Search

Background and Objectives: To establish whether posters displayed across the walls on hospital wards are read, what information is important, and how the information should be received., Methods: Sixty-eight staff and 32 patients' relatives were interviewed across 3 older people's medical wards followed by 20 follow-up secondary questionnaires postintervention., Results: Only 23% of those interviewed were able to recall any of the posters displayed, and of those, 34% did not find the information useful. Those interviewed were enthusiastic about utilizing alternative media. A quarter felt the walls across the hospitals wards should be for artwork. Among patients' relatives interviewed, common information requests were "the discharge pathway," "delirium," and "falls." Based on the initial findings, a targeted information board was installed and a mural was painted across the wall in one of the wards. Further post-intervention interviews with patients' relatives showed that the board was well received, but further unmet information needs were uncovered. Despite the new mural, 45% called for more paintings., Conclusion: Most people ignore the posters displayed across the walls of hospital wards, and unmet information needs are rife. An appetite exists for alternative media. Paintings were earnestly called for, highlighting how a comforting environment could be part of the holistic care we offer patients in hospital., (Copyright © 2024 by The National Association of Neonatal Nurses.)

Background: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice., Objectives: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities., Methods: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates., Results: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting., Conclusions: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs., Future Work: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting., Limitations: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: This healthcare quality improvement report focussed on the effectiveness of an orthoptic-led inpatient vision screening service at Nottingham University Hospitals for older adults admitted with a fragility hip fracture. The service was developed in response to national guidance, which recommended a multifactorial assessment, including a vision assessment for older adults presenting following a fall., Method: Vision screening was carried out by orthoptists on eligible patients ≥65 years of age admitted to the trauma and orthopaedic wards with a hip fracture. Retrospective data for patients screened between 2015-2019 were analysed, including: patient demographics; screening eligibility and outcome; ophthalmology referrals made; ophthalmology appointment attendance; and outcome., Results: Of the 3321 patients admitted with a hip fracture between 2015-2019, 2033 (61%) were eligible for vision screening and 1532 (75%) of these were screened. Furthermore, 784 (51%) of the patients screened had an ocular abnormality requiring an ophthalmology referral, or a sight test at an optician. Only 144 of the 383 (38%) who required an ophthalmology referral via the GP were successfully referred, and only 107 of the 186 (58%) patients who were given appointments attended them. Additionally, 98 of 107 had pathology, with cataracts the most common finding (51%), and 61 of 98 (62%) patients had treatable vision impairment., Conclusions: We found a large proportion of fragility hip fracture patients with impaired vision, much of which was treatable and could be detected effectively with orthoptic-led bedside screening. The most common eye problem in those referred to ophthalmology was cataracts. An internal referral pathway to ophthalmology is proposed. There is a need to investigate reasons for disengagement with eye care services in this population., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s).)

Our study aimed to assess the feasibility outcomes comparing spinal medial branch nerve root block intervention to standard care vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures in frail, hospitalised older patients. We found the study to be feasible and now propose a clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and safety evaluation., Introduction: Vertebroplasty (VP) is a key-hole procedure involving injection of bone cement into a fractured vertebral body, to reduce pain and increase vertebral body stability, although it is associated with a small risk of complications, particularly in frail, older hospitalised patients. Medial branch spinal nerve block (MBNB) may be an alternative treatment to alleviate pain symptoms, with less complications; however, no study has prospectively compared the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of MBNB to VP, in frail, older hospitalised patients. The aim of our study was to conduct a 1st stage feasibility study, exploring recruitment, retention and several outcomes measures (means and SDs), together with qualitative interviews to assess participant and clinician views, to inform a definitive larger study., Methods: We conducted a two-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial with participants allocated to continue with routine surgical care-VP or MBNB treatment, with an embedded qualitative study. Data was collected at baseline, week 1, 4, and week 8., Results: Out of 40 eligible patients, 30 (75%) consented to take part in the study. The overall median time from randomisation to intervention was 3 days, IQR 1-7 days, 5 (1-7) days for VP and 2 (1-3) days for MBNB. Median (IQR) length of hospital stay for the VP group was 20 (8) days and for the MBNB 15(22) days. The proportion of completeness of outcome data collection at weeks 1, 4 and 8 was at least 77%: 14 (100%), 12 (85.7%) and 11(78.9%) for VP and 13 (100%), 12 (92.3%) and 10 (76.8%) for MBNB, respectively. There were no significant difference in the clinical outcomes or adverse events between the two groups., Discussion: Our study was feasible in achieving is target recruitment, participants adhered to the randomisation and at least 77% completeness of data at the 8 week end-point (target 75%). We now plan to conduct a definitive clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and safety outcome study, comparing VP to MBNB in frail, older patients hospitalised with an acute vertebral osteoporotic fracture., (© 2023. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.)

Purpose: Worldwide, many people who would benefit from osteoporosis drugs are not offered or receiving them, resulting in an osteoporosis care gap. Adherence with bisphosphonates is particularly low. This study aimed to identify stakeholder research priorities relating to bisphosphonate treatment regimens for prevention of osteoporotic fractures., Methods: A three-step approach based on the James Lind Alliance methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions was used. Research uncertainties were gathered from a large programme of related research studies about bisphosphonate regimens and from recent published international clinical guidelines. Clinical and public stakeholders refined the list of uncertainties into research questions. The third step prioritised the questions using a modified nominal group technique., Results: In total, 34 draft uncertainties were finalised into 33 research questions by stakeholders. The top 10 includes questions relating to which people should be offered intravenous bisphosphonates first line (1); optimal duration of treatment (2); the role of bone turnover markers in treatment breaks (3); support patient need for medicine optimisation (4); support primary care practitioner need regarding bisphosphonates (5); comparing zoledronate given in community vs hospital settings (6); ensuring quality standards are met (7); the long-term model of care (8); best bisphosphonate for people aged under 50 (9); and supporting patient decision-making about bisphosphonates (10)., Conclusion: This study reports, for the first time, topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate osteoporosis treatment regimens. These findings have implications for research into implementation to address the care gap and education of healthcare professionals. Using James Lind Alliance methodology, this study reports prioritised topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis. The priorities address how to better implement guidelines to address the care gap, understanding patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, and how to optimise long-term care., (© 2023. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.)

Background: Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments., Methods: This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation., Results: The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices., Conclusion: Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Malnutrition is common in older people with fragility fractures and is associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased risk of complications. The UK National Health Service has published national standards for food and drink for patients, staff and visitors, in hospitals. These standards describe the methods to ensure quality and sustainability.We assessed these standards and report the nutritional status of older (70 years of age) patients admitted to hospital with fragility fracture, and weighed food trolley and plate waste after lunch and supper for five days.There were 19 older patients with fragility fractures on the trauma and orthopaedic ward. The mean intake for 'nutritionally well' was 1592 kcal/day and 65.7 g/day protein; the mean intake for 'nutritionally vulnerable' was 643 kcal/day and 24.8 g/day protein.Although all key characteristics of good nutrition and hydration care for patients in hospital were achieved, energy and protein intake was poor in the nutritionally vulnerable group. Further interventions are necessary to improve dietary intake in hospital, particularly in those who are nutritionally vulnerable., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Currently in the UK and Ireland, after a hip fracture most patients do not receive bone protection medication to reduce the risk of refracture. Yet randomised controlled trial data specifically examining patients with hip fracture have shown that intravenous zoledronate reduces refracture risk by a third. Despite this evidence, use of intravenous zoledronate is highly variable following a hip fracture; many hospitals are providing this treatment, whilst most are currently not. A range of clinical uncertainties, doubts over the evidence base and practical concerns are cited as reasons. This paper discusses these concerns and provides guidance from expert consensus, aiming to assist orthogeriatricians, pharmacists and health services managers establish local protocols to deliver this highly clinically and cost-effective treatment to patients before they leave hospital, in order to reduce costly re-fractures in this frail population., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Oral nutritional supplement (ONS) prescription iscommonly recommended for older patients with hip fractures. However, ONS compliance is often low. Ice cream may be a promising nutritional intervention. Using a Plan-Do-Study Act methodology we describe the second cycle of a project using an ice cream based nutritional supplement called Nottingham-Ice cream (N-ICE CREAM) to address malnutrition in older adults. The project aimed to identify whether N-ICE CREAM is a suitable option/alternative to standard ONS., Methods: Fifty older (≥ 65 years) inpatients with hip or spine fractures were recruited. Both groups received two days each of N-ICE CREAMand milkshake ONS. We measured compliance, acceptability (rating 0"dislike a lot" to 7 "like a lot"), attitudes towards prescription length (rating 0 "very unconfident" to 4 "very confident") and preference., Results: Mean (standard deviation, SD) patient age was 80.6 (7.7) years. The majority (n = 21, 67.7%) preferred N-ICE CREAM. Mean compliance to N-ICE CREAM was greater in both groups (group A (n = 22) 69.9 (30.0)% and group B (n = 26) 56.3 (39.3)%) compared to milkshake ONS (group A (n = 22) 43.4 (4.7)% and group B (n = 26) 53.6 ± (40.2)%). Mean acceptability ratings were higher for N-ICE CREAM, thus the overall impression score was greater. Confidence score for both products decreased with increasing time., Conclusions: N-ICE CREAM is more accepted by older patients with hip or spine fractures compared to milkshake ONS. Further research should explore long-term compliance and clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Our database aimed to assess the impact of vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) on hospitalisation in England. The results showed that admissions secondary to VFF are increasing annually, more significantly in patients aged 75 years and over. Vertebral augmentation has been showed to reduce length of stay in hospital., Introduction: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) are the most common osteoporotic fracture. VFF can result in significant pain requiring hospitalisation. However, there are little data on patient numbers, hospital bed days, and costs, contributed to by these patients., Methodology: We report a retrospective analysis of patients aged 55 years and over admitted to hospitals across England from 2017 to 2019. ICD-10 classifications for VFF and OPCS codes were used to identify admissions and patients who had undergone vertebral augmentation (VA)., Results: There were 99,370 patients (61% female) admitted during this period, with 64,370 (65%) patients aged over 75 years. There was a 14.3% average increase in admissions annually. Patients aged over 75 years accounted for 1.5 million bed days, costing £465 million (median length of stay (MLOS) 14.4 days). In comparison, those aged 55-74 years, accounted for 659,000 bed days, costing £239 million (MLOS 10.7 days). The majority of patients (84%) were admitted under a non-surgical speciality and were primarily older (median age 76.8 vs 67.6 years, MLOS 8.2 vs 6.0 days), compared to those admitted to surgical wards 1755 patients underwent vertebral augmentation (VA) (1.8% of the total cohort). The median age of patients undergoing VA was 73.3 years, with 775 (44.2%) of these were aged 75 years and over. In comparison, the median age of patients managed conservatively (non-surgically) was 75.7 years, with 63,595 patients (65.1%) aged 75 years and over. The MLOS and cost per patient admission were lower in the VA group compared to those managed non-surgically., Conclusion: Hospitalised VFF patients represented a significant number, cost, and use of bed days. Those undergoing VA had a significantly shorter length of stay. Further studies are necessary to define those who may benefit from early VA., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Osteoporosis is common in older adults leading to fragility fractures at enormous individual and economic cost. Improving long-term adherence with bisphosphonate treatments reduces fracture risk, but adherence rates for first-line oral bisphosphonate alendronate remains low. Although alternative treatment regimens, including annual intravenous infusions are available, patient acceptability remains unclear. Therefore, understanding patients' acceptability and engagement in different bisphosphonate regimens is important to ensure optimal treatment benefits., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 78 patients with a mean age of 69.9 years, who had taken or received bisphosphonates for osteoporosis within the last 24 months. Data analysis included iterative categorisation and used the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) to compare the acceptability of treatments regimens., Results: Treatment acceptability and engagement were influenced by the extent to which patients understood the prescribed treatment, and evidence of the treatment working. Acceptability and engagement were compromised when treatment was perceived as burdensome, personal costs were incurred, and patients' values were incompatible with the regimen. The balancing of these factors contributed to patients' ability to cope with the treatment and their emotional responses. Intravenous treatment was generally perceived as easier to understand, more effective, less burdensome with fewer opportunity costs, and a preferable regimen compared with oral bisphosphonates., Conclusions: Annual intravenous zoledronate bisphosphonate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients, perceived as more straightforward to engage in, although a small portion of patients on oral bisphosphonates were satisfied with treatment. Further research is needed to identify how acceptability and engagement can be optimised., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: The incidence of hip fractures is increasing exponentially due to an aging Brazilian population. Older people had significant comorbidities which increases the risk of post-operative mortality. Our purpose was to examine the association between pre-operative infections and comorbidities on the risk of post-operative in-hospital mortality after proximal femur fracture surgery's, beyond that, to evaluate the association between comorbidities and time to surgery., Methods: This is a population-based cohort retrospective study, using medical records of all six year consecutive surgical procedures for correction of hip fracture in a tertiary teaching Hospital in Brazil. The exclusion criteria aimed to exclusively allocate patients who had their first hip fracture secondary to low-energy trauma. Multivariate logistical regression was performed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with area under curve (AUC) to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the model. p-value < 0.05 was considered significant., Results: Final sample was composed by 856 consecutive patients with 81 years of median and 164 patients were excluded. The median length of hospital say was five days with - l mortality at 3.6%. Significant variables for increased mortality included the presence of pre-operative infection (odds ratio (OR): 3.9(1.12-8.54), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR: 3.83(1.36-10.82)), and systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) (OR: 4.1(1.18-14.25)). Development of pre-operative infection was associated with a delay to surgery (OR: 1.1 (1.08-1.13))., Conclusions: In older people with proximal femur fracture, the presence of pre-operative infection, COPD and SAH were the strongest risk factor for post-operative in-hospital mortality. Pre-operative infection was associated with statistically significant delay to surgery., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.)

Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) are considered the most effective model for the prevention of subsequent fractures however, the uptake of these services has shown to be suboptimal. 6,528 patients were identified and referred on for bone densitometry assessment over a 6 yr period, however, 21% of these patients did not attend, with a trend towards a higher re-fracture rate in those that did not attend compared to those that did. The presence of a fragility fracture increases the risk of further fractures. Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) are considered the most effective model for the prevention of subsequent fractures, although the uptake amongst patients invited for bone densitometry assessment has shown to be suboptimal. The UK has one of the most comprehensive numbers of FLS, however the proportion and characteristics of patients identified through the FLS that do not respond to bone densitometry invitation, in the UK, remains unclear. We report the 6 yr. findings from the Nottingham FLS. The Nottingham Fracture Liaison Service (N-FLS) systematically identifies those adults aged 50 yr. and older with fragility fractures presenting to the fracture clinic and where appropriate, arranges referral for bone densitometry assessment. Routine clinical data is collected onto the N-FLS database. Patient characteristics, between January 2012 and December 2017, were examined of those referred for bone densitometry examination, comparing those that attended to those that did not attend (DNA). Deprivation scores for each patient were calculated using the English indices of deprivation 2015 (1-Most deprived; 5- Least deprived). Follow up data was available for those attending from 2016 onwards, which allowed an assessment of re-fracture. Over the 6 yr period, 6,528 patients as identified by the N-FLS were referred on for bone densitometry assessment. 1,386 patients (21%) did not attend (DNA) for bone densitometry assessment. The proportion was similar for each of the years. High prevalence of non-attendance was in females [1032 patients (74%)] and the most deprived individuals [398 patients (29%), which were significant when compared to those that did attend, p=0.042]. 826 patients were referred in 2016. Median follow-up time was 2.46 yr. (IQR 0.16-3.00 yr.). 52 (7%) patients, in this group, sustained a subsequent fracture (35 patients in the group that did not attend for bone density assessment and 17 in those that attend, p=0.092). Nottingham FLS have identified patients with fragility fractures that are at high-risk of further fractures. Despite a dedicated FLS, 21% of those invited for bone densitometry assessment, did not attend for their appointment, over the 6 yr. period, similar proportion each year. There was a significantly higher proportion of those identified as 'most deprived' not attending for a bone densitometry, compared to those who attended. Sub-analysis in those aged 75 yr. and over, showed a high non-attendance in this group. Further qualitative studies are necessary to explore this patient group in detail, who remain at high risk of re-fracture., (Copyright © 2021 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture found in older people, resulting in increasing morbidity and excess mortality. These fractures can cause significant pain, requiring admission to hospital. Vertebroplasty (VP) is effective in reducing pain and allowing early mobilisation in hospitalised patients. However, it may be associated with complications such as cement leakage, infection, bleeding at the injection site and fracture of adjacent vertebrae. It is also costly and not readily accessible in many UK hospitals.A recent retrospective study reported that spinal medial branch nerve block (MBNB), typically used to treat facet arthropathy, had similar efficacy in terms of pain relief compared with VP for the treatment of painful VFF. However, to date, no study has prospectively compared MBNB to VP. We therefore propose a prospective feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare the role of MBNB to VP, in hospitalised older patients., Method: A parallel, two-arm RCT with participants allocated on a 1:1 ratio to either standard care-VP or MBNB in hospitalised patients aged over 70 with acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Follow-up will be at weeks 1, 4 and 8 post intervention. The primary objective is to determine the feasibility and design of a future trial, including specific outcomes of recruitment, adherence to randomisation and safety. Embedded within the trial will be a health economic evaluation to understand resource utilisation and implications of the intervention and a qualitative study of the experiences and insights of trial participants and clinicians. Secondary outcomes will include pain scores, analgesia requirements, resource use and quality of life data., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was granted by the Yorkshire & the Humber Research Ethics Committee ( reference 21/YH/0065 ). AVERT (Acute VertEbRal AugmentaTion) has received approval by the Health Research Authority ( reference IRAS 293210 ) and is sponsored by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust ( reference 21HC001 ). Recruitment is ongoing. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to appropriate journals for publication on completion., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN18334053., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To determine the feasibility of designing and conducting a definitive trial to evaluate the effectiveness of sacral fracture fixation compared with non-surgical management among older people admitted with a lateral compression pelvic fragility fracture (PFF)., Design: Single-site, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial., Setting: A UK tertiary centre hospital., Participants: Patients aged ≥70 years who were ambulating pre-injury requiring hospital admission (within 28 days of injury) with a type 1 lateral compression PFF., Interventions: The intervention group received sacral fracture fixation (cement augmentation±screw fixation) within 7 days of randomisation. Routine preoperative and postoperative care followed each surgical intervention. The control group received usual care consisting of analgesia, and regular input from the medical and therapy team., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The feasibility outcomes were the number of eligible patients, willingness to be randomised, adherence to allocated treatment, retention, data on the completeness and variability of the proposed definitive trial outcome measures, and reported adverse events., Results: 241 patients were screened. 13 (5.4%) were deemed eligible to participate. Among the eligible participants, nine (69.2%) were willing to participate. Five participants were randomised to the intervention group and four to the control group. The clinicians involved were willing to allow their patients to be randomised and adhere to the allocated treatment. One participant in the intervention group and two participants in the control group received their allocated treatment. All participants were followed up until 12 weeks post-randomisation, and had an additional safety follow-up assessment at 12 months. Overall, the proportion of completeness of outcome measures was at least 75%. No adverse events were directly related to the trial., Conclusions: There were significant challenges in recruiting sufficient participants which will need to be addressed prior to a definitive trial., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN16719542., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled., Results: Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants' attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication., Conclusions: Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Bisphosphonates have been found to be effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, their comparative effectiveness in populations at risk has yet to be defined. In light of recent clinical trials, we aimed to compare four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and to identify which are the most effective for the prevention of fragility fractures. This is an update of a systematic review previously published as part of a NICE HTA report. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis, updating the estimates regarding the comparative effectiveness of the aforementioned bisphosphonates. Studies identified from published and unpublished sources between 2014 and 2021 were added to the studies identified in the previous review. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Outcomes were fractures, femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), mortality, and adverse events. We identified 25 additional trials, resulting in a total population of 47,007 participants. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment in preventing vertebral fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.28-0.49). Zoledronate (HR 0.71; 95% CrI, 0.61-0.81) and risedronate (HR 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.84) were found to be the most effective treatments in preventing nonvertebral fractures. All treatments were associated with increases in femoral neck BMD versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment mean difference (MD 4.02; 95% CrI, 3.2-4.84). There was a paucity of data regarding hip and wrist fractures. Depending on its cost-effectiveness, zoledronate could be considered a first-line option for people at increased risk of fragility fractures. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research., Competing Interests: All other authors have nothing to declare., (© 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Objectives: Assess feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to measure clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced recovery pathway for people with hip fracture and cognitive impairment (CI)., Design: Feasibility trial undertaken between 2016 and 2018., Setting: Eleven acute hospitals from three UK regions., Participants: 284 participants (208 female:69 male)., Inclusion Criteria: aged >60 years, confirmed proximal hip fracture requiring surgical fixation and CI; preoperative AMTS ≤8 in England or a 4AT score ≥1 in Scotland; minimum of 5 days on study ward; a 'suitable informant' able to provide proxy measures, recruited within 7 days of hip fracture surgery., Exclusion Criteria: no hip surgery; not expected to survive beyond 4 weeks; already enrolled in a clinical trial., Intervention: PERFECT-ER, an enhanced recovery pathway with 15 quality targets supported by a checklist and manual, a service improvement lead a process lead and implemented using a plan-do-study-act model., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Feasibility outcomes: recruitment and attrition, intervention acceptability, completion of participant reported outcome measures, preliminary estimates of potential effectiveness using mortality, EQ-5D-5L, economic and clinical outcome scores., Results: 282 participants were consented and recruited (132, intervention) from a target of 400. Mean recruitment rates were the same in intervention and control sites, (range: 1.2 and 2.7 participants/month). Retention was 230 (86%) at 1 month and 54%(144) at 6 months. At 3 months a relatively small effect (one quarter of an SD) was observed on health-related quality of life of the patient measured with EQ-5D-5L proxy in the intervention group., Conclusion: This trial design was feasible with modifications to recruitment. Mechanisms for delivering consistency in the PERFECT-ER intervention and participant retention need to be addressed. However, an RCT may be a suboptimal research design to evaluate this intervention due to the complexity of caring for people with CI after hip fracture., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN99336264., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Patients that require hospital admission for vertebral fragility fractures were older, multimorbid, frail, have cognitive impairment and were in severe pain. This study aimed to describe the hospital treatment received in one UK university hospital with the purpose of proposing what hospital services should look like., Method: This was an observational study of adults aged 50 years and over admitted to hospital over 12 months with an acute vertebral fragility fracture. Information was collected from patients and electronic health records on their presentation and hospital care., Results: 90 patients were recruited into the study. 69% presented to hospital 24 h after the onset of their severe acute back pain. 38% had a concomitant medical diagnosis, such as an ongoing infection. X-ray of the spine was the most common imaging of choice to diagnose a fracture. There was variation in the content of the radiology reports. 46% or patients were managed on geriatric medicine wards, 39% on general medical wards, and followed by 14% on spinal surgical wards. Patients cared for by medical teams were older, frailer, had a higher prevalence of cognitive impairment, more dependent for daily living and less mobile compared to those under the care of the spinal surgical team. Many patients on medical wards had input from spinal surgical team and vice versa. 9% proceeded to have vertebral augmentation. Despite many in severe pain, only a third were prescribed opioids with the median dose of morphine-equivalent was 10-20 mg daily for the first three days of admission. While in hospital, 31% developed a medical complication, with infection being the most common one. On discharge, 76% still required opioids and only 56% had a plan for their bone health., Discussion: Improvements could be made to hospital vertebral fracture care. Many did not receive adequate pain relief and appropriate assessments to reduce their future fall and fracture risk. Most were medically managed. Quality standards and re-organising care in hip fracture has led to improved outcomes. A similar approach in vertebral fragility fractures might also deliver improved outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Using a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology, we describe our first cycle of a project using an ice-cream oral nutritional supplement (ONS ice-cream) to address malnutrition in older patients. A Scandishake-based ® (Nutricia) vanilla flavored ice-cream was developed and piloted on a cohort of orthopedic patients over 3 days. All suitable patients were offered 100 g ice-cream portions (240 kcal/per portion). Acceptability and energy intake were our primary outcomes. Over 3 days, the ONS ice-cream was accepted in 77% ( n  = 27, median age, 75 years, IQR 12.5) of the times offered. Among these patients the average energy intake per day including the ONS ice-cream was 1006 kcal, a 41% increase in energy intake compared to an initial nutritional survey among the older orthopedic patients (714 kcal, p  = 0.010). When surveyed 84% ( n  = 16) of patients stated they would have the ONS ice-cream again. An ONS ice-cream intervention to improve energy intake in older adults is feasible.

Background: Pubic rami fragility fractures are common in older people and result in significant morbidity and increased mortality. Co-existing fractures of the sacrum are common, but routinely missed. The aim of the study was to explore the perceptions in the assessment and treatment of pubic rami and sacral fragility fractures amongst healthcare professionals., Methods: We interviewed 14 participants about their experience in the assessment and treatment of patients presenting with pubic rami fragility fractures. Data was analyzed using an inductive thematic approach., Results: The majority of patients presenting with a pubic rami fragility fracture were managed by geriatricians. However, many of the geriatricians were not aware that these fractures have a high association with co-existing sacral fragility fractures. Furthermore, they were not aware of the limitations of standard x-ray imaging, nor of the potential benefits of surgical intervention for sacral fragility fractures. Spinal surgeons recommended that early, more specialist imaging in patients with pubic rami fragility fractures failing to mobilize, would change clinical management, if found to have a coexisting sacral fragility fracture, amenable to surgical intervention., Conclusions: The awareness, assessment and management of sacral fragility fractures in patients presenting with pubic rami fragility fractures is poor amongst healthcare professionals in geriatric medicine. Spinal surgeons in this study advocate early further imaging and surgical intervention in patients confirmed to have a concomitant sacral fragility fracture who are failing to mobilize., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Purpose: To investigate the monthly and seasonal variation in adult osteoporotic fragility fractures and the association with weather., Methods: 12-year observational study of a UK Fracture Liaison Service (outpatient secondary care setting). Database analyses of the records of adult outpatients aged 50 years and older with fragility fractures. Weather data were obtained from the UK's national Meteorological Office. In the seasonality analyses, we tested for the association between months and seasons (determinants), respectively, and outpatient attendances, by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test. In the meteorological analyses, the determinants were mean temperature, mean daily maximum and minimum temperature, number of days of rain, total rainfall and number of days of frost, per month, respectively. We explored the association of each meteorological variable with outpatient attendances, by regression models., Results: The Fracture Liaison Service recorded 25,454 fragility fractures. We found significant monthly and seasonal variation in attendances for fractures of the: radius or ulna; humerus; ankle, foot, tibia or fibula (ANOVA, all p-values <0.05). Fractures of the radius or ulna and humerus peaked in December and winter. Fractures of the ankle, foot, tibia or fibula peaked in July, August and summer. U-shaped associations were showed between each temperature parameter and fractures. Days of frost were directly associated with fractures of the radius or ulna (p-value <0.001) and humerus (p-value 0.002)., Conclusion: Different types of fragility fractures present different seasonal patterns. Weather may modulate their seasonality and consequent healthcare utilisation., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Acute vertebral fragility fracture requiring hospital admission is common, painful and disabling. No comprehensive clinical guideline for their care exists. To support the development of such a guideline, we sought the views of experts in the field., Methods: A modified Delphi study was used. A total of 70 statements were presented, using an online platform, over three consensus-seeking rounds, to participants with experience in the hospital care of patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures from UK-based specialist societies. Participants rated the level of their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined at 70% of respondents choosing either agree/strongly agree or disagree/strong disagree. Over the first two rounds, statements not reaching consensus were modified in subsequent rounds, and new statements proposed by participants and agreed by the research team could be added., Results: There were 71 participants in the first round, 37 in the second round and 28 (most of whom were geriatricians) in the third round. Consensus was reached in 52 statements covering fracture diagnosis, second-line imaging, organisation of hospital care, pain management and falls and bone health assessment. Consensus was not achieved for whether vertebral fragility fractures should be managed in a specific clinical area., Discussion: These findings provide the basis for the development of clinical guidelines and quality improvement initiatives. They also help to justify research into the merits of managing acute vertebral fragility fracture patients in a specific clinical area., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: There is a lack of robust data on hospitalised acute vertebral fragility fractures. This analysis aimed to report on the number of hospitalised vertebral fragility fractures treated in a large UK teaching hospital. This information would support better design of hospital services and resource allocation to manage this group of patients., Methods: Patients aged 50 years and over hospitalised with a vertebral fragility fracture from 1/2/2016 to 31/1/2017 were identified from radiology and hospital records. Patients sustaining vertebral fractures due to either major trauma or malignancy were excluded. Data was collected on patient demographics, fracture details, hospitalisation details and health outcomes., Results: 208 patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures were hospitalised over a 12 month period. The mean (SD) age was 80.5 (11) years, of which 68% were female. 94% presented to the Emergency Department (ED) as their first point of contact, of which 70% were subsequently hospitalised. Two-thirds presented with a single level vertebral fracture predominantly around the thoracolumbar region. The majority (87%) were non-operatively managed by general physicians, of which most were under Geriatric Medicine. The median length of stay was 12 (IQR 6-20) days and inpatient mortality was 3%. 52% of patients went on to have a bone health assessment., Conclusion: We have reported on the number of patients presenting to hospital with an acute vertebral fragility fracture over 12 months. This helps identify resources needed to design hospital services to manage them adequately., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objective: To explore the acceptability of different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of osteoporosis among patients, clinicians and managers, payers and academics., Design: A systematic review of primary qualitative studies. Seven databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of full-articles selected for inclusion were performed independently by two authors. A framework synthesis was applied to extracted data based on the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The TFA includes seven domains relating to sense-making, emotions, opportunity costs, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy. Confidence in synthesis findings was assessed., Setting: Any developed country healthcare setting., Participants: Patients, healthcare professionals, managers, payers and academics., Intervention: Experiences and views of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates., Results: Twenty-five studies were included, mostly describing perceptions of oral bisphosphonates. We identified, with high confidence, how patients and healthcare professionals make sense (coherence) of bisphosphonates by balancing perceptions of need against concerns, how uncertainty prevails about bisphosphonate perceived effectiveness and a number of individual and service factors that have potential to increase self-efficacy in recommending and adhering to bisphosphonates. We identified, with moderate confidence, that bisphosphonate taking induces concern, but has the potential to engender reassurance, and that both side effects and special instructions for taking oral bisphosphonates can result in treatment burden. Finally, we identified with low confidence that multimorbidity plays a role in people's perception of bisphosphonate acceptability., Conclusion: By using the lens of acceptability, our findings demonstrate with high confidence that a theoretically informed, whole-system approach is necessary to both understand and improve adherence. Clinicians and patients need supporting to understand the need for bisphosphonates, and clinicians need to clarify to patients what constitutes bisphosphonate treatment success. Further research is needed to explore perspectives of male patients and those with multimorbidity receiving bisphosphonates, and patients receiving intravenous treatment., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019143526., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: cervical spine fractures are particularly prevalent in older people and commonly occur following a fall from standing height or less. Atlanto-axial complex (AAC) and, particularly, odontoid process (OP) fractures are the most prevalent injuries., Objective: to investigate the incidence and characteristics of cervical spine fractures in older patients presenting to a regional spine centre., Methods: a retrospective review of the clinical records and imaging of all patients aged 70 years and over presenting to a regional spinal unit with a cervical injury over a 5-year period was performed. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, level of fracture, stability of the fracture, treatment modality, imaging modality and mortality rates were collected and analysed., Results: during the period between 2015 and 2019, a total of 209 patients aged 70 years and over were presented to the regional spine unit. The mean age at presentation was 82.4 (±7.5) years. Low-energy trauma was the commonest mechanism of injury (n = 169; 80.9%). MRI was undertaken in a quarter of the patients. One-hundred and fifty-one patients (72.2%) suffered an AAC Injury with OP fractures forming the majority of this group (n = 119; 78.8%). One-hundred and ninety-nine patients were treated conservatively, and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 8.1%., Conclusion: cervical spine fractures are not uncommon amongst older people and are mostly the result of low-energy trauma and predominantly affect the axial cervical spine. The majority of these injuries are managed conservatively with an orthosis. The fractures nevertheless are a serious injury, with a high mortality rate at 30 days., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We investigated whether osteoporotic fractures declined during lockdown, among adults aged 50 years and older. We showed that fewer outpatients attended the Fracture Clinic, for non-hip fractures, during lockdown; in contrast, no change in admissions for hip fractures was observed. This could be due to fewer outdoors falls, during lockdown., Purpose: Many countries implemented a lockdown to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored whether outpatient attendances to the Fracture Clinic for non-hip fragility fracture and inpatient admissions for hip fracture declined during lockdown, among adults aged 50 years and older, in a large secondary care hospital., Methods: In our observational study, we analysed the records of 6681 outpatients attending the Fracture Clinic, for non-hip fragility fractures, and those of 1752 inpatients, admitted for hip fracture, during the time frames of interest. These were weeks 1st to 12th in 2020 ("prior to lockdown"), weeks 13th to 19th in 2020 ("lockdown") and corresponding periods over 2015 to 2019. We tested for differences in mean numbers (standard deviation (SD)) of outpatients and inpatients, respectively, per week, during the time frames of interest, across the years., Results: Prior to lockdown, in 2020, 63.1 (SD 12.6) outpatients per week attended the Fracture Clinic, similar to previous years (p value 0.338). During lockdown, 26.0 (SD 7.3) outpatients per week attended the Fracture Clinic, fewer than previous years (p value < 0.001); similar findings were observed in both sexes and age groups (all p values < 0.001). During lockdown, 16.1 (SD 5.6) inpatients per week were admitted for hip fracture, similar to previous years (p value 0.776)., Conclusion: During lockdown, fewer outpatients attended the Fracture Clinic, for non-hip fragility fractures, while no change in inpatient admissions for hip fracture was observed. This could reflect fewer non-hip fractures and may inform allocation of resources during pandemic.

