Advertisement

How to Implement a Fracture Liaison Service

  • C. CooperEmail author
  • M. C. Schneider
  • M. K. Javaid
  • K. Åkesson
  • B. Dawson-Hughes
  • R. Rizzoli
  • J. A. Kanis
  • J. Y. Reginster
Chapter
  • 860 Downloads
Part of the Practical Issues in Geriatrics book series (PIG)

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.

Keywords

Vertebral Fracture Fragility Fracture Vertebral Fracture Assessment Secondary Fracture Fracture Liaison Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

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

References

  1. 1.
    Kanis JA et al (2000) Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int 11(8):669–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melton LJ 3rd et al (1998) Bone density and fracture risk in men. J Bone Miner Res 13(12):1915–1923CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melton LJ 3rd et al (1992) Perspective. How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 7(9):1005–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17(12):1726–1733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 8:136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359(9319):1761–1767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    Kanis JA et al (2014) Goal-directed treatment of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 25(11):2533–2543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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):475–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):1929–1937CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):2039–2046CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsh D et al (2011) Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2051–2065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):393–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sale JE et al (2011) Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2067–2082CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):2135–2152CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell PJ (2011) Fracture liaison services: the UK experience. Osteoporos Int 22(Suppl 3):487–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kanis JA et al (2013) SCOPE: a scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos 8:144CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 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):449–454CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
  21. 21.
    Ensrud KE, Schousboe JT (2011) Clinical practice. Vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 364(17):1634–1642Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lentle BC et al (2007) Recognizing and reporting vertebral fractures: reducing the risk of future osteoporotic fractures. Can Assoc Radiol J 58(1):27–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schousboe JT et al (2008) Vertebral fracture assessment: the 2007 ISCD official positions. J Clin Densitom 11(1):92–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):221–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Delmas PD et al (2005) Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 20(4):557–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lems WF (2007) Clinical relevance of vertebral fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 66(1):2–4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Majumdar SR et al (2012) Interventions to increase osteoporosis treatment in patients with ‘incidentally’ detected vertebral fractures. Am J Med 125(9):929–936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Currie CT, Hutchison JD (2005) Audit, guidelines and standards: clinical governance for hip fracture care in Scotland. Disabil Rehabil 27(18–19):1099–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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):1107–1115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lindley RI (2014) Hip fracture: the case for a funded national registry. Med J Aust 201(7):368–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thorngren KG (2008) National registration of hip fractures. Acta Orthop 79(5):580–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanis JA et al (2011) Partial adherence: a new perspective on health economic assessment in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 22(10):2565–2573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lekkerkerker F et al (2007) Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study. Osteoporos Int 18(10):1311–1317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rabenda V, Reginster JY (2010) Overcoming problems with adherence to osteoporosis medication. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10(6):677–689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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):1–180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 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):1271–1274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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:b2266CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 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):2907–2918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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):593–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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):2573–2578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Cooper
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. C. Schneider
    • 3
  • M. K. Javaid
    • 1
  • K. Åkesson
    • 4
  • B. Dawson-Hughes
    • 5
  • R. Rizzoli
    • 6
  • J. A. Kanis
    • 7
  • J. Y. Reginster
    • 8
  1. 1.NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology UnitUniversity of Southampton, Southampton General HospitalSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF)NyonSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of OrthopaedicsMalmö Skåne University HospitalMalmöSweden
  5. 5.Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on AgingTufts UniversityBostonUSA
  6. 6.Division of Bone DiseasesGeneva University Hospitals and Faculty of MedicineGenevaSwitzerland
  7. 7.Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseasesUniversity of Sheffield Medical SchoolSheffieldUK
  8. 8.Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health EconomicsUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations