Document Server@UHasselt >
Research publications >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Implementation of osteoporosis guidelines: a survey of five large fracture liaison services in the Netherlands|
|Authors: ||Huntjens, K. M. B.|
van Geel, T. A. C. M.
Blonk, M. C.
Hegeman, J. H.
van der Elst, M.
van Helden, S. H.
|Issue Date: ||2011|
|Publisher: ||SPRINGER LONDON LTD|
|Citation: ||OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 22(7). p. 2129-2135|
|Abstract: ||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. 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. 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)). 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). 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.|
|Notes: ||[Huntjens, K. M. B.] Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care Caphri, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands. [Huntjens, K. M. B.; Brink, P.] MUMC, Dept Trauma Surg, Maastricht, Netherlands. [van Geel, T. A. C. M.] Maastricht Univ, Dept Gen Practice Caphri, Maastricht, Netherlands. [Blonk, M. C.] Catharina Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Eindhoven, Netherlands. [Hegeman, J. H.] Ziekenhuisgrp Twente Almelo, Dept Surg, Almelo, Netherlands. [van der Elst, M.] Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Dept Surg, Delft, Netherlands. [Willems, P.] Maastricht Univ Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed, Maastricht, Netherlands. [Winkens, B.] Maastricht Univ, Dept Methodol & Stat, Maastricht, Netherlands. [Geusens, P. P.] Maastricht Hasselt Univ, Dept Internal Med Subdiv Rheumatol, Biomed Res Inst, MUMC, Diepenbeek, Belgium. [van Helden, S. H.] Isala Klin, Dept Trauma Surg, Zwolle, Netherlands.
|ISI #: ||000291227700008|
|Type: ||Journal Contribution|
|Validation: ||ecoom, 2012|
|Appears in Collections: ||Research publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.