, 2011.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    National Bone Health Alliance. National Bone Health Alliance: strong bones for america. Available at: http://www.nbha.org/. Accessed November 2012.
  54. 54.
    Osteoporosis New Zealand. Bone Care 2020: a systemic approach to hip fracture care and prevention for New Zealand. Wellington: Osteoporosis New Zealand, 2012.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Giles M, Van Der Kallen J, Parker V, et al. A team approach: implementing a model of care for preventing osteoporosis related fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2321–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Inderjeeth CA, Glennon DA, Poland KE, et al. A multimodal intervention to improve fragility fracture management in patients presenting to emergency departments. Med J Aust. 2010;193:149–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sale JE, Beaton DE, Elliot-Gibson VI, et al. A postfracture initiative to improve osteoporosis management in a community hospital in Ontario. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1973–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Majumdar SR, Johnson JA, Bellerose D, et al. Nurse case-manager vs multifaceted intervention to improve quality of osteoporosis care after wrist fracture: randomized controlled pilot study. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:223–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jaglal SB, Donescu OS, Bansod V, et al. Impact of a centralized osteoporosis coordinator on post-fracture osteoporosis management: a cluster randomized trial. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:87–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Boudou L, Gerbay B, Chopin F, et al. Management of osteoporosis in fracture liaison service associated with long-term adherence to treatment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2099–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ahmed M, Durcan L, O'Beirne J, et al. Fracture liaison service in a non-regional orthopaedic clinic–a cost-effective service. Ir Med J. 2012;105(24):26–7.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wallace I, Callachand F, Elliott J, Gardiner P. An evaluation of an enhanced fracture liaison service as the optimal model for secondary prevention of osteoporosis. JRSM Short Rep. 2011;2:8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Carpintero P, Gil-Garay E, Hernandez-Vaquero D, et al. Interventions to improve inpatient osteoporosis management following first osteoporotic fracture: the PREVENT project. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:245–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Woltman K, den Hoed PT. Osteoporosis in patients with a low-energy fracture: 3 years of screening in an osteoporosis outpatient clinic. J Trauma. 2010;69:169–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Huntjens KM, van Geel TC, Geusens PP, et al. Impact of guideline implementation by a fracture nurse on subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures. Injury. 2011;42 Suppl 4:S39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    • Huntjens KM, van Geel TA, Blonk MC, et al. Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of 5 large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2129–35. An evaluation of different practices employed by FLS in the same country. As more FLS are implemented, achieving standardization of care delivery could benefit from evidence-based guidelines specific to post-fracture care.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Premaor MO, Pilbrow L, Tonkin C, et al. Obesity and fractures in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:292–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Little EA, Eccles MP. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to improve post-fracture investigation and management of patients at risk of osteoporosis. Implement Sci. 2010;5:80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sale JE, Beaton D, Posen J, et al. Key outcomes are usually not reported in published fracture secondary prevention programs: results of a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;Dec 11. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sujic R, Gignac MA, Cockerill R, Beaton DE. A review of patient-centred post-fracture interventions in the context of theories of health behavior change. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2213–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    • Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, et al. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2012;Jul 25. [Epub ahead of print]. Secondary fracture prevention models of care are classified as a function of the intensity of intervention. The more intense intreventions achieve higher levels of BMD testing and initiation of treatment.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lems WF. Clinical relevance of vertebral fractures. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:2–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Melton III LJ. Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985-1989. J Bone Min Res. 1992;7:221–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, et al. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Min Res. 2005;20:557–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Howat I, Carty D, Harrison J, et al. Vertebral fracture assessment in patients presenting with incident nonvertebral fractures. Clin Endocrinol. 2007;67:923–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gallacher SJ, Gallagher AP, McQuillian C, et al. The prevalence of vertebral fracture amongst patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18:185–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jager PL, Slart RH, Webber CL, et al. Combined vertebral fracture assessment and bone mineral density measurement: a patient-friendly new tool with an important impact on the Canadian Risk Fracture Classification. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2010;61:194–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chang HT, Chen CK, Chen CW, et al. Unrecognized vertebral body fractures (VBFs) in chest radiographic reports in Taiwan: a hospital-based study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55:301–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chan PL, Reddy T, Milne D, Bolland MJ. Incidental vertebral fractures on computed tomography. N Z Med J. 2012;125:45–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bazzocchi A, Spinnato P, Garzillo G, et al. Detection of incidental vertebral fractures in breast imaging: the potential role of MR localisers. Eur Radiol. 2012;Jun 12. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Department of Health. Herald fractures: clinical burden of disease and financial impact. London: HMSO, 2010.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sosa Henriquez M, Saavedra Santana P. grupo de trabajo en osteoporosis de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina I. [Prevalence of vertebral fractures in hip fracture patients – Article in Spanish]. Rev Clin Esp. 2007;207:464–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Synthesis Medical NZ LimitedPukekoheNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations