Abstract
BackgroundNational and international guidance emphasizes the need for hospitals to have effective secondary fracture prevention services, to reduce the risk of future fractures in hip fracture patients. Variation exists in how hospitals organize these services, and there remain significant gaps in care. No research has systematically explored reasons for this to understand how to successfully implement these services. The objective of this study was to use extended Normalization Process Theory to understand how secondary fracture prevention services can be successfully implemented.MethodsForty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals involved in delivering secondary fracture prevention within 11 hospitals that receive patients with acute hip fracture in one region in England. These included orthogeriatricians, fracture prevention nurses and service managers. Extended Normalization Process Theory was used to inform study design and analysis.ResultsExtended Normalization Process Theory specifies four constructs relating to collective action in service implementation: capacity, potential, capability and contribution. The capacity of healthcare professionals to co-operate and co-ordinate their actions was achieved using dedicated fracture prevention co-ordinators to organize important processes of care. However, participants described effective communication with GPs as challenging. Individual potential and commitment to operationalize services was generally high. Shared commitments were promoted through multi-disciplinary team working, facilitated by fracture prevention co-ordinators. Healthcare professionals had capacity to deliver multiple components of services when co-ordinators ‘freed up’ time. As key agents in its intervention, fracture prevention coordinators were therefore indispensable to effective implementation.Aside from difficulty of co-ordination with primary care, the intervention was highly workable and easily integrated into practice. Nevertheless, implementation was threatened by under-staffed and under-resourced services, lack of capacity to administer scans and poor patient access. To ensure ongoing service delivery, the contributions of healthcare professionals were shaped by planning, in multi-disciplinary team meetings, the use of clinical databases to identify patients and define the composition of clinical work and monitoring to improve clinical practice.ConclusionsFindings identify and describe elements needed to implement secondary fracture prevention services successfully. The study highlights the value of Normalization Process Theory to achieve comprehensive understanding of healthcare professionals’ experiences in enacting a complex intervention.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0243-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
National and international guidance emphasizes the need for hospitals to have effective secondary fracture prevention services, to reduce the risk of future fractures in hip fracture patients
The risk of second hip fracture ranges from 2.3% to 10.6% [7,8] and mortality during the first year after fracture ranges from 8.4% to 36% [4]
Principal findings This study has identified and explored healthcare professionals’ experiences and views about issues that affect the implementation of secondary fracture prevention services using extended Normalization Process Theory [20]
Summary
National and international guidance emphasizes the need for hospitals to have effective secondary fracture prevention services, to reduce the risk of future fractures in hip fracture patients. Hip fractures usually occur when individuals with underlying osteoporosis fall [3,2] These patients are a high risk of further fractures and premature death [4,5,6]. The risk of second hip fracture ranges from 2.3% to 10.6% [7,8] and mortality during the first year after fracture ranges from 8.4% to 36% [4] Effective management of these patients can significantly reduce this risk, which is why professional bodies have produced comprehensive guidance about the management of hip fracture [1,9,10,11,12]. Considerable gaps in patient care following fracture still exist [15] with marked variation in how services are delivered locally [16,17], and it is unclear how best to implement these services
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.