P118 Co-design of a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation: a Delphi survey with patients and clinicians

• Published in: Rheumatology (Oxford, England) England), 2021-04, Vol.60 (Supplement_1)
• Main Authors: Bullock, Laurna, Jinks, Clare, Crawford-Manning, Fay, Leyland, Sarah, Fleming, Jane, Clark, Emma M, Cottrell, Elizabeth, Edwards, John, Paskins, Zoe
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1462-0324; 1462-0332
• DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab247.114

Background/Aims  Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs) are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. As part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) research programme this study aimed to 1) co-design content for a ‘model FLS consultation’ and 2) gain consensus on the appropriateness of osteoporosis clinical guidelines in the context of FLSs. Methods  Three rounds of modified Delphi survey were sent to patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, carers, and clinicians. Participants were presented with potential consultation content derived from an evidence synthesis of current guidelines, frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence, and stakeholder consultation. Participants were asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and elaborate using free-text boxes. In Round 2, participants were shown mean scores of importance from Round 1. Statements identified as of ‘low importance’ at the end of Rounds 1 and 2 were discussed by the study team, including patient contributors, and were removed or amended. In Round 3, participants were asked whether the statement was ‘essential’ or ‘optional’ in a time-limited FLS consultation. Percentage agreement with each statement was ranked. The threshold for ‘essential’ versus ‘optional’ was determined by the study team. Results  391 invitations to participate were sent, with 72, 49, and 52 responders to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Throughout Rounds 1-3 participants considered 122 statements. By Round 3, 81 statements were deemed essential, with an additional 14 optional statements. Essential statements were distilled into 18 recommendations constituting the ‘model FLS consultation’. Statements related to stages of the consultation, including: introductions; gather information; consider therapeutic options; elicit patient perceptions; establish shared decision-making preferences; share information about condition and treatment; check understanding; and signpost next steps. There was consensus that FLS clinicians should discuss the benefits and risks of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates and denosumab. Optional consultation content included a statement suggesting clinicians should observe the patient to look for signs of fractures in their spine, with free-text responses suggesting that FLS clinicians may not ‘be best qualified’ to perform physical examinations.