Osteoporosis disease management for fragility fracture patients: new understandings based on three years' experience with an osteoporosis care service

OBJECTIVE: To review the 3-year performance of an established osteoporosis care service and consider further improvements in an effort to reduce fragility fractures. METHODS: Osteoporosis care has been coordinated for all willing and able patients with orthopedic fragility fractures in our health system by a nurse and medical director since 2003, using a guideline-based care algorithm and task management software. Patients were followed by telephone for 2 years to monitor their status and optimize adherence to treatment. Demographics, management recommendations, clinical data, and adherence to treatment were reviewed for the 2003-2005 patient population. RESULTS: Of 1,019 patients with fragility fractures, 61% underwent osteoporosis evaluation and treatment. The remainder included 15% who refused to participate and 24% who were unable to participate for various logistical and health reasons. More patients age >80 years were unwilling or unable to participate. Bone densities (dual x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]) were normal, low, or osteoporotic in 24%, 55%, and 21% of patients, respectively, and 60% of the osteoporotic group had > or = 1 abnormal metabolic bone laboratory result. Only 17% of the total reported a previous fracture, and 47% had ever undergone DXA. Few experienced bone loss, a new fracture, or bisphosphonate intolerance during treatment. CONCLUSION: An osteoporosis care service has coordinated care for every willing and able fragility fracture patient with positive outcomes. In addition, the results suggest a high priority for earlier proactive diagnosis and intervention of the at-risk population if fractures are to be reduced.     

Study of osteoporosis awareness, investigation and treatment of patients discharged from a tertiary public teaching hospital

Background: Patients with fragility fractures secondary to osteoporosis are at risk of recurrent fracture. Osteoporosis is often underrecognized and undertreated. We looked at the levels of awareness, investigation and treatment of patients with fracture. Methods: The study group included patients admitted to a tertiary teaching hospital. Postal surveys were sent to female patients over 60 years of age who had been identified in the hospital database as having International Classification of Diseases‐10 codes for fracture and discharged between June 1997 and January 2002. The questionnaire had specific questions on the histories of the fractures, the risk factors, the awareness of osteoporosis, bone mineral density testing and the treatment for osteoporosis. Results: Of 1584 surveys posted, 366 valid questionnaires were returned. The median age of respondents was 81 years with a range of 60–99 years. Fifty‐nine per cent reported one fracture, 41% two or more fractures and 65% reported a hip fracture. Forty‐eight per cent of patients were aware that they had osteoporosis and 35% reported having a bone density performed. Thirty‐seven per cent reported being on treatment for osteoporosis on discharge, with the majority being on treatment with calcium (34%). Conclusion: This postal survey of a high‐risk patient group discharged from a tertiary hospital confirm the findings from other population‐based and hospital‐based studies that a significant proportion of patients at risk of further fracture are not investigated or offered specific treatment for osteoporosis. Lack of awareness of underlying osteoporosis by both treating clinicians and patients is likely to be a major contributing factor.     

Successes and failures in improving osteoporosis care after fragility fracture: results of a multiple-site clinical improvement project

OBJECTIVE: To improve osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment of fragility fracture patient populations because osteoporosis care is provided infrequently to those patients, leaving them vulnerable to further fractures and increasing debility. METHODS: Osteoporosis experts from 11 US health systems participated in a clinical improvement project based on previously described successful osteoporosis care process redesigns. Participants were taught rapid cycle process improvement methods that are widely used in clinical improvement projects, and were supported in their efforts by the program coordinator. Measures of successful process development included establishing reliable referral from orthopedic fracture care to osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment, nurse coordination and monitoring of osteoporosis care, and use of process management software for registering patients and organizing work. RESULTS: Four sites were able to establish these critical referral and osteoporosis management processes. Two sites were partially successful in increasing orthopedic referrals to consultative care, but otherwise continued traditional care processes. Five were unsuccessful due to inability to implement 1 or more of these key process improvements. CONCLUSION: Reliable osteoporosis care for fracture patients is possible if traditional practice processes are replaced with more effective, well-recognized approaches to chronic disease management.     

Management of fragility fractures in Switzerland: results of a nationwide survey

A nationwide survey was conducted in Switzerland to assess the quality level of osteoporosis management in patients aged 50 years or older presenting with a fragility fracture to the emergency ward of the participating hospitals. Eight centres recruited 4966 consecutive patients who presented with one or more fractures between 2004 and 2006. Of these, 3667 (2797 women, 73.8 years old and 870 men, 73.0 years old in average) were considered as having a fragility fracture and included in the survey. Included patients presented with a fracture of the upper limbs (30.7%), lower limbs (26.4%), axial skeleton (19.5%) or another localisation, including malleolar fractures (23.4%). Thirty-two percent reported one or more previous fractures during adulthood. Of the 2941 (80.2%) hospitalised women and men, only half returned home after discharge. During diagnostic workup, dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurement was performed in 31.4% of the patients only. Of those 46.0% had a T-score < or =-2.5 SD and 81.1% < or =-1.0 SD. Osteoporosis treatment rate increased from 26.3% before fracture to 46.9% after fracture in women and from 13.0% to 30.3% in men. However, only 24.0% of the women and 13.8% of the men were finally adequately treated with a bone active substance, generally an oral bisphosphonate, with or without calcium / vitamin D supplements. A positive history of previous fracture vs none increased the likelihood of getting treatment with a bone active substance (36.6 vs 17.9%, ? 18.7%, 95% CI 15.1 to 22.3, and 22.6 vs 9.9%, ? 12.7%, CI 7.3 to 18.5, in women and men, respectively). In Switzerland, osteoporosis remains underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients aged 50 years and older presenting with a fragility fracture.     

Redesigning the care of fragility fracture patients to improve osteoporosis management: a health care improvement project

OBJECTIVE: To develop new processes that assure more reliable, population-based care of fragility fracture patients. METHODS: A 4-year clinical improvement project was performed in a multispecialty, community practice health system using evidence-based guidelines and rapid cycle process improvement methods (plan-do-study-act cycles). RESULTS: Prior to this project, appropriate osteoporosis care was provided to only 5% of our 1999 hip fracture patients. In 2001, primary physicians were provided prompts about appropriate care (cycle 1), which resulted in improved care for only 20% of patients. A process improvement pilot in 2002 (cycle 2) and full program implementation in 2003 (cycle 3) have assured osteoporosis care for all willing and able patients with any fragility fracture. Altogether, 58% of 2003 fragility fracture patients, including 46% of those with hip fracture, have had a bone measurement, have been assigned to osteoporosis care with their primary physician or a consultant, and are being monitored regularly. Only 19% refused osteoporosis care. Key process improvements have included using orthopedic billings to identify patients, referring patients directly from orthopedics to an osteoporosis care program, organizing care with a nurse manager and process management computer software, assigning patients to primary or consultative physician care based on disease severity, and monitoring adherence to therapy by telephone. CONCLUSION: Reliable osteoporosis care is achievable by redesigning clinical processes. Performance data motivate physicians to reconsider traditional approaches. Improving the care of osteoporosis and other chronic diseases requires coordinated care across specialty boundaries and health system support.     

Hip fracture patients are not treated for osteoporosis: a call to action

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hip fracture patients, a group at very high risk for additional fragility fractures, are being evaluated and treated effectively for osteoporosis. METHODS: Clinical and bone densitometry (dual x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]) records were reviewed in hip fracture patients at 4 Midwestern US health systems to determine the frequency of DXA use, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and antiresorptive drug treatment. RESULTS: DXA was performed at the 4 study sites in only 12%, 12%, 13%, and 24% of patients, respectively. Calcium and vitamin D supplements were prescribed in 27%, 1%, 3%, and 25% of the patients at the 4 study sites. Antiresorptive drugs were prescribed in 26%, 12%, 7%, and 37% of the patients with only 2-10% receiving a bisphosphonate. CONCLUSION: Reducing osteoporotic fractures will require more effective approaches to managing hip fracture patients and other high-risk populations.     

Pins and plaster aren't enough: a call for the evaluation and treatment of patients with osteoporotic fractures

A history of an osteoporotic fracture is a powerful predictor of future fractures. Older patients who sustain low trauma fractures are candidates for interventions that should include confirmation of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, adequate calcium and vitamin D administration, and use of an osteoporosis therapy that is proven to lower fracture risk. Recently, however, several reports in the literature have indicated that, in general, those physicians who diagnose and treat fractures, i.e. radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, physiatrists, and those who provide general medical care to these fracture patients, the primary care physicians, are not evaluating patients with acute fractures for the presence of osteoporosis and are not prescribing calcium, vitamin D, or specific pharmacological therapy to reduce future fracture risk. These reports suggest that implementation of a standard of care for the subsequent medical management of the older patient with an acute fracture is needed urgently. Diagnostic tools and several effective therapies exist, but these are underused by the physicians who interface with these patients. A call to action is necessary to reduce the human and economic costs associated with this serious and treatable disease.     

The burden of previous fractures in hip fracture patients. The Break Study

A positive history of fractures in older patients with hip fracture is common. We determined the risk factors associated with a positive history of fractures and the profile of care in hip fracture patients. In the Break Study, we enrolled 1249 women aged ≥60 years, seeking care for a hip fracture. Baseline information included age, body mass index, lifestyle (smoking habit, alcohol consumption), patient's history of fracture after the age of 50 years, family history of fragility fracture and health status (presence of comorbidity, use of specific drugs, pre-fracture walking ability, type of fracture, time to surgery, type of surgery, osteoporosis treatment). In the multivariable model age, smoking, family history, treatment with antiplatelet, anticoagulants and anticonvulsants, were significant predictors of a positive history of fracture. More than 70% of patients underwent surgery more than 48 hours after admission. About 50% were discharged with a treatment for osteoporosis, but more than 30% only with calcium and vitamin D. In conclusion, factors associated with a positive history of fracture are the traditional risk factors, suggesting that they continue to have a negative impact on health even at older ages. Selected drugs, such as antiplatelet and anticoagulants, deserve further consideration as significant factors associated with fractures. Given that delay in surgery is a major cause of mortality and disability, while treatment for osteoporosis decreases significantly the risk of recurrent fractures and disability, interventions to modify these patterns of care are urgently needed.     

Evaluation and management of osteoporosis following hospitalization for low-impact fracture

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pattern of osteoporosis evaluation and management in postmenopausal women who present with low-impact (minimal trauma) fracture. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of patients admitted with a fracture in the absence of trauma or bone disease. Telephone follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months after discharge to collect information on physician visits, pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis, functional status, and subsequent fractures. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women admitted to a hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota between June 1996 and December 1997 for low-impact fractures were identified. Low-impact fracture was defined as a fracture occurring spontaneously or from a fall no greater than standing height. Retrospective review of 301 patient medical records was conducted to obtain data on pre-admission risk factors for osteoporosis and/or fracture, and osteoporosis-related evaluation and management during the course of hospitalization. Follow-up 1 year after the incident fracture was obtained on 227 patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven women were included in the study. Osteoporosis was documented in the medical record in 26% (59/227) of the patients at hospital discharge. Within 12 months of hospital discharge, 9.6% (22/227) had a bone mineral density test, and 26.4% (60/227) were prescribed osteoporosis treatment. Of those who were prescribed osteoporosis treatment, 86.6% (52/60) remained on therapy for 1 year. Nineteen women suffered an additional fracture. Compared to women without a prior fracture, women with at least 1 fracture prior to admission were more likely to have osteoporosis diagnosed and to receive osteoporosis-related medications. CONCLUSION: Despite guidelines that recommend osteoporosis evaluation in adults experiencing a low-trauma fracture, we report that postmenopausal women hospitalized for low-impact fracture were not sufficiently evaluated or treated for osteoporosis during or after their hospital stay. There are substantial opportunities for improvement of care in this high-risk population to prevent subsequent fractures.     

Osteoporosis risk in a home care setting

Aim: To investigate the osteoporosis risk profile of older home care clients and the prevalence of fracture and treatment within this group. Methods: A total of 1500 home care clients were randomly selected and mailed a survey. Overall, 874 (58%) of those surveyed completed and returned the survey. Results: A third (37%, n = 318) reported at least one fracture and 871(99.7%) reported at least one risk factor for osteoporosis. Despite this only 28% reported a diagnosis of osteoporosis, which was more likely if they had sustained a fracture. Bone mineral density tests were reported by 37.4% of respondents and 51.9% of those who had fractured. Only 34.5% who had fractured had been referred for an osteoporosis assessment following their fracture. Conclusions: The home care clients surveyed have many of the risk factors associated with osteoporosis and fracture. A large number reported that they had already sustained fractures that can be attributed to osteoporosis. Despite this, a minority have been assessed or treated for osteoporosis.     

Prefracture syndrome of the hip fracture: a case control study

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures result from both bone fragility and trauma, more often a sideways fall. Spontaneous hip fractures have been described; in such cases, patients reported pain ("prefracture" syndrome) in the hip region for weeks before the fracture. OBJECTIVES: To identify the proportion of patients who had a pain in the hip region before a hip fracture, to compare this proportion to the one observed in controls and to describe the characteristics of this pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For a period of 6 months, each subject (>65 years) treated for hip fracture was prospectively recruited in an orthopaedic surgery department. Exclusion criteria were: alterations of cognitive functions (defined by a mini mental state <20), refusal, and fractures related to bone metastasis or multiple myeloma. Subjects were compared to sex-matched controls consulting in an acute care geriatrics unit. They were asked about the occurrence of pain in hip region before the fracture and its characteristics.RESULTS:Thirty-eight patients (31 women, 7 men, mean age 83.1 [+/-7.6]) were included and were compared to 38 sex-matched controls (31 women, 7 men, mean age 82.7 [+/-6.9]). Among the 38 patients with hip fracture, 10 (26.3%) reported a pain in the hip region, compared with 2 (5.3%) in the control group (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: A better recognition of "prefracture" pain in the elderly may allow adequate management and treatment of patients, in order to avoid a proportion of hip fractures.     

Upper extremity fractures in the elderly: consequences on utilization of rehabilitation care

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While hip fractures represent the most dramatic consequence of osteoporosis, fractures of the humerus, forearm and wrist account for one-third of the total incidence of fractures due to osteoporosis in the older population. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate rehabilitation care utilization and associated factors in elderly individuals with upper limb fracture. METHODS: Over two years, 667 patients 65 years of age or older were studied, who presented to the emergency department either from their private homes or nursing homes with an upper extremity fracture. The following outcome variables were collected: gender; age; residence; location of fracture; treatment; discharge destination; length of hospitalization; length of stay in a rehabilitation facility; and ultimate place of habitation after the event. RESULTS: The most frequent sites of fracture were distal radius (37.2%) and proximal humerus (29.1%). Two-thirds of the patients were treated non-operatively. Inpatient rehabilitation care was necessary for 248 patients (37.2%; length of stay, 46 days). Factors associated with increased care included older age (> or = 80 years), coming from private home, sustaining two fractures, fractures of the humerus, and operative treatment. Six percent of the patients required permanent nursing home care. CONCLUSIONS: Upper extremity fractures in older people often require prolonged hospitalization and therefore account for considerable health care costs. Reasons are more related to advanced age and living conditions than to particular injury or treatment.     

Expert physician recommendations and current practice patterns for evaluating and treating men with osteoporotic hip fracture

OBJECTIVES: To develop recommendations for the evaluation and the treatment of men with osteoporotic hip fracture from expert publications in the field of male osteoporosis, and to define the current practice patterns in a tertiary care VA Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. DESIGN: Survey research; a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care VA Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: (1) US physicians who published on the subject of male osteoporosis in the peer-reviewed literature between 1993 and 1997 identified by MEDLINE database search. (2) All 119 men admitted to the Durham VA Medical Center with ICD9 code for hip fracture between 1994 and 1998. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Osteoporosis evaluation and treatment recommendations of published physicians obtained by survey instrument. (2) Actual osteoporosis evaluation completed and therapy prescribed during index hospitalization in a cohort of men with hip fractures, determined by chart and database review. RESULTS: (1) Forty-three physician-researchers were surveyed with an 84% response rate. For an osteoporosis evaluation, 89% of respondents recommended measuring serum testosterone, 85% serum calcium, 75% 25-OH vitamin D levels, 73% myeloma screen, and 61% serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry would be obtained by 92%. More than 70% recommended calcium, vitamin D, and bisphosphonates for men with a normal metabolic evaluation, and 60% suggested weight-bearing exercise. (2) In the cohort of men admitted with hip fractures, 50% had a serum calcium level and 3% had a serum TSH level measured. Vitamin D was prescribed to 25% of patients in the form of a multivitamin, and 4% received calcium. There was no bisphosphonate, testosterone, or calcitonin use. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who have published on osteoporosis recommended metabolic evaluation and osteoporosis therapy after hip fracture. Only minimal evaluation and treatment occurred in a cohort of men with osteoporotic hip fractures.     

Male osteoporosis-what are the causes,diagnostic challenges,and management

Osteoporosis is underrecognized and undertreated in men, even though up to 25% of fractures in patients over the age of 50 years occur in men. Men develop osteoporosis with normal aging and accumulation of comorbidities that cause bone loss. Secondary causes of bone loss may be found in up to 60% of men with osteoporosis. Mortality in men who experience major fragility fracture is greater than in women. Diagnosis of osteoporosis in men is similar to women, based on low-trauma or fragility fractures, and/or bone mineral density dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) T-scores at or below ?2.5. Because most clinical trials with osteoporosis drugs in men were based on bone density endpoints, not fracture reduction, the antifracture efficacy of approved treatments in men is not as well documented as that in women. Men at a high risk of fracture should be offered treatment to reduce future fractures.     

