Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To review the 3-year performance of an established osteoporosis care service and consider further improvements in an effort to reduce fragility fractures. METHODS: Osteoporosis care has been coordinated for all willing and able patients with orthopedic fragility fractures in our health system by a nurse and medical director since 2003, using a guideline-based care algorithm and task management software. Patients were followed by telephone for 2 years to monitor their status and optimize adherence to treatment. Demographics, management recommendations, clinical data, and adherence to treatment were reviewed for the 2003-2005 patient population. RESULTS: Of 1,019 patients with fragility fractures, 61% underwent osteoporosis evaluation and treatment. The remainder included 15% who refused to participate and 24% who were unable to participate for various logistical and health reasons. More patients age >80 years were unwilling or unable to participate. Bone densities (dual x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]) were normal, low, or osteoporotic in 24%, 55%, and 21% of patients, respectively, and 60% of the osteoporotic group had > or = 1 abnormal metabolic bone laboratory result. Only 17% of the total reported a previous fracture, and 47% had ever undergone DXA. Few experienced bone loss, a new fracture, or bisphosphonate intolerance during treatment. CONCLUSION: An osteoporosis care service has coordinated care for every willing and able fragility fracture patient with positive outcomes. In addition, the results suggest a high priority for earlier proactive diagnosis and intervention of the at-risk population if fractures are to be reduced.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harrington et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: