Optimizing fracture prevention: the fracture liaison service, an observational study
The response rate to the invitation to the fracture liaison service and reasons for non-response were evaluated in 2,207 fragility fracture patients. Fifty-one percent responded; non-responders were most often not interested (38 %) or were hip fracture patients. After 1 year of treatment, 88 % was still persistent and 2 % had a new fracture.
To increase the percentage of elderly fracture patients undergoing a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurement, and to investigate why some patients did not respond to invitation to our fracture liaison service (FLS).
In four Dutch hospitals, fracture patients ≥50 years were invited through a written or personal invitation at the surgical outpatient department, for a DXA measurement and visit to our FLS. Patients who did not respond were contacted by telephone. In patients diagnosed with osteoporosis, treatment was started. Patients were contacted every 3 months during 1 year to assess drug persistence and the occurrence of subsequent fractures.
Of the 2,207 patients who were invited, 50.6 % responded. Most frequent reasons for not responding included: not interested (38 %), already screened/under treatment for osteoporosis (15.7 %), physically unable to attend the clinic (11.5 %), and death (5.2 %). Hip fracture patients responded less frequently (29 %) while patients with a wrist (60 %) or ankle fracture (65.2 %) were more likely to visit the clinic. In 337 responding patients, osteoporosis was diagnosed and treatment was initiated. After 12 months of follow-up, 88 % of the patients were still persistent with anti-osteoporosis therapy and only 2 % suffered a subsequent clinical fracture.
In elderly fracture patients, the use of a FLS leads to an increased response rate, a high persistence to drug treatment, and a low rate of subsequent clinical fractures. Additional programs for hip fracture patients are required, as these patients have a low response rate.
KeywordFracture Fracture liaison service Osteoporosis Persistence Prevention Response
- 1.Nederlandse Vereniging voor Reumatologie (2011) CBO richtlijn osteoporose en fractuurpreventie. www.cbo.nl/thema/Richtlijnen/Overzicht-richtlijnen/Bewegingsapparaat/?p=242. Accessed 19 June 2011
- 14.Huntjens KM, van Geel TA, Blonk MC, Hegeman JH, van der Elst M, Willems P, Geusens PP, Winkens B, Brink P, van Helden SH (2011) Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands. Osteoporos Int 22:2129–2135PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.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 22:2083–2098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.British Orthopaedic Association (2007) The care of patients with a fragility fracture. http://www.nhfd.co.uk/003/hipfracturer.nsf/luMenuDefinitions/FCEF9FCB98A1B8EB802579C900553996/$file/Blue_Book.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 19 June 2011.
- 32.Australian & New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry. http://www.anzhfr.org/. Accessed 15 May 2013
- 33.British Orthopaedic Association, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership, British Geriatrics Society. National Hip Fracture Database, national report 2012. http://www.nhfd.co.uk/ . Accessed 15 May 2013.
- 38.Majumdar SR, Johnson JA, Lier DA, Russell AS, Hanley DA, Blitz S, Steiner IP, Maksymowych WP, Morrish DW, Holroyd BR, Rowe BH (2007) Persistence, reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to improve the quality of osteoporosis care after a fracture of the wrist: results of a controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 18:261–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar