Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Osteoporosis Reports
Published in: Current Osteoporosis Reports 6/2019

01-12-2019 | Refracture | Quality of Care in Osteoporosis (S Silverman and J Curtis, Section Editors)

Quality Improvement Initiatives in Fragility Fracture Care and Prevention

Authors: Paul J. Mitchell, Cyrus Cooper, Masaki Fujita, Philippe Halbout, Kristina Åkesson, Matthew Costa, Karsten E. Dreinhöfer, David R. Marsh, Joon-Kiong Lee, Ding-Cheng (Derrick) Chan, M. Kassim Javaid

Published in: Current Osteoporosis Reports | Issue 6/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review sought to describe quality improvement initiatives in fragility fracture care and prevention.

Recent Findings

A major care gap persists throughout the world in the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Systematic reviews have confirmed that the Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) model of care is associated with significant improvements in rates of bone mineral density testing, initiation of osteoporosis treatment and adherence with treatment for individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Further, these improvements in the processes of care resulted in significant reductions in refracture risk and lower post-fracture mortality. The primary challenge facing health systems now is to ensure that best practice is delivered effectively in the local healthcare setting. Publication of clinical standards for FLS at the organisational and patient level in combination with the establishment of national registries has provided a mechanism for FLS to benchmark and improve their performance.

Summary

Major efforts are ongoing at the global, regional and national level to improve the acute care, rehabilitation and secondary prevention for individuals who sustain fragility fractures. Active participation in these initiatives has the potential to eliminate current care gaps in the coming decade.
Literature
1.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.248. New York; 2017.
2.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World Population Prospects: Volume II: Demographic Profiles 2017 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/400). New York; 2017.
3.
4.
Cooper C, Ferrari S. IOF Compendium of Osteoporosis. In Harvey N, Dennison E, editors. 1st ed. Nyons: International Osteoporosis Foundation; 2019.
5.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 2016 ESCAP population data sheet. Bangkok: Social Development Division, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP); 2016.
6.
Si L, Winzenberg TM, Jiang Q, Chen M, Palmer AJ. Projection of osteoporosis-related fractures and costs in China: 2010-2050. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:1929–37.CrossRef
7.
Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, et al. 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. 2013;8:136.CrossRef
8.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World Population Ageing. New York: United Nations; 2015.
9.
Zerbini CA, Szejnfeld VL, Abergaria BH, et al. Incidence of hip fracture in Brazil and the development of a FRAX model. Arch Osteoporos. 2015;10:224.CrossRef
10.
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:465–75.CrossRef
11.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone. 2004;35:375–82.CrossRef
12.
Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, Abbott TA 3rd, Berger M. Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:721–39.CrossRef
13.
Gallagher JC, Melton LJ, Riggs BL, Bergstrath E. Epidemiology of fractures of the proximal femur in Rochester, Minnesota. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980:163–71.
14.
Port L, Center J, Briffa NK, Nguyen T, Cumming R, Eisman J. Osteoporotic fracture: missed opportunity for intervention. Osteoporos Int. 2003;14:780–4.CrossRef
15.
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.
16.
Edwards BJ, Bunta AD, Simonelli C, Bolander M, Fitzpatrick LA. Prior fractures are common in patients with subsequent hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:226–30.PubMed
17.
• Harvey NC, McCloskey EV, Mitchell PJ, et al. Mind the (treatment) gap: a global perspective on current and future strategies for prevention of fragility fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:1507–29. This paper provides a comprehensive summary of the therapeutic evidence base specifically in the context of secondary fracture prevention. CrossRef
18.
Harvey NC, McCloskey EV. Gaps and solutions in bone health: a global framework for improvement. In: Misteli L, Laverty C, Stenmark J, editors. World Osteoporosis Day Thematic Report. Nyon: International Osteoporosis Foundation; 2016.
19.
Lih A, Nandapalan H, Kim M, Yap C, Lee P, Ganda K, 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.CrossRef
20.
Bogoch ER, Elliot-Gibson V, Beaton DE, Jamal SA, Josse RG, Murray TM. 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.PubMed
21.
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.CrossRef
22.
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.CrossRef
23.
Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, Speerin R, Bleasel J, Center JR, et al. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:393–406.CrossRef
24.
• Ganda K, Mitchell PJ, Seibel MJ. Models of secondary fracture prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes. In: Seibel MJ, Mitchell PJ, editors. Secondary Fracture Prevention: An International Perspective. San Diego: Elsevier; 2019. p. 33–62. This recent meta-analysis provides an update on the impact of Fracture Liaison Services as a function of the intensity of the service model. CrossRef
25.
Seibel MJ, Mitchell PJ, editors. Secondary fracture prevention: an international perspective. San Diego: Elsevier; 2019.
26.
Wu CH, Tu ST, Chang YF, et al. Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone. 2018;111:92–100.CrossRef
27.
•• Javaid MK, Kyer C, Mitchell PJ, et al. Effective secondary fracture prevention: implementation of a global benchmarking of clinical quality using the IOF Capture the Fracture® Best Practice Framework tool. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:2573–8. This paper illustrates the effectiveness of the IOF Capture the Fracture®Programe Best Practice Framework as a tool to benchmark performance of FLS globally. CrossRef
28.
•• Javaid MK, Vasilakis N, Dickinson R, et al. Fracture Liaison Service Database Annual report December 2018: Achieving effective service delivery by Fracture Liaison Services. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2018. The UK national FLS Database is the first such database in the world. This report could provide colleagues in other countries with insights on how to establish a national FLS Database in their own countries.
29.
Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Johnson JA, Rowe BH, Bellerose D, Hassan I, et al. Comparing strategies targeting osteoporosis to prevent fractures after an upper extremity fracture (C-STOP Trial): a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33:2114–21.CrossRef
30.
McAlister FA, Ye C, Beaupre LA. Adherence to osteoporosis therapy after an upper extremity fracture: a pre-specified substudy of the C-STOP randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:127–34.CrossRef
31.
Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Nevitt MC, et al. Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Lancet. 1996;348:1535–41.CrossRef
32.
van den Berg P, van Haard PMM, Geusens PP, van den Bergh J, Schweitzer DH. Challenges and opportunities to improve fracture liaison service attendance: fracture registration and patient characteristics and motivations. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30:1597–606.CrossRef
33.
Osteoporosis New Zealand. Bone Care 2020: A systematic approach to hip fracture care and prevention for New Zealand. Wellington; 2012.
34.
Accident Compensation Corporation. Ministry of Health, Health Quality & Safety Commission New Zealand, New Zealand Government. Live Stronger for Longer: Prevent falls and fractures. 2019. http://​livestronger.​org.​nz/​. Accessed 29 Sept 2019.
35.
36.
• Chang L-Y, Tsai K-S, Peng J-K, et al. The development of Taiwan Fracture Liaison Service network. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2018;4:47–52. The approach to drive widespread implementation of the FLS model throughout Taiwan is an example of best practice which could be replicated elsewhere. CrossRef
37.
38.
39.
Mitchell PJ. Best practices in secondary fracture prevention: fracture liaison services. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2013;11:52–60.CrossRef
40.
Gittoes N, McLellan AR, Cooper A, et al. Effective secondary prevention of fragility fractures: clinical standards for fracture liaison services. Camerton: National Osteoporosis Society; 2015.
41.
42.
43.
Royal College of Physicians. Fracture Liaison Service Database (FLS-DB) facilities audit - FLS breakpoint: opportunities for improving patient care following a fragility fracture. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
44.
Royal College of Physicians. FLS-DB clinical audit: identifying high-quality care in the NHS for secondary fracture prevention. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2017.
45.
Axelsson KF, Jacobsson R, Lund D, Lorentzon M. Effectiveness of a minimal resource fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27:3165–75.CrossRef
46.
Andreasen C, Solberg LB, Basso T, et al. Effect of a fracture liaison service on the rate of subsequent fracture among patients with a fragility fracture in the Norwegian Capture the Fracture Initiative (NoFRACT): a trial protocol. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e185701.CrossRef
47.
Borgen TT, Bjornerem A, Solberg LB, et al. High prevalence of vertebral fractures and low trabecular bone score in patients with fragility fractures: a cross-sectional sub-study of NoFRACT. Bone. 2019;122:14–21.CrossRef
48.
Tei RMH, Ramlau-Hansen CH, Plana-Ripoll O, et al. OFELIA: prevalence of osteoporosis in fragility fracture patients. Calcif Tissue Int. 2019;104:102–14.CrossRef
49.
Tei RMH, Plana-Ripoll O, Brink O, Langdahl BL. An optimised fracture liaison service model: maintained diagnostic sensitivity despite reduced number of diagnostic tests performed. Calcif Tissue Int. 2019;104:641–9.CrossRef
50.
Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ, McLellan A, Stenmark J, Pierroz DD, et al. Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:2135–52.CrossRef
51.
52.
53.
54.
Center for Medical Technology Policy. Strategic Roadmap to Prevent Secondary Fractures. Baltimore; 2017.
55.
56.
•• Dreinhofer KE, Mitchell PJ, Begue T, et al. A global call to action to improve the care of people with fragility fractures. Injury. 2018;49:1393–7. This Global Call to Action received an unprecedented level of endorsement from healthcare professional organisations throughout the world, and may serve as a catalyst to stimulate formtion of national multi-sector, multidisciplinary alliances to expedite national policy change. CrossRef
57.
Metadata
Title
Quality Improvement Initiatives in Fragility Fracture Care and Prevention
Authors
Paul J. Mitchell
Cyrus Cooper
Masaki Fujita
Philippe Halbout
Kristina Åkesson
Matthew Costa
Karsten E. Dreinhöfer
David R. Marsh
Joon-Kiong Lee
Ding-Cheng (Derrick) Chan
M. Kassim Javaid
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Osteoporosis Reports / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1544-1873
Electronic ISSN: 1544-2241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-019-00544-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Current Osteoporosis Reports 6/2019 Go to the issue

Bone and Diabetes (A Schwartz and P Vestergaard, Section Editors)

Effects of Diabetes on Bone Material Properties

Kidney and Bone (I Salusky and T Nickolas, Section Editors)

Bone Health in Glomerular Kidney Disease

Bone Marrow and Adipose Tissue (G Duque and B Lecka-Czernik, Section Editors)

Bone Marrow Adipose Tissue Quantification by Imaging

Therapeutics and Medical Management (S Jan De Beur and B Clarke, Section Editors)

Update on Menopausal Hormone Therapy for Fracture Prevention

Skeletal Biology and Regulation (M Forwood and A Robling, Section Editors)

Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 (MCP-1/CCL2) Drives Activation of Bone Remodelling and Skeletal Metastasis

Bone Marrow and Adipose Tissue (G Duque and B Lecka-Czernik, Section Editors)

Marrow Fat-Secreted Factors as Biomarkers for Osteoporosis