Successes and failures in improving osteoporosis care after fragility fracture: Results of a multiple‐site clinical improvement project

Objective

To improve osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment of fragility fracture patient populations because osteoporosis care is provided infrequently to those patients, leaving them vulnerable to further fractures and increasing debility.

Methods

Osteoporosis experts from 11 US health systems participated in a clinical improvement project based on previously described successful osteoporosis care process redesigns. Participants were taught rapid cycle process improvement methods that are widely used in clinical improvement projects, and were supported in their efforts by the program coordinator. Measures of successful process development included establishing reliable referral from orthopedic fracture care to osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment, nurse coordination and monitoring of osteoporosis care, and use of process management software for registering patients and organizing work.

Results

Four sites were able to establish these critical referral and osteoporosis management processes. Two sites were partially successful in increasing orthopedic referrals to consultative care, but otherwise continued traditional care processes. Five were unsuccessful due to inability to implement 1 or more of these key process improvements.

Conclusion

Reliable osteoporosis care for fracture patients is possible if traditional practice processes are replaced with more effective, well‐recognized approaches to chronic disease management.

     

Validation of fragility fractures in primary care electronic medical records: A population-based study

PurposeElectronic medical records databases use pre-specified lists of diagnostic codes to identify fractures. These codes, however, are not specific enough to disentangle traumatic from fragility-related fractures. We report on the proportion of fragility fractures identified in a random sample of coded fractures in SIDIAP.MethodsPatients ≥ 50 years old with any fracture recorded in 2012 (as per pre-specified ICD-10 codes) and alive at the time of recruitment were eligible for this retrospective observational study in 6 primary care centres contributing to the SIDIAP database (www.sidiap.org). Those with previous fracture/s, non-responders, and those with dementia or a serious psychiatric disease were excluded. Data on fracture type (traumatic vs fragility), skeletal site, and basic patient characteristics were collected.ResultsOf 491/616 (79.7%) patients with a registered fracture in 2012 who were contacted, 331 (349 fractures) were included. The most common fractures were forearm (82), ribs (38), and humerus (32), and 225/349 (64.5%) were fragility fractures, with higher proportions for classic osteoporotic sites: hip, 91.7%; spine, 87.7%; and major fractures, 80.5%. This proportion was higher in women, the elderly, and patients with a previously coded diagnosis of osteoporosis.ConclusionsMore than 4 in 5 major fractures recorded in SIDIAP are due to fragility (non-traumatic), with higher proportions for hip (92%) and vertebral (88%) fracture, and a lower proportion for fractures other than major ones. Our data support the validity of SIDIAP for the study of the epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures.     

Adherence with osteoporosis practice guidelines: a multilevel analysis of patient, physician, and practice setting characteristics

PURPOSE: The diagnosis and treatment of patients at risk of fragility fractures is uncommon. We examined the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with adherence to local osteoporosis guidelines. METHODS: Data were obtained from electronic medical records from one academic medical center. Local guidelines suggest screening and consideration of treatment for at-risk patients, including women aged > or =65 years, women aged 50 to 64 years who smoke cigarettes, persons who used more than 5 mg of oral prednisone for >3 months, and those with a history of a fracture after age 45 years. Clinical notes, medication lists, and radiology records were reviewed to determine whether patients had undergone bone mineral density testing or received any medications for osteoporosis. Possible correlates of guideline adherence, including patient, physician, and practice site characteristics, were assessed in mixed multivariable models. RESULTS: We identified 6311 at-risk patients seen by 160 doctors at 10 primary care sites during 2001 to 2002. Of these patients, 45% (n = 2820) had a prior bone mineral density test and 30% (n = 1922) had received a medication for osteoporosis; 54% (n = 3401) had one or the other. After adjusting for patient case mix, 17% to 71% of patients had been managed according to local guidelines and had undergone at least bone mineral density testing or received a medication. Patient variables that significantly lowered the probability of guideline adherence included age >74 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.55), age <55 years (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.42), male sex (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.23), black race (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.47), and having more than one comorbid condition (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.89). Patients seen by male physicians were less likely to have care that was adherent with guidelines (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.89). CONCLUSION: Rates of adherence with local osteoporosis guidelines for patients at risk of fragility fractures vary by patient, physician, and practice site characteristic.