4.4 Article

Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention

Journal

ARCHIVES OF OSTEOPOROSIS
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-00913-w

Keywords

Osteoporosis; Fracture Liaison Services; Delphi survey; Intervention development; Consultation; iFraP

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [(CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR]
  2. Royal Osteoporosis Society
  3. Haywood Rheumatology Research and Development Foundation
  4. NIHR, Clinician Scientist Award/NIHR Academy [(CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR]
  5. NIHR Clinical Research Network Scholar Programme
  6. NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer in Primary Care [CL-2016-10-003]
  7. NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands
  8. NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands
  9. NIHR School for Primary Care Research
  10. NIHR Research Professorship in General Practice [NIHR-RP-2014-04-026]
  11. NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a modified Delphi survey to establish consensus on tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation. Seventy-two, 49, and 52 patients, carers, and clinicians participated in three rounds of the survey, resulting in 81 essential statements for FLS consultations covering various aspects of the consultation process. This Delphi consensus exercise provided a clear framework for clinicians and highlighted the importance of patient involvement in shared decision-making and communication in fracture prevention.
Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation. Purpose The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the 'model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation' within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study. Methods A Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was 'essential' and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content. Results Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps. Conclusions This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available