Advertisement

Implementing a fracture follow-up liaison service: perspective of key stakeholders

  • Mireille Luc
  • Hélène Corriveau
  • Gilles Boire
  • Johanne Filiatrault
  • Marie-Claude Beaulieu
  • Pierre Dagenais
  • Isabelle GabouryEmail author
Bone and Cartilage
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Fracture liaison services (FLS) have been shown to prevent efficiently subsequent fragility fractures (FF). However, very few studies have examined their implementation in depth. The purpose of this research was to identify factors influencing the implementation of a FLS at three sites in Quebec, Canada. From 2013 to 2015, individual and group interviews focused on experiences of FLS stakeholders, including implementation committee members, coordinators, and orthopaedic surgeons and their teams. Emerging key implementation factors were triangulated with the FLS patients’ clinico-administrative data. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the analysis of perceived factors influencing four intervention outputs: investigation of FF risk (using the FRAX score), communication with the participant primary care provider, initiation of anti-osteoporosis medications (when relevant), and referral to organized fall prevention activities (either governmental or community based). Among the 454 FLS patients recruited to the intervention group, 83% were investigated for FF risk, communication with the primary care provider was established for 98% of the participants, 54% initiated medication, and 35% were referred to organized fall prevention activities. Challenges related to restricted rights to prescribe medication and access to organized fall prevention activities were reported. FLS coordinator characteristics to overcome those challenges included self-efficacy beliefs, knowledge of community resources, and professional background. This study highlighted the importance of enabling access to services for subsequent FF prevention, consolidating the coordinator’s role to facilitate a more integrated intervention, and involving local leaders to promote the successful implementation of the FLS.

Keywords

Fracture liaison service Fractures Bone Osteoporosis Implementation science Qualitative method Program evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all study participants, Chantal Morin for her collaboration to data coding, and Meg Sears for editorial revisions.

Funding

This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Grant number 201111PHE-267395-PHE-CFDA-01003-001] in partnership with the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis, Amgen and the Centre de santé et de services sociaux—Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Sherbrooke (Centre intégré universitaire de santé et des services sociaux de l’Estrie-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke). The funding sources had no involvement in the study design, the conduct of the research or the preparation or the submission of the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcomes. Dr Boire would like to declare that, in the past 2 years, he has received funding from Merck Canada and from Amgen Canada for other research projects, as well as a remuneration from Merck Canada for a conference.

Ethical standards

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke on January 8th, 2013, and by relevant local ethics committees (Comité d’éthique de la recherche et de l’évaluation des technologies de la santé de l’Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, CÉR du CSSS du Sud de Lanaudière, Comité d’éthique de la recherche du CSSS-IUGS, and Comité d’éthique de la recherche du CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal; Comité d’éthique de la recherche de l’Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, May 8th, 2013; CÉR du CSSS du Nord de Lanaudière and CÉR du CSSS du Roché Percé, October 31st, 2013; and Comité d’éthique de la recherche sur les sujets humains du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Montréal, November 20th, 2013). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. For confidentiality reasons, each study site has been represented by a number.

References

  1. 1.
    Osteoporosis Canada (2019) Fast facts. https://osteoporosis.ca/about-the-disease/fast-facts/. Accessed 8 Sept 2019
  2. 2.
    Klotzbuecher CM et al (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15(4):721–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papaioannou A et al (2010) 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada: summary. Can Med Assoc J 182(17):1864–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leslie WD et al (2012) A population-based analysis of the post-fracture care gap 1996–2008: the situation is not improving. Osteoporos Int 23(5):1623–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grace SC et al (2013) Health-related quality of life and quality of care in specialized medicare-managed care plans. J Ambul Care Manage 36(1):72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shibli-Rahhal A et al (2011) Testing and treatment for osteoporosis following hip fracture in an integrated U.S. healthcare delivery system. Osteoporos Int 22(12):2973–2980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meadows LM et al (2007) The importance of communication in secondary fragility fracture treatment and prevention. Osteoporos Int 18(2):159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raybould G et al (2018) Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos 13(1):55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper MS, Palmer AJ, Seibel MJ (2012) Cost-effectiveness of the concord minimal trauma fracture liaison service, a prospective, controlled fracture prevention study. Osteoporos Int 23(1):97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leal J et al (2017) Cost-effectiveness of orthogeriatric and fracture liaison service models of care for hip fracture patients: a population-based study. J Bone Miner Res 32(2):203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Majumdar SR et al (2017) Economic evaluation of a population-based osteoporosis intervention for outpatients with non-traumatic non-hip fractures: the “Catch a Break” 1i [type C] FLS. Osteoporos Int 28(6):1965–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moriwaki K, Noto S (2017) Economic evaluation of osteoporosis liaison service for secondary fracture prevention in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with previous hip fracture in Japan. Osteoporos Int 28(2):621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Briot K (2017) Fracture liaison services. Curr Opin Rheumatol 29(4):416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisman JA et al (2012) Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention. J Bone Miner Res 27(10):2039–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ganda K et al (2013) Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 24(2):393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osuna PM, Ruppe MD, Tabatabai LS (2017) Fracture liaison services: multidisciplinary approaches to secondary fracture prevention. Endocrine Pract 23(2):199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walters S et al (2017) Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging 12:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakayama A et al (2016) Evidence of effectiveness of a fracture liaison service to reduce the re-fracture rate. Osteoporos Int 27(3):873–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cosman F et al (2014) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 25(10):2359–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akesson K et al (2013) Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 24(8):2135–2152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Senay A et al (2016) Agreement between physicians’ and nurses’ clinical decisions for the management of the fracture liaison service (4iFLS): the Lucky Bone program. Osteoporos Int 27:1569–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Curtis JR, Silverman SL (2013) Commentary: the five Ws of a Fracture Liaison Service: why, who, what, where, and how? In osteoporosis, we reap what we sow. Curr Osteoporos Rep 11(4):365–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chandran M (2013) Fracture Liaison Services in an open system: how was it done? What were the barriers and how were they overcome? Curr Osteoporos Rep 11(4):385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chandran M, Akesson K (2013) Secondary fracture prevention: plucking the low hanging fruit. Ann Acad Med Singapore 42(10):541–544Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drew S et al (2015) Implementation of secondary fracture prevention services after hip fracture: a qualitative study using extended normalization process theory. Implement Sci 10:57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aizer J, Bolster MB (2014) Fracture liaison services: promoting enhanced bone health care. Curr Rheumatol Rep 16(11):455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gaboury I et al (2013) Partnership for fragility bone fracture care provision and prevention program (P4Bones): study protocol for a secondary fracture prevention pragmatic controlled trial. Implement Sci 8:10-5908-8-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kanis JA et al (2001) The burden of osteoporotic fractures: a method for setting intervention thresholds. Osteoporosis Int 12(5):417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Giangregorio L et al (2006) Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon. Semin Arthritis Rheum 35(5):293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leslie WD et al (2011) Construction of a FRAX(R) model for the assessment of fracture probability in Canada and implications for treatment. Osteoporos Int 22(3):817–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Damschroder LJ et al (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4:50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kvale S, Brinkmann S (2009) Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research reviewing. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, vol 3. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roux S et al (2018) Using a sequential explanatory mixed method to evaluate the therapeutic window of opportunity for initiating osteoporosis treatment following fragility fractures. Osteoporos Int 29(4):961–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sale JE et al (2011) Systematic review on interventions to improve osteoporosis investigation and treatment in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2067–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bell K, Strand H, Inder WJ (2014) Effect of a dedicated osteoporosis health professional on screening and treatment in outpatients presenting with acute low trauma non-hip fracture: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos 9:167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Little EA, Eccles MP (2010) A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to improve post-fracture investigation and management of patients at risk of osteoporosis. Implement Sci 5:80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boudou L et al (2011) Management of osteoporosis in fracture liaison service associated with long-term adherence to treatment. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2099–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ruggiero C et al (2015) Fracture prevention service to bridge the osteoporosis care gap. Clin Interv Aging 10:1035–1042Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Luc M et al (2018) Patient-related factors associated with adherence to recommendations made by a fracture liaison service: a mixed-method prospective study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(5):944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Patton MQ (2012) Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. Sage, Angeles, p xxii, 461Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ham C (1995) International models of managed care. Health Care Manag 2(1):143–150Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Research Centre of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  3. 3.Research Centre on AgingSherbrookeCanada
  4. 4.School of Rehabilitation, Pavillon Gérald-Lasalle, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  5. 5.Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  6. 6.School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of MedicineUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  7. 7.Health technology assessment unit of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Estrie, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l’Estrie, CHUS)SherbrookeCanada
  8. 8.Research Center Charles-LeMoyne Saguenay sur les innovations en santéLongueuilCanada

Personalised recommendations