Purpose: Patients with a hip fracture and co-existing advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk of further fractures due to either CKD-mineral bone disease or osteoporosis., Methods: An analysis of a hospital's hip fracture service registry of patients ≥ 60 years with CKD stage 4 (15-29 ml/min/1.73m 2 ) or stage 5 (< 15 ml/min/1.73m 2 ) over 2 years., Results: 46 patients were included in the analysis. The prevalence of CKD stage 4 and 5 was 3%. The mean age was 84 years, half had ≥ 2 comorbid conditions and 76% had a Nottingham Hip Fracture Score of ≥ 5. 54% and 80% died at 12 months and 2 years. None were on any osteoporosis treatment on discharge. 85% were prescribed either calcium-vitamin D or vitamin D supplementation. 30% had a bone health clinic appointment made, but less than half attended., Conclusion: Patients with advanced CKD admitted to hospital with a hip fracture have a poor survival. In many, the focus of care should be on supporting quality daily living and not bone health optimisation.

Background & Aims: Hospitalised older adults are vulnerable to dehydration. However, the prevalence of hyperosmolar dehydration (HD) and its impact on outcome is unknown. Serum osmolality is not measured routinely but osmolarity, a validated alternative, can be calculated using routinely measured serum biochemistry. This study aimed to use calculated osmolarity to measure the prevalence of HD (serum osmolarity >300 mOsm/l) and assess its impact on acute kidney injury (AKI) and outcome in hospitalised older adults., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from a UK teaching hospital retrieved from the electronic database relating to all medical emergency admissions of patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted between 1st May 2011 and 31st October 2013. Using these data, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality were determined. Osmolarity was calculated using the equation of Krahn and Khajuria., Results: A total of 6632 patients were identified; 27% had HD, 39% of whom had AKI. HD was associated with a median (Q1, Q3) LOS of 5 (1, 12) days compared with 3 (1, 9) days in the euhydrated group, P < 0.001. Adjusted Cox-regression analysis demonstrated that patients with HD were four-times more likely to develop AKI 12-24 h after admission [Hazards Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) 4.5 (3.5-5.6), P < 0.001], and had 60% greater 30-day mortality [1.6 (1.4-1.9), P < 0.001], compared with those who were euhydrated., Conclusion: HD is common in hospitalised older adults and is associated with increased LOS, risk of AKI and mortality. Further work is required to assess the validity of osmolality or osmolarity as an early predictor of AKI and the impact of HD on outcome prospectively., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None of the authors has a direct conflict of interest to declare. DNL has received unrestricted research funding from B. Braun and speaker's honoraria from Fresenius Kabi, B. Braun, Shire and Baxter Healthcare for unrelated work., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Osteoporosis and bone fractures are common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality. Current national guidance on COPD management recommends addressing bone health in patients, however, does not detail how. This consensus outlines key elements of a structured approach to managing bone health and fracture risk in patients with COPD., Methods: A systematic approach incorporating multifaceted methodologies included detailed patient and healthcare professional (HCP) surveys followed by a roundtable meeting to reach a consensus on what a pathway would look like., Results: The surveys revealed that fracture risk was not always assessed despite being recognised as an important aspect of COPD management by HCPs. The majority of the patients also stated they would be receptive to discussing treatment options if found to be at risk of osteoporotic fractures. Limited time and resource allocation were identified as barriers to addressing bone health during consultations. The consensus from the roundtable meeting was that a proactive systematic approach to assessing bone health should be adopted. This should involve using fracture risk assessment tools to identify individuals at risk, investigating secondary causes of osteoporosis if a diagnosis is made and reinforcing non-pharmacological and preventative measures such as smoking cessation, keeping active and pharmacological management of osteoporosis and medicines management of corticosteroid use. Practically, prioritising patients with important additional risk factors, such as previous fragility fractures, older age and long-term oral corticosteroid use for an assessment, was felt required., Conclusion: There is a need for integrating fracture risk assessment into the COPD pathway. Developing a systematic and holistic approach to addressing bone health is key to achieving this. In tandem, opportunities to disseminate the information and educational resources are also required., Competing Interests: SH is funded for 1 session per month to work as a clinical commissioner for respiratory in Somerset CCG and works as a general practitioner partner in Somerset (five sessions per week). He is also a member of the NHS England Cardiovascular and Respiratory Programme Strategic Board and has worked as an unpaid advisor for the British Lung Foundation and Royal College of General Practitioners at a national level. KL owns a share in Primary Integrated Community Service (PICS) that employs respiratory nurses in the community and is also the medical director of PICS. JS has no direct conflict of interest with this publication but has received support or honorarium from Astra Zeneca, Nutricia, ARNS, Chiesi, Mundipharma, ROCHE, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, PCRS-UK, MIMS, Mark Allen Group, ADMIT, NIP and Mylan. Prof. CEB reports grants from British Lung Foundation, during the conduct of the study. All authors declare they have no other conflicts of interest in relation to this article., (© 2020 Gupta et al.)

Background: Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013., Objectives: (a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019., Selection Criteria: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome., Main Results: We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162)., Authors' Conclusions: We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: The management of patients with a hip fracture is affected by the use of oral anticoagulants. A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken to investigate health outcome differences in those anticoagulated compared to those not anticoagulated., Methods: Patients aged 50 years and over presenting to a large university hospital with hip fractures were identified from the service registry. Patient characteristics and health outcomes between those not anticoagulated were compared with those anticoagulated (warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants, DOAC)., Results: 200/2307 (9%) patients were anticoagulated. 84% were on warfarin, and the rest a DOAC. Compared to those anticoagulated, there was a higher prevalence of dementia (25% vs. 18%, p = 0.02) and a lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease (54% vs. 78%, p < 0.01), atrial fibrillation (10% vs. 82%, p < 0.01), and polypharmacy (55% vs. 76%, p < 0.01). Renal function was lower in the anticoagulated group. Time to operation for those not anticoagulated and anticoagulated was a median (IQR) of 25 (15) and 27 (18) hours. There was no difference in blood transfusion and hospital mortality. Postoperative complications were similar except a higher rate of renal failure (14% vs. 19%, p = 0.04) and heart failure (1% vs. 5%, p < 0.01), and a longer length of stay [median (IQR): 14 (10) vs. 16 (12) days] in the anticoagulated group. This was no longer significant after adjustment of confounders., Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in health outcomes between those anticoagulated and those not after adjusting for patient characteristics. It was feasible to avoid significant delay in hip fracture surgery in those anticoagulated.

Background and purpose - There is a large volume of heterogeneous studies across all Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ® ) components within total hip and total knee replacement surgery. This multidisciplinary consensus review summarizes the literature, and proposes recommendations for the perioperative care of patients undergoing total hip replacement and total knee replacement with an ERAS program.Methods - Studies were selected with particular attention being paid to meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies that evaluated the efficacy of individual items of the perioperative treatment pathway to expedite the achievement of discharge criteria. A consensus recommendation was reached by the group after critical appraisal of the literature.Results - This consensus statement includes 17 topic areas. Best practice includes optimizing preoperative patient education, anesthetic technique, and transfusion strategy, in combination with an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic approach and early mobilization. There is insufficient evidence to recommend that one surgical technique (type of approach, use of a minimally invasive technique, prosthesis choice, or use of computer-assisted surgery) over another will independently effect achievement of discharge criteria.Interpretation - Based on the evidence available for each element of perioperative care pathways, the ERAS ® Society presents a comprehensive consensus review, for the perioperative care of patients undergoing total hip replacement and total knee replacement surgery within an ERAS ® program. This unified protocol should now be further evaluated in order to refine the protocol and verify the strength of these recommendations.

