Brigham fracture intervention team initiatives for hospital patients with hip fractures: a paradigm shift

Vitamin D Deficiency Treatment Patterns in Academic Urban Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

Assess racial/ethnic and sex differences in treatment of vitamin D deficiency with high dose ergocalciferol ('vitamin D2') or other forms of vitamin D in a northeastern U.S. ambulatory clinic of an academic urban medical center.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational review of electronic medication prescribing records of patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) deficiency (25OHD < 20 ng/ml) from 2004-2008.

METHODS

Using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for patients' demographics, and Elixhauser comorbidity score, we examined the association of sex and race/ethnicity with prescription for at least one dose of vitamin D.

RESULTS

Among 2,140 patients without renal disease and tested for 25OHD deficiency (25OHD < 20 ng/ml), 66.2% received no vitamin D prescription for vitamin D deficiency. Blacks and Hispanics received vitamin D prescriptions at a higher frequency than whites, 37.8% 38.4% and 30.9%, respectively, p=0.003. The vitamin D prescription rate for women versus men was 26.3% and 7.5%, respectively, p=0.04. In a fully adjusted model, no difference in prescription likelihood for blacks and whites [OR=1.18 95% CI, 0.88-1.58; p=0.29] or Hispanics and whites was noted [OR=1.01 95% CI, 0.70-1.45;p=0.73]. Similarly, fully adjusted model showed no difference in prescription likelihood for females and males [OR=1.23 95% CI, 0.93-1.63; p=0.12].

CONCLUSIONS

Among primary care patients with vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D supplementation was low and white patients were less likely to receive vitamin D treatment than blacks or Hispanics. Interventions to correct the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency should address the markedly low rate of vitamin D prescribing when 25OHD levels are measured.

Secondary fracture prevention

Osteoporosis causes no symptoms until there is a fracture. Although screening for osteoporosis is recommended for some populations, patients may present with a fragility fracture. Such patients are at high risk for subsequent fractures. Despite this high risk and the presence of generally safe and effective osteoporosis therapy, only a minority of low trauma fracture patients have evaluation and treatment of underlying osteoporosis. A brief summary of the evaluation and medical treatment of the post-fracture patient is provided. Several institutions, integrated health systems, and countries have instituted programs to identify, evaluate, and treat fragility fracture patients. Such programs have had variable success. This article describes some of the programs that work, their cost-effectiveness, and the applicability to the generally non-integrated US health care system. It is clear that better management of the post-fracture patient (and other high-risk patients) will lead to fewer fractures, decreased morbidity and mortality, and long-term cost savings.

Medical management in the acute hip fracture patient: a comprehensive review for the internist

Each year, more than 250,000 Americans will suffer a broken hip from a fall from no more than standing height. The National Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that more than 500,000 acute hip fractures will occur annually by the year 2040. The costs associated with this healthcare phenomenon are staggering and will continue to increase with an aging population.Hospitalists routinely comanage orthopedic patients as either consultants or as primary physicians in the hospital setting. A unique set of problems exists in this population. Among them are perioperative cardiac risk, perioperative anemia from acute blood loss, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and problems with the timing of surgery. It is imperative that hospitalists understand the orthopedic surgeon's point of view in managing these particular problems and become familiar with the evidence supporting or refuting treatment modalities related to these subject areas. In addition, an understanding of the anatomy and surgical options and complications related to each type of fracture allows the hospitalist to become familiar with postoperative rehabilitation needs. It cannot be overstated that addressing hip fracture prevention must be a part of every patient's perioperative care because the incidence of a repeat fracture is significant. Morbidity related to the fracture and comorbidities also need close examination.This article aims to provide a solid understanding of the issues associated with the acute hip fracture population to enhance practice and allow for the best outcome for patients.

Bone quality: educational tools for patients, physicians, and educators

BACKGROUND

Defining bone quality remains elusive. From a patient perspective bone quality can best be defined as an individual's likelihood of sustaining a fracture. Fracture risk indicators and performance measures can help clinicians better understand individual fracture risk. Educational resources such as the Web can help clinicians and patients better understand fracture risk, communicate effectively, and make decisions concerning diagnosis and treatment.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We examined four questions: What tools can be used to identify individuals at high risk for fracture? What clinical performance measures are available? What strategies can help ensure that patients at risk for fracture are identified? What are some authoritative Web sites for educating providers and patients about bone quality?

METHODS

Using Google, PUBMED, and trademark names, we reviewed the literature using the terms "bone quality" and "osteoporosis education." Web site legitimacy was evaluated using specific criteria. Educational Web sites were limited to English-language sites sponsored by nonprofit organizations

RESULTS

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool® (FRAX®) and the Fracture Risk Calculator (FRC) are reliable means of assessing fracture risk. Performance measures relating to bone health were developed by the AMA convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement® and are included in the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. In addition, quality measures have been developed by the Joint Commission. Strategies for identifying individuals at risk include designating responsibility for case finding and intervention, evaluating secondary causes of osteoporosis, educating patients and providers, performing cost-effectiveness evaluation, and using information technology. An abundance of authoritative educational Web sites exists for providers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective clinical indicators, performance measures, and educational tools to better understand and identify fracture risk are now available. The next challenge is to encourage broader use of these resources so that individuals at high risk for fracture will not just be identified but will also adhere to therapy.