Describing variation in the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: an overview of 11 hospitals within one regional area in England
Describing variation in the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: an overview of 11 hospitals within one regional area in England
Summary: there is variation in how services to prevent second fractures after hip fracture are organised. We explored this in more detail at 11 hospitals. Results showed that there was unwarranted variation across a number of aspects of care. This information can be used to inform service delivery in the future.
Introduction: hip fractures are usually the result of low impact falls and underlying osteoporosis. Since the risk of further fractures in osteoporotic patients can be reduced by between 20 and 70 % with bone protection therapy, the NHS is under an obligation to provide effective fracture prevention services for hip fracture patients to reduce risk of further fractures. Evidence suggests there is variation in service organisation. The objective of the study was to explore this variation in more detail by looking at the services provided in one region in England.
Methods: a questionnaire was designed which included questions around staffing, models of care and how the four components of fracture prevention (case finding, osteoporosis assessment, treatment initiation and adherence (monitoring) were undertaken. We also examined falls prevention services. Clinicians involved in the delivery of osteoporosis services at 11 hospitals in one region in England completed the questionnaire.
Results: the service overview showed significant variation in service organisation across all aspects of care examined. All sites provided some form of case finding and assessment. However, interesting differences arose when we examined how these components were structured. Eight sites generally initiated treatment in an inpatient setting, two in outpatients and one in primary care. Monitoring was undertaken by secondary care at seven sites and the remainder conducted by GPs.
Conclusions: the variability in service provision was not explained by local variations in care need. Further work is now needed to establish how the variability in service provision affects key patient, clinical and health economic outcomes.
2427-2433
Drew, S.
0b2cbf84-90e4-4186-9714-07e7288daa1e
Sheard, S.
e6cc1bbe-dcb3-4aab-a51f-4f912213ebeb
Chana, J.
b60220f9-d766-478a-9ee9-50296e25c1f5
Cooper, C.
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Javaid, M.K.
51d3310b-032e-4c15-83ac-b878bce090f3
Judge, A.
c6a83964-1d7c-4aa8-b2bf-9c264d1e487d
October 2014
Drew, S.
0b2cbf84-90e4-4186-9714-07e7288daa1e
Sheard, S.
e6cc1bbe-dcb3-4aab-a51f-4f912213ebeb
Chana, J.
b60220f9-d766-478a-9ee9-50296e25c1f5
Cooper, C.
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Javaid, M.K.
51d3310b-032e-4c15-83ac-b878bce090f3
Judge, A.
c6a83964-1d7c-4aa8-b2bf-9c264d1e487d
Drew, S., Sheard, S., Chana, J., Cooper, C., Javaid, M.K. and Judge, A.
(2014)
Describing variation in the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: an overview of 11 hospitals within one regional area in England.
Osteoporosis International, 25 (10), .
(doi:10.1007/s00198-014-2775-5).
(PMID:24964893)
Abstract
Summary: there is variation in how services to prevent second fractures after hip fracture are organised. We explored this in more detail at 11 hospitals. Results showed that there was unwarranted variation across a number of aspects of care. This information can be used to inform service delivery in the future.
Introduction: hip fractures are usually the result of low impact falls and underlying osteoporosis. Since the risk of further fractures in osteoporotic patients can be reduced by between 20 and 70 % with bone protection therapy, the NHS is under an obligation to provide effective fracture prevention services for hip fracture patients to reduce risk of further fractures. Evidence suggests there is variation in service organisation. The objective of the study was to explore this variation in more detail by looking at the services provided in one region in England.
Methods: a questionnaire was designed which included questions around staffing, models of care and how the four components of fracture prevention (case finding, osteoporosis assessment, treatment initiation and adherence (monitoring) were undertaken. We also examined falls prevention services. Clinicians involved in the delivery of osteoporosis services at 11 hospitals in one region in England completed the questionnaire.
Results: the service overview showed significant variation in service organisation across all aspects of care examined. All sites provided some form of case finding and assessment. However, interesting differences arose when we examined how these components were structured. Eight sites generally initiated treatment in an inpatient setting, two in outpatients and one in primary care. Monitoring was undertaken by secondary care at seven sites and the remainder conducted by GPs.
Conclusions: the variability in service provision was not explained by local variations in care need. Further work is now needed to establish how the variability in service provision affects key patient, clinical and health economic outcomes.
Text
'Archives of Osteoporosis' Describing variation in the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture, revised manuscript.docx
- Other
More information
Published date: October 2014
Organisations:
Human Development & Health
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 370134
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/370134
ISSN: 0937-941X
PURE UUID: 0a3db3f1-e98b-4d31-8e98-af3dcf43bc28
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 23 Oct 2014 11:23
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 02:45
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
S. Drew
Author:
S. Sheard
Author:
J. Chana
Author:
M.K. Javaid
Author:
A. Judge
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics