Prevalence and Predictors of Osteoporosis Treatment in Nursing Home Residents with Known Osteoporosis or Recent Fracture

Introduction and Hypothesis: We determined the prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in high risk nursing home residents. Methods: We identified 67 nursing facilities in North Carolina and Arizona with >= 10 residents with osteoporosis or recent hip fracture. Medical records (n=895) were abstracted for osteoporosis evaluation (DXA, vitamin D level, serum calcium), treatment (calcium, vitamin D, osteoporosis medication, hip protectors), clinical and systems covariates. Data were analyzed at the facility level and using mixed models to account for the complex nesting of residents within providers and nursing facilities. Results: Calcium and vitamin D was prescribed for 69% of residents, bisphosphonates for 19%, calcitonin for 14%, other pharmacologic therapies for 6%, and hip protectors for 2%. Overall, 36% received any bone protection (medication or hip protectors) with wide variation among facilities (0 to 85%). Factors significantly associated with any bone protection include female sex [OR 2.4, (1.5–3.7)] and non-urban/suburban location [1.5, (1.1–2.2)]. Residents with esophagitis, PUD, or dysphagia [0.6, ( 0.4–0.9)] and alcohol abuse [0.2, (0.0–0.9)] were less likely to receive treatment. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in the quality of osteoporosis treatment across nursing homes. Interventions which improve osteoporosis quality of care are needed

Randomized trial to improve fracture prevention in nursing home residents

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve the fracture prevention in nursing homes are needed. METHODS: Cluster-randomized, single-blind, controlled trial of a multi-modal quality improvement intervention. Nursing homes (n=67) with \u3e or =10 residents with a diagnosis of osteoporosis or recent hip fracture (n=606) were randomized to receive an early or delayed intervention consisting of audit and feedback, educational modules, teleconferences, and academic detailing. Medical record abstraction and the Minimum Data Set were used to measure the prescription of osteoporosis therapies before and after the intervention period. Analysis was at the facility-level and Generalized Estimating Equation modeling was used to account for clustering. RESULTS: No significant improvements were observed in any of the quality indicators. The use of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy or hip protectors improved by 8.0% in the intervention group and 0.6% in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=.72). Participation in the intervention activities was low, but completion of the educational module (odds ratio [OR] 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-12.0) and direct physician contact by an academic detailer (OR 4.5, 95% CI, 1.1-18.2) were significantly associated with prescription of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy or hip protectors in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: Audit-feedback and education interventions were ineffective in improving fracture prevention in the nursing home setting, although results may have been tempered by low participation in the intervention activities

Prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis treatment in nursing home residents with known osteoporosis or recent fracture

Summary: We studied nursing home residents with osteoporosis or recent fracture to determine the frequency and predictors of osteoporosis treatment. There was wide variation in performance, and both clinical and systems variables predicted use. This study shows that improvement in osteoporosis care is possible and important for many nursing homes. INTRODUCTION: We determined the prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in high-risk nursing home residents. METHODS: We identified 67 nursing facilities in North Carolina and Arizona with \u3e 10 residents with osteoporosis or recent hip fracture. Medical records (n=895) were abstracted for osteoporosis evaluation [dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), vitamin D level, serum calcium), treatment (calcium, vitamin D, osteoporosis medication, hip protectors), clinical, and systems covariates. Data were analyzed at the facility level using mixed models to account for the complex nesting of residents within providers and nursing facilities. RESULTS: Calcium and vitamin D was prescribed for 69% of residents, bisphosphonates for 19%, calcitonin for 14%, other pharmacologic therapies for 6%, and hip protectors for 2%. Overall, 36% received any bone protection (medication or hip protectors), with wide variation among facilities (0-85%). Factors significantly associated with any bone protection included female gender [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, (1.5-3.7)] and nonurban/suburban location [1.5, (1.1-2.2)]. Residents with esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), or dysphagia [0.6, (0.4-0.9)] and alcohol abuse [0.2, (0.0-0.9)] were less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the quality of osteoporosis treatment across nursing homes. Interventions that improve osteoporosis quality of care are needed