Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/616
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFraser, S.-
dc.contributor.authorWong, P. K. K.-
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-01T00:47:09Z-
dc.date.available2025-04-01T00:47:09Z-
dc.date.issued2017-02-
dc.identifier.citationAustralian Journal of Rural Health . 2017 Feb;25(1):28-33.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/616-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To report the initial two and a half years' experience of one of the first Fracture Liaison Services in regional Australia. Design: Case study. Setting: Hospital Clinic, mid-north coast NSW. Participants: Patients aged ≥50 years with a fragility fracture identified at Coffs Harbour Health Campus July 2012 to December 2014. Intervention: Patients were identified by a Fracture Liaison Coordinator (FLC) and seen in Fracture Prevention Clinic (FPC) by a rheumatologist. Patients discharged from FPC were contacted via telephone on one occasion 12 months later. Main outcome measures: Number/characteristics of patients seen in or declining an appointment in FPC, type of bone protective therapy commenced and patient adherence with this. Results: An appointment in FPC was offered to 222 patients but declined by 56 patients. One hundred and sixty-six patients were seen in FPC, of whom 40% (n = 66/166) had a prevalent fragility fracture but only 12% (n = 8/66) were on bone protective therapy. Eighty-two percent (n = 136/166) commenced bone protective therapy. Of the 55 patients discharged from FPC with long enough follow-up to allow contact at 12 months, 60% (n = 33/55) required bone health advice during the follow-up telephone call at 12 months. Of the 31 patients who commenced bone protective therapy, 65% (n = 20/31) said they were adherent with medication. Conclusions: A FLC, committed clinician and supportive hospital environment were all that was required for an effective Fracture Liaison Service in a regional hospital. The number of patients who declined an appointment suggested the implications of a fragility fracture were often not appreciated. Keywords: fracture coordinator; fracture liaison; fracture prevention; osteoporosis; regional.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectOsteoporosisen
dc.subjectOsteoporitic Fracturesen
dc.subjectHealth Services Researchen
dc.subjectDelivery of Health Care, Integrateden
dc.subjectFractures, Boneen
dc.subjectPreventive Medicineen
dc.subjectAccident Preventionen
dc.subjectSecondary Preventionen
dc.subjectPreventive Health Servicesen
dc.titleSecondary fracture prevention needs to happen in the country too: The first two and a half years of the Coffs Fracture Prevention Clinicen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorFraser, Sandy-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorWong, Peter K.-
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27087403/en
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ajr.12291en
Appears in Collections:Allied Health

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing