Strong, steady and straight: UK consensus statement on physical activity and exercise for osteoporosis.

Exercise and physical activity can improve bone strength and the risk of falls, which may offer benefits in the prevention and management of osteoporosis. However, uncertainty about the types of exercise that are safe and effective instigates lack of confidence in people with osteoporosis and health professionals. Existing guidelines leave some questions unresolved. This consensus statement aimed to determine the physical activity and exercise needed to optimise bone strength, reduce fall and fracture risk, improve posture and manage vertebral fracture symptoms, while minimising potential risks in people with osteoporosis. The scope of this statement was developed following stakeholder consultation. Meta-analyses were reviewed and where evidence was lacking, individual studies or expert opinion were used to develop recommendations. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed evidence to make recommendations, by consensus when evidence was not available. Key recommendations are that people with osteoporosis should undertake (1) resistance and impact exercise to maximise bone strength; (2) activities to improve strength and balance to reduce falls; (3) spinal extension exercise to improve posture and potentially reduce risk of falls and vertebral fractures. For safety, we recommend avoiding postures involving a high degree of spinal flexion during exercise or daily life. People with vertebral fracture or multiple low trauma fractures should usually exercise only up to an impact equivalent to brisk walking. Those at risk of falls should start with targeted strength and balance training. Vertebral fracture symptoms may benefit from exercise to reduce pain, improve mobility and quality of life, ideally with specialist advice to encourage return to normal activities. Everyone with osteoporosis may benefit from guidance on adapting postures and movements. There is little evidence that physical activity is associated with significant harm, and the benefits, in general, outweigh the risks.

British Association of Critical Care Nurses: Evidence-based consensus paper for oral care within adult critical care units.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are critically ill are at increased risk of hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia. Effective evidence based oral care may reduce the incidence of such iatrogenic infection. AIM: To provide an evidence-based British Association of Critical Care Nurses endorsed consensus paper for best practice relating to implementing oral care, with the intention of promoting patient comfort and reducing hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. DESIGN: A nominal group technique was adopted. A consensus committee of adult critical care nursing experts from the United Kingdom met in 2018 to evaluate and review the literature relating to oral care, its application in reducing pneumonia in critically ill adults and to make recommendations for practice. An elected national board member for the British Association of Critical Care Nurses chaired the round table discussion. METHODS: The committee focused on 5 aspects of oral care practice relating to critically ill adult patients. The evidence was evaluated for each practice within the context of reducing pneumonia in the mechanically ventilated patient or pneumonia in the non-ventilated patient. The five practices included the frequency for oral care; tools for oral care; oral care technique; solutions used and oral care in the non-ventilated patient who is critically ill and is at risk of aspiration. The group searched the best available evidence and evaluated this using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong, moderate, weak, or best practice consensus statement when applicable. RESULTS: The consensus group generated recommendations, delineating an approach to best practice for oral care in critically ill adult patients. Recommendations included guidance for frequency and procedure for oral assessment, toothbrushing, and moisturising the mouth. Evidence on the use of chlorhexidine is not consistent and caution is advised with its routine use. CONCLUSION: Oral care is an important part of the care of critically ill patients, both ventilated and non-ventilated. An effective oral care programme reduces the incidence of pneumonia and promotes patient comfort. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Effective oral care is integral to safe patient care in critical care.

Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE: The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS: Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS: Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey.

We conducted a survey of FLSs' consultation conduct and content which identified marked variation in whether FLS HCPs discussed osteoporosis medicine with patients. A review of service pro formas showed more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening' than to 'informing'. We propose an expanded FLS typology and model FLS pro forma. PURPOSE: To investigate the nature of direct patient contact in fracture liaison service (FLS) delivery, examine the use and content of pro formas to guide information eliciting and sharing in FLS consultations, and determine service changes which were implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An electronic survey of UK FLS healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was distributed through clinical networks, social media, and other professional networks. Participants were asked to upload service pro formas used to guide consultation content. Documentary analysis findings were mapped to UK FLS clinical standards. RESULTS: Forty-seven HCPs responded, providing data on 39 UK FLSs, over half of all 74 FLSs reporting to FLS-database. Results showed variation in which HCP made clinical decisions, whether medicines were discussed with patients or not, and in prescribing practice. Services were variably affected by COVID, with most reporting a move to more remote consulting. The documentary analysis of eight service pro formas showed that these contained more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening', with fewer pro formas prompting the clinician to offer information and support (e.g., about coping with pain). Based on our findings we propose an expanded FLS typology and have developed a model FLS pro forma. CONCLUSION: There is marked variation in the delivery of services and content of consultations in UK FLSs including discussion about osteoporosis medications. Clinical standards for FLSs should clarify the roles of primary and secondary HCPs and the importance of holistic approaches to patient care.

UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management. INTRODUCTION: The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. METHODS: Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence. RESULTS: Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement. CONCLUSION: The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D).

INTRODUCTION: Prevention of fragility fractures, a source of significant economic and personal burden, is hindered by poor uptake of fracture prevention medicines. Enhancing communication of scientific evidence and elicitation of patient medication-related beliefs has the potential to increase patient commitment to treatment. The Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) programme aims to develop and evaluate a theoretically informed, complex intervention consisting of a computerised web-based decision support tool, training package and information resources, to facilitate informed decision-making about fracture prevention treatment, with a long-term aim of improving informed treatment adherence. This protocol focuses on the iFraP Development (iFraP-D) work. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The approach to iFraP-D is informed by the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation framework and the three-step implementation of change model. The context for the study is UK fracture liaison services (FLS), which enact secondary fracture prevention. An evidence synthesis of clinical guidelines and Delphi exercise will be conducted to identify content for the intervention. Focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians and general practitioners and a usual care survey will facilitate understanding of current practice, and investigate barriers and facilitators to change. Design of the iFraP intervention will be informed by decision aid development standards and theories of implementation, behaviour change, acceptability and medicines adherence. The principles of co-design will underpin all elements of the study through a dedicated iFraP community of practice including key stakeholders and patient advisory groups. In-practice testing of the prototype intervention will inform revisions ready for further testing in a subsequent pilot and feasibility randomised trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0559). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through national bodies and networks, publications and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5041.

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

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.

Adverse events and safety issues associated with physical activity and exercise for adults with osteoporosis and osteopenia: A systematic review of observational studies and an updated review of interventional studies.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review to identify adverse effects of physical activity and/or exercise for adults with osteoporosis/osteopenia. We synthesised evidence from observational studies, and updated three previously published systematic reviews. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, grey literature and reference lists of relevant studies. Selection criteria were: (1) observational studies in patients with osteoporosis/osteopenia; and (2) in accordance with the criteria used in the previous reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted for the observational data. Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken for the review updates. RESULTS: For the observational synthesis 14 studies were included. The majority of studies reported no adverse events, reduced incidence/improvement, or no significant change after physical activity or exercise. Activities that involved spinal flexion (certain yoga moves and sit-ups) were associated with a greater risk of vertebral fractures but these events were rare. For the update of reviews, 57 additional studies were identified. Exercise was generally associated with a greater number of minor adverse events including mild muscle/joint pain. Serious adverse events were rare and could not be attributed to the intervention. CONCLUSION: Patients with osteoporosis/osteopenia can safely participate in structured exercise programmes, whether at home or in supervised facilities. Systematic review registration for observational studies: PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017070551.