Comparison of 2 fracture risk estimation processes in Alberta: a cross-sectional chart review.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, decisions regarding osteoporosis pharmacotherapy are based on estimated 10-year risk of osteoporotic fracture. We aimed to determine how frequently 2 common approaches (Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada [CAROC] tool and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX]) produced different estimates and to seek possible explanations for differences. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional chart review at a tertiary osteoporosis centre (Dr. David Hanley Osteoporosis Centre in Calgary). Included patients were women referred for consideration of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy who attended a consultation between 2016 and 2019 and whose charts contained 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk estimates using both the CAROC tool (based on bone mineral density [BMD] results) and FRAX (based on BMD results and clinically assessed fracture risk factors). Risk estimates provided on BMD reports (calculated with CAROC) and generated through osteoporosis clinic consultation (calculated with FRAX, including BMD) were categorized as low (< 10.0%), moderate (10.0%-19.9%) or high (≥ 20.0%). Estimates were considered discordant when they placed the patient in different risk categories. RESULTS: Of 190 patients evaluated, 99 (52.1%) had discordant risk estimates. Although a similar proportion were considered high risk by BMD reports using the CAROC tool (17.9%) and clinic charts using FRAX (19.5%), the 2 methods identified different patients as being high risk. Around the crucial high-risk (20.0%) treatment threshold, discordance was present in 37 patients (19.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.5%-25.7%); discordance around the moderate-risk (10.0%) threshold was present in 69 (36.3%, 95% CI 29.5%-43.2%) patients. Disagreement regarding fracture history between BMD reports and clinic charts was observed in 19.8% of patients. INTERPRETATION: Fracture risk estimates on BMD reports (using the CAROC tool) and those calculated in the clinical setting (using FRAX) frequently result in different risk classification. Osteoporosis treatment decisions may differ in up to half of patients depending on which estimate is used, highlighting the need for a consistent and accurate assessment process for fracture risk.

Group medical consultation for osteoporosis: a prospective pilot study of patient experience in Canadian tertiary care.

BACKGROUND: Delivery of patient-centred care is limited by physician time. Group medical consultations may save physician time without compromising patient experience. AIM: To assess patient experience and specialist physician time commitment in a group consultation for osteoporosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective pilot study at a tertiary osteoporosis centre in Canada between May 2016 and June 2019. METHOD: The authors evaluated women referred for osteoporosis who chose a 2-hour group consultation instead of a one-to-one consultation. Group consultations were led by an osteoporosis nurse and specialist physician, and consisted of individualised fracture risk assessment and education regarding osteoporosis therapies, followed by a decision-making exercise to choose a treatment plan. Patients then followed up with their GPs to implement this plan. Patient experience was assessed via a questionnaire immediately and 3 months post-consultation, at which time GP satisfaction and patient treatment status were also surveyed. RESULTS: Of 560 referrals received, 18 patients declined osteoporosis specialist assessment, 54 could not be contacted, 303 attended a one-to- one consultation, and 185 attended a group consultation. Mean participant age was 62.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 5.8) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk was 13.0 (SD 7.0)%. Immediately post-consultation, 104 (97.2%) patients were satisfied and 102 (95.3%) felt included in decision making. Satisfaction was reported by 95/99 (96.0%) patients and 27/36 (75.0%) GPs. Treatment plans had been enacted by 90 (90.1%) patients. For a matched number of individual consultations, each group session conferred a specialist physician time savings of 5.5 hours. CONCLUSION: Group consultations represent a satisfactory and time-efficient alternative to one-to-one consultations for select patients with osteoporosis.

Autonomy begets adherence: decisions to start and persist with osteoporosis treatment after group medical consultation.

Many individuals prescribed osteoporosis pharmacotherapy either do not start or do not persist with treatment. In this study, women who attended a group medical visit at an osteoporosis center which involved fracture risk assessment and focused on autonomous decision-making made treatment decisions with high confidence. Those who started pharmacotherapy were highly persistent. PURPOSE: Adherence and persistence with osteoporosis pharmacotherapy is low, possibly reflecting lack of confidence in physicians' treatment recommendations. We evaluated treatment decisions, decisional confidence, and 12-month treatment adherence among women who attended a group bone health consultation that fostered autonomous decision-making. METHODS: We prospectively assessed postmenopausal women referred to an osteoporosis clinic who chose to attend a group medical visit in lieu of one-on-one consultation. The group visit was facilitated by a specialist physician and nurse, involving estimation of 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk (using FRAX®) and extensive education regarding fracture consequences and potential advantages and disadvantages of pharmacotherapy. No direct advice was given by the specialist. Post-consult, participants made an autonomous decision regarding treatment intent and followed up with their family physician to enact their chosen plan. Intentions to initiate pharmacotherapy were assessed immediately post-consult. Treatment status and decisional confidence were evaluated 3 and 12 months later. Three-month treatment status was considered to reflect final treatment decision. Persistence was defined as proportion of participants on treatment at 3 months who remained treated at 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred one women (mean (SD) age, 62.7 years (5.8); median (IQR) FRAX®, 10.7% (8.3-17.6)) participated. Immediately post-consult, 27 (26.7%) intended to initiate treatment. At 3 months, 23 (22.8%) were treated, and at 12 months, 21 (91.3%) remained persistent. Of 89 questionnaire respondents at 12 months, 85 (95.5%) reported confidence in their treatment decision. CONCLUSION: When postmenopausal women are provided with individualized fracture risk estimates and enabled to make autonomous decisions regarding pharmacotherapy, ultimate decisions to receive treatment are made with confidence and result in high persistence at 12 months.

At Odds About the Odds: Women's Choices to Accept Osteoporosis Medications Do Not Closely Agree with Physician-Set Treatment Thresholds.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis guidelines recommend pharmacologic therapy based on 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture, which may fail to account for patient-specific experiences and values. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether patient decisions to initiate osteoporosis medication agree with guideline-recommended intervention thresholds. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study included women aged ≥ 45 with age-associated osteoporosis who attended a group osteoporosis self-management consultation at a tertiary osteoporosis center. INTERVENTION: A group osteoporosis self-management consultation, during which participants received osteoporosis education and then calculated1 their 10-year MOF and hip fracture risk using FRAX and2 their predicted absolute fracture risk with therapy (assuming 40% relative reduction). Participants then made autonomous decisions regarding treatment initiation. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated agreement between treatment decisions and physician-set intervention thresholds (10-year MOF risk ≥ 20%, hip fracture risk ≥ 3%). KEY RESULTS: Among 85 women (median [IQR] age 62 [58-67]), 27% accepted treatment (median [IQR] MOF risk, 15.1% [9.9-22.0]; hip fracture risk, 3.3% [1.3-5.3]), 46% declined (MOF risk, 9.5% [6.5-11.6]; hip fracture risk, 1.8% [0.6-2.3]), and 27% remained undecided (MOF risk, 14.0% [9.8-20.2]; hip fracture risk, 4.4% [1.7-4.9]). There was wide overlap in fracture risk between treatment acceptors and non-acceptors. Odds of accepting treatment were higher in women with prior fragility fracture (50% accepted; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.9-15.2; p = 0.0015) and with hip fracture risk ≥ 3% (32% accepted; OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.4-9.2; p = 0.012), but not MOF risk ≥ 20% (47% accepted; OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.0-8.5; p = 0.105). CONCLUSIONS: Informed decisions to start osteoporosis treatment are highly personal and not easily predicted using fracture risk. Guideline-recommended intervention thresholds may not permit sufficient consideration of patient preferences.

A study of the effectiveness of performance-focused methodology for improved outcomes in Alberta public healthcare.

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a performance-focused methodology for engaging multidisciplinary, frontline healthcare teams in making behavioural changes that improve patient care and health system efficiency. Results include significant declines in average length of stay in hospital and waiting time for surgery, and a dramatic increase in early patient ambulation. Performance-focused methodology using key performance indicators, targets, measurement, and ongoing feedback, supported by non-monetary incentives, can quickly improve healthcare outcomes.