Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery

Sarah Drew, Andrew D Judge, Colin Cooper, M K Javaid, A Farmer, R Gooberman-Hill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)
244 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Summary

There is variation in how services to prevent secondary fractures after hip fracture are delivered and no consensus on best models of care. This study identifies healthcare professionals’ views on effective care for the prevention of these fractures. It is hoped this will provide information on how to develop services.

Introduction

Hip fracture patients are at high risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures. Whilst fracture prevention services are recommended, there is variation in delivery and no consensus on best models of care. This study aims to identify healthcare professionals’ views on effective care for prevention of secondary fracture after hip fracture.

Methods

Forty-three semi-structured interviews were undertaken with healthcare professionals involved in delivering fracture prevention across 11 hospitals in one English region. Interviews explored views on four components of care: (1) case finding, (2) osteoporosis assessment, (3) treatment initiation, and (4) monitoring and coordination. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVivo software.

Results

Case finding: a number of approaches were discussed. Multiple methods ensured there was a ‘backstop’ if patients were overlooked. Osteoporosis assessment: there was no consensus on who should conduct this. The location of the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner influenced the likelihood of patients receiving a scan. Treatment initiation: it was felt this was best done in inpatients rather request initiation in the post-discharge/outpatients period. Monitoring (adherence): adherence was a major concern, and participants felt more monitoring could be conducted by secondary care. Coordination of care: participants advocated using dedicated coordinators and formal and informal methods of communication. A gap between primary and secondary care was identified and strategies suggested for addressing this.

Conclusions

A number of ways of organising effective fracture prevention services after hip fracture were identified. It is hoped that this will help professionals identify gaps in care and provide information on how to develop services.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1719-1727
Number of pages9
JournalOsteoporosis International
Volume27
Issue number5
Early online date12 Jan 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2016

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Fracture
  • Fragility
  • Hip
  • Osteoporosis
  • Qualitative

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this