Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 377–384 | Cite as

Fracture Liaison Services in the United Kingdom

The Why and How of Fracture Liaison Services (SL Silverman, Section Editor)


Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) have been demonstrated to be a clinically and cost-effective means of providing secondary preventive care for patients presenting with new fragility fractures. This review summarizes the emergence and widespread adoption of the FLS model in the United Kingdom. Large scale national audits have clearly illustrated the need for FLS by revealing the care gap experienced by the majority of patients who suffer fragility fractures. Since 2003, FLS has featured increasingly more prominently in relevant national professional guidance. During the last 5 years that professional consensus has led to FLS being embedded in government policy on fracture prevention. Quality incentives have been created to encourage hospitals and primary care providers to pro-actively deliver best practice. The strategic approaches taken and lessons learned in the UK may have relevance to quality improvement efforts in other jurisdictions.


Fracture Liaison Service United Kingdom Secondary fracture prevention Systems-based approach Fracture prevention policy 


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

  1. 1.
    Hicks J, Allen G. A century of change: trends in UK statistics since 1900. Commons Library Research Paper. In: House of Commons Library, ed. London; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mauck KF, Clarke BL. Diagnosis, screening, prevention, and treatment of osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(5):662–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osnes EK, Lofthus CM, Meyer HE, et al. Consequences of hip fracture on activities of daily life and residential needs. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(7):567–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Magaziner J, Simonsick EM, Kashner TM, et al. Predictors of functional recovery one year following hospital discharge for hip fracture: a prospective study. J Gerontol. 1990;45(3):M101–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Autier P, Haentjens P, Bentin J, et al. Costs induced by hip fractures: a prospective controlled study in Belgium. Belgian Hip Fracture Study Group. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11(5):373–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cree M, Soskolne CL, Belseck E, et al. Mortality and institutionalization following hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(3):283–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiebzak GM, Beinart GA, Perser K, et al. Undertreatment of osteoporosis in men with hip fracture. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(19):2217–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper C. The crippling consequences of fractures and their impact on quality of life. Am J Med. 1997;103(2A):12S–7. discussion 7S–9S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burge RT, Worley D, Johansen A, et al. The cost of osteoporotic fractures in the UK: projections for 2000–2020. J Med Econ. 2001;4:51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Gauthier A, Kanis JA, Jiang Y, et al. Epidemiological burden of postmenopausal osteoporosis in the UK from 2010 to 2021: estimations from a disease model. Arch Osteoporos. 2011;6(1–2):179–88. This disease model quantifies the prevalence of patients projected to have ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 fractures for 2010, 2015, and 2020. These projections clearly illustrate why implementation of Fracture Liaison Services should be a national priority.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone. 2004;35(2):375–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, et al. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15(4):721–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Cooper C. Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. Bone. 2001;29(6):517–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• British Orthopaedic Association, British Geriatrics Society, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. The National Hip Fracture Database: National Report 2012. London. 2012. This national report demonstrates significant improvements in osteoporosis treatment (and falls interventions) for practically all patients presenting to hospitals in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The NHFD Reports document standards of care for almost 60,000 hip fracture cases per year. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallagher JC, Melton LJ, Riggs BL, Bergstrath E. Epidemiology of fractures of the proximal femur in Rochester, Minnesota. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;150:163–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Port L, Center J, Briffa NK, et al. Osteoporotic fracture: missed opportunity for intervention. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(9):780–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Edwards BJ, Bunta AD, Simonelli C, et al. Prior fractures are common in patients with subsequent hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:226–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chami G, Jeys L, Freudmann M, et al. Are osteoporotic fractures being adequately investigated? A questionnaire of GP and orthopaedic surgeons. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hippisley-Cox J, Bayly J, Potter J, et al. Evaluation of standards of care for osteoporosis and falls in primary care. 2007.
  21. 21.
    Chakravarthy J, Ali A, Iyengar S, Porter K. Secondary prevention of fragility fractures by orthopaedic teams in the UK: a national survey. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62(3):382–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurup HV, Andrew JG. Secondary prevention of osteoporosis after Colles fracture: current practice. Joint Bone Spine. 2008;75(1):50–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Royal College of Physicians. National Audit of Falls and Bone Health in Older People. Available at Accessed July 2013.
  24. 24.
    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.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    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(12):1028–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    •• 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(7):2083–98. This formal cost-effectiveness evaluation provides crucial evidence to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of FLS.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitchell PJ, McLellan AR, Gallacher SJ, et al. A systematic approach to fragility fracture care and prevention: achieving a consensus. 33rd ASBMR Annual Meeting, 2011. San Diego Convention Center, San Diego, USA. Poster SA0351.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wikipedia. Population of the countries of the United Kingdom. Available at: Accessed July 2013.
  29. 29.
