7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Cost-Effectiveness of Orthogeriatric and Fracture Liaison Service Models of Care for Hip Fracture Patients: A Population-Based Study : COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FRACTURE LIAISON SERVICE MODELS

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="P1">Fracture liaison services are recommended as a model of best practice for organising patient care and secondary fracture prevention for hip fracture patients, although variation exists in how such services are structured. There is considerable uncertainty as to which model is most cost-effective and should therefore be mandated. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of orthogeriatric (OG) and nurse-led fracture liaison service (FLS) models of post-hip fracture care compared to usual care. Analyses were conducted from a healthcare and personal social services payer perspective, using a Markov model to estimate the lifetime impact of the models of care. The base-case population consisted of men and women aged 83 years with a hip fracture. The risk and costs of hip and non-hip fractures were derived from large primary and hospital care datasets in the UK. Utilities were informed by a meta-regression of 32 studies. In the base-case analysis, the orthogeriatric-led service was the most effective and cost-effective model of care at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY). For women age 83 years, the OG-led service was the most cost-effective at £22,709/QALY. If only healthcare costs are considered, OG-led service was cost-effective at £12,860/QALY and £14,525/QALY for women and men aged 83 years, respectively. Irrespective of how patients were stratified in terms of their age, sex, and Charlson co-morbidity score at index hip fracture, our results suggest that introducing an orthogeriatrician-led or a nurse-led FLS is cost-effective when compared to usual care. Although, considerable uncertainty remains concerning which of the models of care should be preferred, introducing an orthogeriatrician-led service seems to be the most cost-effective service to pursue. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Making the first fracture the last fracture: ASBMR task force report on secondary fracture prevention.

          Fragility fractures are common, affecting almost one in two older women and one in three older men. Every fragility fracture signals increased risk of future fractures as well as risk of premature mortality. Despite the major health care impact worldwide, currently there are few systems in place to identify and "capture" individuals after a fragility fracture to ensure appropriate assessment and treatment (according to national guidelines) to reduce future fracture risk and adverse health outcomes. The Task Force reviewed the current evidence about different systematic interventional approaches, their logical background, as well as the medical and ethical rationale. This included reviewing the evidence supporting cost-effective interventions and developing a toolkit for reducing secondary fracture incidence. This report presents this evidence for cost-effective interventions versus the human and health care costs associated with the failure to address further fractures. In particular, it summarizes the evidence for various forms of Fracture Liaison Service as the most effective intervention for secondary fracture prevention. It also summarizes the evidence that certain interventions, particularly those based on patient and/or community-focused educational approaches, are consistently, if unexpectedly, ineffective. As an international group, representing 36 countries throughout Asia-Pacific, South America, Europe, and North America, the Task Force reviewed and summarized the international data on barriers encountered in implementing risk-reduction strategies. It presents the ethical imperatives for providing quality of care in osteoporosis management. As part of an implementation strategy, it describes both the quality improvement methods best suited to transforming care and the research questions that remain outstanding. The overarching outcome of the Task Force's work has been the provision of a rational background and the scientific evidence underpinning secondary fracture prevention and stresses the utility of one form or another of a Fracture Liaison Service in achieving those quality outcomes worldwide. © 2012 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Copyright © 2012 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients.

            The underlying causes of incident fractures--bone fragility and the tendency to fall--remain under-diagnosed and under-treated. This care gap in secondary prevention must be addressed to minimise both the debilitating consequences of subsequent fractures for patients and the associated economic burden to healthcare systems. Clinical systems aimed at ensuring appropriate management of patients following fracture have been developed around the world. A systematic review of the literature showed that 65% of systems reported include a dedicated coordinator who acts as the link between the orthopaedic team, the osteoporosis and falls services, the patient and the primary care physician. Coordinator-based systems facilitate bone mineral density testing, osteoporosis education and care in patients following a fragility fracture and have been shown to be cost-saving. Other success factors included a fracture registry and a database to monitor the care provided to the fracture patient. Implementation of such a system requires an audit of existing arrangements, creation of a network of healthcare professionals with clearly defined roles and the identification of a 'medical champion' to lead the project. A business case is needed to acquire the necessary funding. Incremental, achievable targets should be identified. Clinical pathways should be supported by evidence-based recommendations from national or regional guidelines. Endorsement of the proposed model within national healthcare policies and advocacy programmes can achieve alignment of the objectives of policy makers, professionals and patients. Successful transformation of care relies upon consensus amongst all participants in the multi-disciplinary team that cares for fragility fracture patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of hip fracture on hospital care costs: a population-based study

              Summary Using a large cohort of hip fracture patients, we estimated hospital costs to be £14,163 and £2139 in the first and second year following fracture, respectively. Second hip and non-hip fractures were major cost drivers. There is a strong economic incentive to identify cost-effective approaches for hip fracture prevention. Introduction The purpose of this study was to estimate hospital costs of hip fracture up to 2 years post-fracture and compare costs before and after the index fracture. Methods A cohort of patients aged over 60 years admitted with a hip fracture in a UK region between 2003 and 2013 were identified from hospital records and followed until death or administrative censoring. All hospital records were valued using 2012/2013 unit costs, and non-parametric censoring methods were used to adjust for censoring when estimating average annual costs. A generalised linear model examined the main predictors of hospital costs. Results A cohort of 33,152 patients with a hip fracture was identified (mean age 83 years (SD 8.2). The mean censor-adjusted 1- and 2-year hospital costs after index hip fracture were £14,163 (95 % confidence interval (CI) £14,008 to £14,317) and £16,302 (95 % CI £16,097 to £16,515), respectively. Index admission accounted for 61 % (£8613; 95 % CI £8565 to £8661) of total 1-year hospital costs which were £10,964 higher compared to the year pre-event (p < 0.001). The main predictors of 1-year hospital costs were second hip fracture, other non-hip fragility fractures requiring hospitalisation and hip fracture-related complications. Total UK annual hospital costs associated with incident hip fractures were estimated at £1.1 billion. Conclusions Hospital costs following hip fracture are high and mostly occur in the first year after the index hip fracture. Experiencing a second hip fracture after the index fracture accounted for much of the increase in costs. There is a strong economic incentive to prioritise research funds towards identifying the best approaches to prevent both index and subsequent hip fractures.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
                J Bone Miner Res
                Wiley
                08840431
                February 2017
                February 2017
                November 01 2016
                : 32
                : 2
                : 203-211
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
                [2 ]Oxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
                [3 ]MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit; University of Southampton; Southampton General Hospital Southampton UK
                [4 ]GREMPAL Research Group (Idiap Jordi Gol) and Musculoskeletal Research Unit (Fundació IMIM-Parc Salut Mar); Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Barcelona Spain
                Article
                10.1002/jbmr.2995
                5321497
                27632945
                6269fd2b-d500-4a0e-a7cf-6dcab9e22950
                © 2016

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article