Introduction: Pelvic fragility fractures (PFF) are common in older people and associated with a significant burden of mortality and morbidity. This is related to the challenges of appropriate pain control and early mobilisation. The current standard for treatment of PFF is non-surgical management. Minimally invasive surgical techniques for sacral fracture stabilisation have been shown to improve outcomes in terms of pain control and mobility, and they are safe. Randomised controlled trials are required before recommendations can be made for surgical management of PFF to become the new standard of care. This feasibility study will explore several uncertainties around conducting such a trial., Methods and Analysis: ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation) is a single-site randomised controlled, parallel-arm, feasibility trial of surgical stabilisation versus non-surgical management of acute sacral fragility fractures in people aged 70 years and over. Patients will be randomised to either surgical or non-surgical group on a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up of participants will occur at 2, 4 and 12 weeks with safety data collected at 52 weeks. Primary objectives are to determine feasibility and design of a future trial, including outcomes on recruitment, adherence to randomisation and safety. This will be supplemented with a qualitative interview study of participants and clinicians. Secondary objectives will inform study design procedures to determine clinical and economic outcomes between groups, including scored questionnaires, analgesia requirements, resource use and quality of life data. Data analysis will be largely descriptive to inform outcomes and future sample size., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was granted by the North East Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/NE/0212). ASSERT was approved and sponsored by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (reference 18HC001) and the Health Research Authority (reference IRAS 232791). Recruitment is ongoing. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to appropriate journals on study completion., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN16719542; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

This paper analyses the 'failure' of a patient safety intervention. Our study was part of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of bed and bedside chair pressure sensors linked to radio pagers to prevent bedside falls in older people admitted to hospital. We use agential realism within science and technology studies to examine the fall and its prevention as a situated phenomenon of knowledge that is made and unmade through intra-actions between environment, culture, humans and technologies. We show that neither the intervention (the pressure sensor system), nor the outcome (fall prevention) could be disentangled from the broader sociomaterial context of the ward, the patients, the nurses and (especially) their work through the RCT. We argue that the RCT design, by virtue of its unacknowledged assumptions, played a part in creating the negative findings. The study also raises wider questions about the kind of subjectivities, agencies and power relations these entanglements might effect and (re)produce in the hospital ward., (© 2019 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness.)

Introduction: Pelvic fragility fractures are common in older people. To deliver better care in hospital, a better understanding of their characteristics and outcomes post-hospitalisation will allow clinicians to better design hospital services to manage their needs., Methods: Using routinely collected electronic hospital records over 3 months, data were collected and analysed on consecutive patients admitted with pelvic fragility fractures (as defined by a pelvic fracture sustaining following a fall from standing height or less) to acute medical wards for older people., Results: Twenty-four patients were admitted over this period. Their mean age was 87 years (SD 9.4), the majority were female (83%), a significant proportion had cognitive impairment with an abbreviated mental test score of ≤ 7 (67%), and the median number of comorbid conditions was three. These patients were at high risk of future fractures (50% with a known diagnosis of osteoporosis; significant FRAX scores; 75% had a fall) but only 50% had a bone health assessment. The median duration in hospital was 13 days. 33% of patients were discharged home directly while the rest were discharged to either a care home or another hospital for further rehabilitation. 54% had a hospital-related complication including kidney injury, delirium, and hospital-acquired infections-there were two inpatient mortalities. At 3 months post-fracture, 54% were readmitted and 33% died., Conclusion: Pelvic fragility fractures are associated with worse inpatient and post-discharge clinical outcomes. This is an older multi-morbid cohort needing significant post-fracture rehabilitation care. Their care in hospital needs to address their management complexities.

Vertebral Fragility Fractures (VFF) are common and lead to pain, long term disability and increased mortality. Most patients will have mild to moderate pain symptoms and can be managed conservatively. However, patients with severe pain who have minimal or no pain relief with potent analgesia, or who only achieve adequate pain relief with high doses of morphine based analgesia which results in significant adverse events, should be considered for vertebral augmentation. Ideally, for vertebral augmentation, patients should present within four months of the fracture (onset of acute pain) and have at least 3 weeks of failure of conservative treatment although early intervention may be more appropriate for hospitalised patients, who tend to be older, more frail and likely to be less tolerant to the adverse effects of conservative treatment. The Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) recommends Percutaneous Vertebroplasty as the first line surgical augmentation technique for VFF in older people, which has been shown to improve pain symptoms, allow early restoration of functional mobility and may reduce the risk of further vertebral collapse. CIRSE recommends percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty as second line treatment in VFF, although the optimal indication is for acute traumatic vertebral fractures (less than 7-10 days) in younger people. Assessment and treatment of underlying osteoporosis is important to reduce the risk of further fractures in older people with VFF., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: chair-based pedal exercises potentially offer a simple method of improving physical activity in older people admitted to hospital., Objective: to assess the feasibility of using chair-based pedal exercisers on acute medical wards for older people. To study if there is any effect on muscle strength, mobility and time spent physically active., Subjects: fifty participants ≥65 years who were able to pedal admitted to acute medical wards for older people in a UK hospital., Methods: participants were randomised to either pedal for 5 min three times a day with minimal supervision; or standard care. Outcome data (compliance with exercise and change in lower limb muscle strength, mobility and level of physical activity) were collected on day 7 or on discharge, whichever came 1st., Results: there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the intervention and standard care group. Participants remained in the study for an average of 5 days. None in the intervention group adhered to the prescribed exercise duration. The intervention group completed a median of 152 revolutions, or a median total pedal time of 5 min during the entire study period. There were no differences in change in lower limb muscle strength, mobility score or the percentage of time spent active between the two groups., Conclusion: pedal exercises with minimal supervision are not feasible as a single intervention to improve physical activity in older people admitted to hospital. There may be a role for it as part of a multifaceted strategy to improve physical activity in hospital.

Objective: Fractured neck of femur is a severely painful condition with significant mortality and morbidity. We investigated whether early and continuous use of femoral nerve block can improve pain on movement and mobility after surgery in older participants with fragility neck of femur fracture., Design: Prospective single-centre, randomised controlled pragmatic trial., Setting: Secondary care, acute National Health Service Trust, UK., Participants: Participants admitted with a history and examination suggesting fractured neck of femur., Intervention: Immediate continuous femoral nerve block via catheter or standard analgesia., Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measures were Cumulative Dynamic Pain score and Cumulated Ambulation Score from surgery until day 3 postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included pain scores at rest, cumulative side effects (nausea and constipation), quality of life (measured by EuroQOL 5 D instrument (EQ-5D) score) at day 3 and day 30, and rehabilitation outcome (measured by mobility score)., Results: 141 participants were recruited, with 23 excluded. No significant difference was detected between Cumulative Dynamic Pain Score (standard care (n=56) vs intervention (n=55) 20 (IQR 15-24) vs 20 (15-23), p=0.51) or Cumulated Ambulation Score (standard care vs intervention 6 (5-9) vs 7 (5-10), p=0.76). There were no statistically different differences in secondary outcomes except cumulative pain at rest: 5 (0.5-6.5) in the standard care group and 2 (0-5) in the intervention group (p=0.043)., Conclusions: Early application of continuous femoral nerve block compared with standard systemic analgesia did not result in improved dynamic pain score or superior postoperative ambulation. This technique may provide superior pain relief at rest. Continuous femoral nerve block did not delay initial control of pain or mobilisation after surgery., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN92946117; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: the complex management for patients presenting to hospital with vertebral fragility fractures provides justification for the development of specific services for them. A systematic review was undertaken to determine the incidence of hospital admission, patient characteristics and health outcomes of vertebral fragility fracture patients to inform the development of such a service., Methods: non-randomised studies of vertebral fragility fracture in hospital were included. Searches were conducted using electronic databases and citation searching of the included papers., Results: a total of 19 studies were included. The incidence of hospital admission varied from 2.8 to 19.3 per 10,000/year. The average patient age was 81 years, the majority having presented with a fall. A diagnosis of osteoporosis or previous fragility fracture was reported in around one-third of patients. Most patients (75% men and 78% women) had five or more co-pathologies. Most patients were managed non-operatively with a median hospital length of stay of 10 days. One-third of patients were started on osteoporosis treatment. Inpatient and 1-year mortality was between 0.9 and 3.5%, and 20 and 27%, respectively, between 34 and 50% were discharged from hospital to a care facility. Many patients were more dependent with activities of daily living on discharge compared to their pre-admission level. Older age and increasing comorbidities was associated with longer hospital stay and higher mortality., Conclusion: these findings indicate that specific hospital services for patients with vertebral fragility fractures should take into consideration local hospitalisation rates for the condition, and should be multifaceted-providing access to diagnostic, therapeutic, surgical and rehabilitation interventions., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Health and social care provision for an ageing population is a global priority. Provision for those with dementia and hip fracture has specific and growing importance. Older people who break their hip are recognised as exceptionally vulnerable to experiencing confusion (including but not exclusively, dementia and/or delirium and/or cognitive impairment(s)) before, during or after acute admissions. Older people experiencing hip fracture and confusion risk serious complications, linked to delayed recovery and higher mortality post-operatively. Specific care pathways acknowledging the differences in patient presentation and care needs are proposed to improve clinical and process outcomes., Methods: This protocol describes a multi-centre, feasibility, cluster-randomised, controlled trial (CRCT) to be undertaken across ten National Health Service hospital trusts in the UK. The trial will explore the feasibility of undertaking a CRCT comparing the multicomponent PERFECTED enhanced recovery intervention (PERFECT-ER), which acknowledges the differences in care needs of confused older patients experiencing hip fracture, with standard care. The trial will also have an integrated process evaluation to explore how PERFECT-ER is implemented and interacts with the local context. The study will recruit 400 hip fracture patients identified as experiencing confusion and will also recruit "suitable informants" (individuals in regular contact with participants who will complete proxy measures). We will also recruit NHS professionals for the process evaluation. This mixed methods design will produce data to inform a definitive evaluation of the intervention via a large-scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Discussion: The trial will provide a preliminary estimate of potential efficacy of PERFECT-ER versus standard care; assess service delivery variation, inform primary and secondary outcome selection, generate estimates of recruitment and retention rates, data collection difficulties, and completeness of outcome data and provide an indication of potential economic benefits. The process evaluation will enhance knowledge of implementation delivery and receipt., Trial Registration: ISRCTN, 99336264 . Registered on 5 September 2016.

Twenty-five percent of patients with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture have an undiagnosed vertebral fracture detected by vertebral fracture assessment during bone densitometric assessment. The prevalence of an undiagnosed vertebral fracture is higher in older people, and they are more likely to have multiple vertebral fractures., Purpose: Most vertebral fragility fractures (VFF) have no history of trauma. Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) during dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) can be used to detect these VFFs. This study aims to identify the prevalence of undiagnosed VFF in patients presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture., Methods: Patients identified by the fracture liaison service (FLS) of a large UK university hospital presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture were evaluated from 1 January 2012 to 30 September 2015. Local protocol identified those that would proceed for VFA. Data was collected on patient characteristics, fracture details, bone mineral density (BMD) measurements and VFA results., Results: Five hundred sixty-seven patients (mean (SD) age, 72 (9.4) years) of mostly women (88.3%) had a VFA performed as part of their DXA assessment. One hundred forty-three patients (25.2%) were identified to have a vertebral fracture, of whom 57.3% of them had one fracture. 49.5% of those with vertebral fractures had BMD measurements diagnostic of osteoporosis. Mean (SD) age was higher in those with vertebral fractures compared to those without; 74.9 (8.3) years vs 70.4 (9.5) years, p < 0.00. Those aged 75 years and over were more likely to have multiple fractures than those younger than 75 years (16.3 vs 4%, p = 0.01)., Conclusion: A quarter of patients presenting with a non-hip non-vertebral fragility fracture have an undiagnosed vertebral fracture. Older people are more likely to have vertebral fractures and more likely to have multiple fractures. VFA during bone densitometric assessment can further aid stratifying future fracture risk.

Fragility fractures are sentinels of osteoporosis, and as such all patients with low-trauma fractures should be considered for further investigation for osteoporosis and, if confirmed, started on osteoporosis medication. Fracture liaison services (FLSs) with varying models of care are in place to take responsibility for this investigative and treatment process. This review aims to describe outcomes for patients with osteoporotic fragility fractures as part of FLSs. The most intensive service that includes identification, assessment and treatment of patients appears to deliver the best outcomes. This FLS model is associated with reduction in re-fracture risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.18-0.67 over 2-4 years), reduced mortality (HR 0.65 over 2 years), increased assessment of bone mineral density (relative risk [RR] 2-3), increased treatment initiation (RR 1.5-4.25) and adherence to treatment (65%-88% at 1 year) and is cost-effective. In response to this evidence, key organizations and stakeholders have published guidance and framework to ensure that best practice in FLSs is delivered., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Objective: To compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service., Design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study., Settings: Large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up., Subjects: Frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency., Measurements: Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis., Results: A total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934)., Conclusion: The CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 94393315, 25th April 2013, (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

The care of the older person with hip fracture is complicated by their comorbid condition, limited physiological reserve, cognitive impairment and frailty. Two aspects of hip fracture management that have received considerable attention are how best to manage the pain associated with it and the ideal mode of anaesthesia. Existing literature has reported on the suboptimal treatment of pain in this orthogeriatric cohort. With recent advancements in medical care, a number of options have emerged as alternatives to conservative systemic analgesia. Systemic analgesia, such as opioids, can lead to untoward side effects, especially in this particular group of patients. Hence, peripheral nerve blocks, epidural analgesia and regional anaesthesia have emerged as options in the delivery of adequate pain relief in hip fractures. Besides that, there is ongoing debate regarding the appropriate anaesthesia technique for surgical repair of the fractured hip. The benefits and risks related to either spinal anaesthesia or general anaesthesia have been subject to studies determining which method is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes. In this review, we aim to examine the evidence behind the different analgesia options available, compare spinal and general anaesthesia, and discuss the importance of the multidisciplinary orthogeriatric model of care in hip fracture and its potential role in other fragility fractures.

Increasingly, patients are able to receive parenteral medicines at home rather than in the hospital setting. We describe our approach to setting up a new intravenous zoledronic acid homecare service for patients with osteoporosis. Initial evaluation of service feasibility demonstrated a marginal cost saving of approximately 6%, when the drug is administered via homecare compared with hospital day-case unit. Rigorous risk assessment was conducted prior to service initiation. Implementation strategies are outlined. Surveys confirmed that the majority of patients were highly satisfied with the home infusion service., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.