Cargando…

Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands

SUMMARY: Implementation of case findings according to guidelines for osteoporosis in fracture patients presenting at a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) was evaluated. Despite one guideline, all FLSs differed in the performance of patient selection and prevalence of clinical risk factors (CRFs) indicat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huntjens, K. M. B., van Geel, T. A. C. M., Blonk, M. C., Hegeman, J. H., van der Elst, M., Willems, P., Geusens, P. P., Winkens, B., Brink, P., van Helden, S. H.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21052640
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1442-8
_version_ 1782204757367062528
author Huntjens, K. M. B.
van Geel, T. A. C. M.
Blonk, M. C.
Hegeman, J. H.
van der Elst, M.
Willems, P.
Geusens, P. P.
Winkens, B.
Brink, P.
van Helden, S. H.
author_facet Huntjens, K. M. B.
van Geel, T. A. C. M.
Blonk, M. C.
Hegeman, J. H.
van der Elst, M.
Willems, P.
Geusens, P. P.
Winkens, B.
Brink, P.
van Helden, S. H.
author_sort Huntjens, K. M. B.
collection PubMed
description SUMMARY: Implementation of case findings according to guidelines for osteoporosis in fracture patients presenting at a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) was evaluated. Despite one guideline, all FLSs differed in the performance of patient selection and prevalence of clinical risk factors (CRFs) indicating the need for more concrete and standardised guidelines. INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation of case findings according to guidelines for osteoporosis in fracture patients presenting at FLSs in the Netherlands. METHODS: Five FLSs were contacted to participate in this prospective study. Patients older than 50 years with a recent clinical fracture who were able and were willing to participate in fracture risk evaluation were included. Performance was evaluated by criteria for patient recruitment, patient characteristics, nurse time, evaluated clinical risk factors (CRFs), bone mineral density (BMD) and laboratory testing and results of CRFs and BMD are presented. Differences between FLSs were analysed for performance (by chi-square and Student’s t test) and for prevalence of CRFs (by relative risks (RR)). RESULTS: All FLSs had a dedicated nurse spending 0.9 to 1.7 h per patient. During 39 to 58 months follow-up, 7,199 patients were evaluated (15 to 47 patients/centre/month; mean age, 67 years; 77% women). Major differences were found between FLSs in the performance of patient recruitment, evaluation of CRFs, BMD and laboratory testing, varying between 0% and 100%. The prevalence of CRFs and osteoporosis varied significantly between FLSs (RR between 1.7 and 37.0, depending on the risk factor). CONCLUSION: All five participating FLSs with a dedicated fracture nurse differed in the performance of patient selection, CRFs and in the prevalence of CRFs, indicating the need for more concrete and standardised guidelines to organise evaluation of patients at the time of fracture in daily practice.
format Text
id pubmed-3106159
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31061592011-07-14 Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands Huntjens, K. M. B. van Geel, T. A. C. M. Blonk, M. C. Hegeman, J. H. van der Elst, M. Willems, P. Geusens, P. P. Winkens, B. Brink, P. van Helden, S. H. Osteoporos Int Original Article SUMMARY: Implementation of case findings according to guidelines for osteoporosis in fracture patients presenting at a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) was evaluated. Despite one guideline, all FLSs differed in the performance of patient selection and prevalence of clinical risk factors (CRFs) indicating the need for more concrete and standardised guidelines. INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation of case findings according to guidelines for osteoporosis in fracture patients presenting at FLSs in the Netherlands. METHODS: Five FLSs were contacted to participate in this prospective study. Patients older than 50 years with a recent clinical fracture who were able and were willing to participate in fracture risk evaluation were included. Performance was evaluated by criteria for patient recruitment, patient characteristics, nurse time, evaluated clinical risk factors (CRFs), bone mineral density (BMD) and laboratory testing and results of CRFs and BMD are presented. Differences between FLSs were analysed for performance (by chi-square and Student’s t test) and for prevalence of CRFs (by relative risks (RR)). RESULTS: All FLSs had a dedicated nurse spending 0.9 to 1.7 h per patient. During 39 to 58 months follow-up, 7,199 patients were evaluated (15 to 47 patients/centre/month; mean age, 67 years; 77% women). Major differences were found between FLSs in the performance of patient recruitment, evaluation of CRFs, BMD and laboratory testing, varying between 0% and 100%. The prevalence of CRFs and osteoporosis varied significantly between FLSs (RR between 1.7 and 37.0, depending on the risk factor). CONCLUSION: All five participating FLSs with a dedicated fracture nurse differed in the performance of patient selection, CRFs and in the prevalence of CRFs, indicating the need for more concrete and standardised guidelines to organise evaluation of patients at the time of fracture in daily practice. Springer-Verlag 2010-11-04 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3106159/ /pubmed/21052640 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1442-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Huntjens, K. M. B.
van Geel, T. A. C. M.
Blonk, M. C.
Hegeman, J. H.
van der Elst, M.
Willems, P.
Geusens, P. P.
Winkens, B.
Brink, P.
van Helden, S. H.
Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands
title Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands
title_full Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands
title_fullStr Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands
title_full_unstemmed Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands
title_short Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands
title_sort implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the netherlands
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21052640
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1442-8
work_keys_str_mv AT huntjenskmb implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT vangeeltacm implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT blonkmc implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT hegemanjh implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT vanderelstm implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT willemsp implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT geusenspp implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT winkensb implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT brinkp implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands
AT vanheldensh implementationofosteoporosisguidelinesasurveyoffivelargefractureliaisonservicesinthenetherlands