    The National Falls Programme in association with WorksOut as part of the delivery framework for adult rehabilitation in Scotland. 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. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government; 2012.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    • All Wales Osteoporosis Advisory Group. All Wales Audit of Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures 2012. Aberystwyth; 2012. This audit of FLS provision for a population of 3.1 million may provide a useful illustration for mapping service provision in other jurisdictions. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pal B. Questionnaire survey of advice given to patients with fractures. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):500–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seagger R, Howell J, David H, Gregg-Smith S. Prevention of secondary osteoporotic fractures–why are we ignoring the evidence? Injury. 2004;35(10):986–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beringer TR, Finch M, McTaggart AH, et al. A study of bone mineral density in women with forearm fracture in Northern Ireland. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(4):430–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peng EW, Elnikety S, Hatrick NC. Preventing fragility hip fracture in high risk groups: an opportunity missed. Postgrad Med J. 2006;82(970):528–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prasad N, Sunderamoorthy D, Martin J, Murray JM. Secondary prevention of fragility fractures: are we following the guidelines? Closing the audit loop. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006;88(5):470–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lowdon DW, Quinn C, Mole P, Leese GP. Osteoporosis assessment and treatment in older patients who have sustained a hip fracture. Scott Med J. 2006;51(2):32–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gidwani S, Davidson N, Trigkilidas D, et al. The detection of patients with 'fragility fractures' in fracture clinic - an audit of practice with reference to recent British Orthopaedic Association guidelines. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(2):147–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nixon MF, Ibrahim T, Johari Y, et al. Managing osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures: did the British Orthopaedic Association guidelines have any impact? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(5):504–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Talbot JC, Elener C, Praveen P, Shaw DL. Secondary prevention of osteoporosis: calcium, vitamin D and bisphosphonate prescribing following distal radial fracture. Injury. 2007;38(11):1236–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Javid KS, Thien A, Hill R. Implementation of and compliance with NICE guidelines in the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(3):213–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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(1):33–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stone D. Managing osteoporosis in a rural community. Nurs Times. 2012;108(24):25–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wright SA, McNally C, Beringer T, et al. Osteoporosis fracture liaison experience: the Belfast experience. Rheumatol Int. 2005;25(6):489–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Murray AW, McQuillan C, Kennon B, Gallacher SJ. Osteoporosis risk assessment and treatment intervention after hip or shoulder fracture. A comparison of two centres in the United Kingdom. Injury. 2005;36(9):1080–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gallacher SJ, Gallagher AP, McQuillian C, et al. The prevalence of vertebral fracture amongst patients presenting with nonvertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18(2):185–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Howat I, Carty D, Harrison J, Fraser M, McLellan AR. Vertebral fracture assessment in patients presenting with incident nonvertebral fractures. Clin Endocrinol. 2007;67(6):923–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Langridge CR, McQuillian C, Watson WS, et al. Refracture following fracture liaison service assessment illustrates the requirement for integrated falls and fracture services. Calcif Tissue Int. 2007;81(2):85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Clunie G, Stephenson S. Implementing and running a fracture liaison service: an integrated clinical service providing a comprehensive bone health assessment at the point of fracture management. J Orthopaed Nurs. 2008;12:156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brankin E, Mitchell C, Munro R, Lanarkshire Osteoporosis Service. Closing the osteoporosis management gap in primary care: a secondary prevention of fracture programme. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(4):475–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Charalambous CP, Mosey C, Johnstone E, et al. Improving osteoporosis assessment in the fracture clinic. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(7):596–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    British Orthopaedic Association. The care of fragility fracture patients. 1st ed. London; 2003.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate), selective oestrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene) and parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Technology appraisal guidance 87. London; 2005.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. NICE technology appraisal guidance 161 (amended). London; 2011.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    British Orthopaedic Association, British Geriatrics Society. The care of patients with fragility fracture. 2nd ed. London; 2007.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    British Orthopaedic Association, British Geriatrics Society, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. The National Hip Fracture Database. Available at: Accessed July 2013.
  56. 56.
    National Osteoporosis Society. Protecting fragile bones: a strategy to reduce the impact of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. Camerton; 2009.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    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.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Department of Health. Falls and Fractures: effective interventions in health and social care. London: Department of Health; 2009.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Department of Health. Fracture prevention services: an economic evaluation. London; 2009.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    British Geriatrics Society. Best Practice Tariff for Hip Fracture - Making Ends Meet 2010. Available at: Accessed July 2013.
  61. 61.
    Department of Health. Payment by Results Guidance for 2012–13. Leeds; 2012.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Payment by Results team. Payment by Results Guidance for 2013–14. Department of Health. Leeds; 2013.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) payment framework: a set of exemplar CQUIN goals. 2010.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    NHS Employers. Summary of 2012/13 QOF Changes. 2011.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    NHS Commissioning Board, British Medical Association, NHS Employers. Quality and Outcomes Framework guidance for GMS contract 2013/14. 2013.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hip fracture: the management of hip fracture in adults. NICE Clinical Guideline 124. London; 2011.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Osteoporosis: assessing the risk of fragility fracture. NICE clinical guideline 146. London; 2012.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, et al. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):385–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    ClinRisk. Welcome to the QFracture®-2012 risk calculator. Available at: Accessed July 2013.
  70. 70.
    • National Osteoporosis Society. The Falls and Fractures Alliance. Available at: Accessed July 2013. Establishing national alliances including professional organizations, patient societies, policy groups (where possible), and private sectors partners is supporting FLS implementation in several countries including Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. In countries where the FLS model is yet to be broadly adopted, efforts to establish a national fragility fracture alliance are worthy of consideration.
  71. 71.
    • Royal College of Physicians. Fracture Liaison Service Database (FLS-DB). Available at Accessed July 2013. Whilst in the early stages of development, this attempt to electronically generate ongoing audit data on standards of secondary fracture prevention for non-hip fragility fracture patients is potentially very powerful. Ongoing audit, effectively in real-time, of hip fracture care by the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) has transformed care of hip fracture patients in the UK and enabled payment for quality incentives to be made at the individual patient level. A similar platform for non-hip fragility fracture patients could be transformative for these ‘signal’ fracture patients.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Synthesis Medical NZ LimitedPukekoheNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations