Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses: ICON study - Protocol of a quasi-experimental study to assess the (cost)-effectiveness of combining a decision aid with motivational interviewing for improving medication persistence in patients with a recent fracture being treated at the fracture liaison service

Background Given the health and economic burden of fractures related to osteoporosis, suboptimal adherence to medication and the increasing importance of shared-decision making, the Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses (ICON) study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a multi-component adherence intervention (MCAI) for patients with an indication for treatment with anti–osteoporosis medication, following assessment at the Fracture Liaison Service after a recent fracture. The MCAI involves two consultations at the FLS. During the first consultation, a decision aid is will be used to involve patients in the decision of whether to start anti-osteoporosis medication. During the follow-up visit, the nurse inquires about, and stimulates, medication adherence using motivational interviewing techniques. Methods A quasi-experimental trial to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness and feasibility of an MCAI, consisting of a decision aid (DA) at the first visit, combined with nurse-led adherence support using motivational interviewing during the follow-up visit, in comparison with care as usual, in improving adherence to oral anti-osteoporosis medication for patients with a recent fracture two Dutch FLS. Medication persistence, defined as the proportion of patients who are persistent at one year assuming a refill gap < 30 days, is the primary outcome. Medication adherence, decision quality, subsequent fractures and mortality are the secondary outcomes. A lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis using a model-based economic evaluation and a process evaluation will also be conducted. A sample size of 248 patients is required to show an improvement in the primary outcome with 20%. Study follow-up is at 12 months, with measurements at baseline, after four months, and at 12 months. Discussion We expect that the ICON-study will show that the MCAI is a (cost-)effective intervention for improving persistence with anti-osteoporosis medication and that it is feasible for implementation at the FLS. Trial registration This trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, part of the Dutch Cochrane Centre (Trial NL7236 (NTR7435)). Version 1.0; 26-11-2020.

A Hospitalist-Led Fracture Liaison Service Improves Care of Hip Fracture Patients

Background: Osteoporosis care traditionally falls to outpatient primary care providers despite the fact that over 300,000 elderly patients are hospitalized yearly with hip fractures in the United States. Internal medicine hospitalists are often involved in the co-management of their care on surgical teams and are skillful in osteoporosis recognition and management. Objective: A hospitalist-led Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) was established to provide improved care of hospitalized patients with hip fractures. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of inpatient and post-discharge management of patients admitted with low-impact hip fractures was performed before (8/17-2/18) and after (8/19 - 2/20) launch of the hospitalist Fracture Liaison Service (H-FLS). Results: Eighty-nine patients were admitted with a hip fracture in post-launch period compared to 73 admitted prior. 74% vs 11% of eligible patients (based on adequate renal function and vitamin D stores) were discharged with anti-osteoporosis medications (p&lt;0.001), 82% vs 38% were discharged with vitamin D/calcium supplements (p&lt;0.001), 22% vs 5% underwent a DXA scan after discharge (p&lt;0.05) and 65% vs 0% were referred to outpatient osteoporosis-specific care at discharge (p&lt;0.001). Conclusion: A hospitalist-led FLS is a unique approach to osteoporosis care that significantly improved quality metrics for elderly patients with osteoporotic hip fractures including initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication and bone density imaging. Outpatient follow-up data are needed to evaluate adherence to this initial management over time.

Osteoporosis Care After Hip Fracture: A Regional Healthcare System Experience

Background: Pharmacologic treatment is recommended to reduce risk of future fractures and possibly reduce mortality in patients with hip fracture. We investigated osteoporosis care after hip fracture at a regional comprehensive healthcare system to identify rates of pharmacologic treatment after hip fracture and barriers to treatment. Methods: We identified all patients admitted with a low impact hip fracture between 1/2017-12/2018. Follow-up clinical data was collected for a minimum of 16 months after hip fracture. Results: 208 patients were admitted with low impact hip fractures: 130 (62%) were female, mean age was 79.6 (SD 12.6), 24 (12%) were nursing home resident, and 117 (56%) had BMI &lt;25 kg/m2. At the time of the fracture, 80% had polypharmacy, 42% used mobility aide, 24% had known osteoporosis, 22% had dementia/cognitive impairment, 20% has history of cancer, 20% had history of stroke, 19% had diabetes and 2% were on dialysis. Two hundred (96%) underwent surgery. Forty-three (20%) had vitamin D level checked, of this, 20 (46%) had level &lt;30 ng/mL. Prior to admission prescription of vitamin D was 53% and calcium was 36%. Discharge prescription of vitamin D was 64% and calcium was 50%. Prior to fracture, 18/208 (9%) were prescribed osteoporosis medication and at 1 year following fracture, 26/192 (14%) were prescribed osteoporosis medication (11 new, 15 continuation of medication). For follow up, 114/192 (59%) were seen in orthopedics clinic, 61 (32%) in primary care clinic, 2 (1%) in endocrinology clinic and 99 (52%) in other clinics. Sixteen (8%) patients died during the hospitalization for hip fracture and 47 (22%) died within 1 year. Conclusions: Osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture is suboptimal and a model of care is needed to close this care gap.

Use of an electronic medical record dashboard to identify gaps in osteoporosis care

Summary Using an electronic medical record (EMR)-based dashboard, this study explored osteoporosis care gaps in primary care. Eighty-four physicians shared their practice activities related to bone mineral density testing, 10-year fracture risk calculation and treatment for those at high risk. Significant gaps in fracture risk calculation and osteoporosis management were identified. Purpose To identify care gaps in osteoporosis management focusing on Canadian clinical practice guidelines (CPG) related to bone mineral density (BMD) testing, 10-year fracture risk calculation and treatment for those at high risk. Methods The ADVANTAGE OP EMR tool consists of an interactive algorithm to facilitate assessment and management of fracture risk using CPG. The FRAX® and Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tools were embedded to facilitate 10-year fracture risk calculation. Physicians managed patients as clinically indicated but with EMR reminders of guideline recommendations; participants shared practice level data on management activities after 18-month use of the tool. Results Eighty-four physicians (54%) of 154 who agreed to participate in this study shared their aggregate practice activities. Across all practices, there were 171,310 adult patients, 40 years of age and older, of whom 17,214 (10%) were at elevated risk for fracture. Sixty-two percent of patients potentially at elevated risk for fractures did not have BMD testing completed; most common reasons for this were intention to order BMD later (48%), physician belief that BMD was not required (15%) and patient refusal (20%). For patients with BMD completed, fracture risk was calculated in 29%; 19% were at high risk, of whom 37% were not treated with osteoporosis medications as recommended by CPG. Conclusion Despite access to CPG and fracture risk calculators through the ADVANTAGE OP EMR tool, significant gaps remain in fracture risk calculation and osteoporosis management. Additional strategies are needed to address this clinical inertia among family physicians.