Impact of guideline implementation by a fracture nurse on subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with non-vertebral fractures

Introduction: Systematic implementation of guidelines in patients presenting with a fracture increases identification of patients at high risk for subsequent fractures and contributes to a decreased fracture risk. Its effect on prevention of subsequent fractures and on mortality has not been documented. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the implementation of specific guidelines on the risk of subsequent fractures and mortality in patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture (NVF). Patients and methods: Before-after impact analysis in consecutive patients older than 50 years who were admitted to the hospital with a NVF during 2 periods: pre-intervention group (n = 1,920, enrolled in 1999-2001) and intervention group (n = 1,335, enrolled in 2004-2006). The intervention consisted of a dedicated fracture nurse who systematically offered fracture risk evaluation and treatment according to available guidelines. The 2-year absolute risk (AR) and hazard ratio's (HR, with 95% confidence interval (CI)) of subsequent NVFs and mortality were analysed between both groups after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location by multivariable Cox regression and by intention-to-treat. Results: The AR of subsequent fracture was 9.9% before and 6.7% after intervention, indicating a decrease of 35% in the risk of subsequent fracture (HR 0.65; CI: 0.51-0.84, after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location) and 17.9% and 11.6%, respectively, for subsequent mortality, indicating a decrease of 33% in the risk of subsequent mortality (HR: 0.67; CI: 0.55-0.81, after adjustment for age, sex and baseline fracture location). Conclusions: Systematic implementation of guidelines for fracture prevention by a dedicated fracture nurse immediately after a NVF is associated with a significant reduction of the 2-year risk of subsequent NVF and mortality

Risk of subsequent fracture and mortality within 5 years after a non-vertebral fracture

SUMMARY: The absolute 5-year risk of subsequent non-vertebral fractures (NVFs) in 1,921 patients presenting with a NVF was 17.6% and of mortality was 32.3%. These risks were highest within the first year, indicating the need to study which reversible factors can be targeted to immediately minimise subsequent fracture risk and mortality. INTRODUCTION: NVFs are the most frequent clinical fractures in patients presenting at the emergency unit because of a clinical fracture. The aim of the study was to determine the 5-year absolute risk (AR) of subsequent NVF and mortality in patients at the time they present with a NVF. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2001, 1,921 consecutive patients 50+ years from a level 1 trauma centre were included. All NVFs were confirmed on radiograph reports, and mortality was checked in the national obituary database. Available potential risk factors for a subsequent NVF and mortality (age, sex and baseline fracture location: major—hip, pelvis, multiple ribs, proximal tibia/humerus and distal femur; minor—all others) were expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The AR for a subsequent NVF was 17.6% and was related to age (HR per decade, 1.44; 95%CI, 1.29–1.60). The AR for mortality was 32.3% and was related to age (HR per decade, 2.59; 95%CI, 2.37–2.84), male sex (HR, 1.74; 95%CI, 1.44–2.10), major fracture at baseline (HR, 5.56; 95%CI, 3.48–8.88; not constant over time) and subsequent fracture (HR, 1.65; 95%CI, 1.33–2.05). The highest risks were found within the first year (NVFs, 6.4%; mortality, 12.2%) and were related to age and, in addition, to baseline fracture location for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Within 5 years after an initial NVF, nearly one in five patients sustained a subsequent NVF and one in three died. One third of subsequent NVFs and mortality occurred within 1 year, indicating the need to study which reversible factors can be targeted to immediately prevent subsequent fractures and mortality

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

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