Cargando…

Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery

SUMMARY: There is variation in how services to prevent secondary fractures after hip fracture are delivered and no consensus on best models of care. This study identifies healthcare professionals’ views on effective care for the prevention of these fractures. It is hoped this will provide informatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Drew, S., Judge, A., Cooper, C., Javaid, M. K., Farmer, A., Gooberman-Hill, R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer London 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4839047/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26759249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3452-z
_version_ 1782428079650504704
author Drew, S.
Judge, A.
Cooper, C.
Javaid, M. K.
Farmer, A.
Gooberman-Hill, R.
author_facet Drew, S.
Judge, A.
Cooper, C.
Javaid, M. K.
Farmer, A.
Gooberman-Hill, R.
author_sort Drew, S.
collection PubMed
description SUMMARY: There is variation in how services to prevent secondary fractures after hip fracture are delivered and no consensus on best models of care. This study identifies healthcare professionals’ views on effective care for the prevention of these fractures. It is hoped this will provide information on how to develop services. INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture patients are at high risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures. Whilst fracture prevention services are recommended, there is variation in delivery and no consensus on best models of care. This study aims to identify healthcare professionals’ views on effective care for prevention of secondary fracture after hip fracture. METHODS: Forty-three semi-structured interviews were undertaken with healthcare professionals involved in delivering fracture prevention across 11 hospitals in one English region. Interviews explored views on four components of care: (1) case finding, (2) osteoporosis assessment, (3) treatment initiation, and (4) monitoring and coordination. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVivo software. RESULTS: Case finding: a number of approaches were discussed. Multiple methods ensured there was a ‘backstop’ if patients were overlooked. Osteoporosis assessment: there was no consensus on who should conduct this. The location of the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner influenced the likelihood of patients receiving a scan. Treatment initiation: it was felt this was best done in inpatients rather request initiation in the post-discharge/outpatients period. Monitoring (adherence): adherence was a major concern, and participants felt more monitoring could be conducted by secondary care. Coordination of care: participants advocated using dedicated coordinators and formal and informal methods of communication. A gap between primary and secondary care was identified and strategies suggested for addressing this. CONCLUSIONS: A number of ways of organising effective fracture prevention services after hip fracture were identified. It is hoped that this will help professionals identify gaps in care and provide information on how to develop services.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4839047
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer London
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48390472016-05-11 Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery Drew, S. Judge, A. Cooper, C. Javaid, M. K. Farmer, A. Gooberman-Hill, R. Osteoporos Int Original Article SUMMARY: There is variation in how services to prevent secondary fractures after hip fracture are delivered and no consensus on best models of care. This study identifies healthcare professionals’ views on effective care for the prevention of these fractures. It is hoped this will provide information on how to develop services. INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture patients are at high risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures. Whilst fracture prevention services are recommended, there is variation in delivery and no consensus on best models of care. This study aims to identify healthcare professionals’ views on effective care for prevention of secondary fracture after hip fracture. METHODS: Forty-three semi-structured interviews were undertaken with healthcare professionals involved in delivering fracture prevention across 11 hospitals in one English region. Interviews explored views on four components of care: (1) case finding, (2) osteoporosis assessment, (3) treatment initiation, and (4) monitoring and coordination. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVivo software. RESULTS: Case finding: a number of approaches were discussed. Multiple methods ensured there was a ‘backstop’ if patients were overlooked. Osteoporosis assessment: there was no consensus on who should conduct this. The location of the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner influenced the likelihood of patients receiving a scan. Treatment initiation: it was felt this was best done in inpatients rather request initiation in the post-discharge/outpatients period. Monitoring (adherence): adherence was a major concern, and participants felt more monitoring could be conducted by secondary care. Coordination of care: participants advocated using dedicated coordinators and formal and informal methods of communication. A gap between primary and secondary care was identified and strategies suggested for addressing this. CONCLUSIONS: A number of ways of organising effective fracture prevention services after hip fracture were identified. It is hoped that this will help professionals identify gaps in care and provide information on how to develop services. Springer London 2016-01-12 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4839047/ /pubmed/26759249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3452-z Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Drew, S.
Judge, A.
Cooper, C.
Javaid, M. K.
Farmer, A.
Gooberman-Hill, R.
Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery
title Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery
title_full Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery
title_fullStr Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery
title_full_unstemmed Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery
title_short Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery
title_sort secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4839047/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26759249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3452-z
work_keys_str_mv AT drews secondarypreventionoffracturesafterhipfractureaqualitativestudyofeffectiveservicedelivery
AT judgea secondarypreventionoffracturesafterhipfractureaqualitativestudyofeffectiveservicedelivery
AT cooperc secondarypreventionoffracturesafterhipfractureaqualitativestudyofeffectiveservicedelivery
AT javaidmk secondarypreventionoffracturesafterhipfractureaqualitativestudyofeffectiveservicedelivery
AT farmera secondarypreventionoffracturesafterhipfractureaqualitativestudyofeffectiveservicedelivery
AT goobermanhillr secondarypreventionoffracturesafterhipfractureaqualitativestudyofeffectiveservicedelivery