Abstract
Background
The INCLUDE (INtegrating and improving Care for patients with infLammatory rheUmatological DisordErs in the community) pilot trial aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-delivered review in primary care for people with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs), to identify and manage common comorbidities including anxiety and depression, cardiovascular and fracture risk. We report analysis of data focusing on the fracture risk assessment component of the review.
Methods
Ethical approvals obtained. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore experiences of participating in INCLUDE, with 20 patients, the two nurses delivering the intervention and three General Practitioners (GPs) within participating practices. 24 consenting patients had their INCLUDE review recorded for fidelity checking. Selected extracts were played within some interviews to stimulate discussion (tape-assisted recall). Extracts from recorded consultations relating to fracture risk assessment were transcribed and coded. Interviews were digitally recorded, with consent, transcribed and anonymised. Thematic analysis of the interview data was followed by mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
Results
Findings mapped to 10/14 TDF domains relating to knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, beliefs about capabilities, optimism, beliefs about consequences, reinforcement, intentions, memory attention and decision processes and environmental context/resources. GPs and nurses identified a lack of knowledge and skills in relation to the identification and management of osteoporosis, due to lack of exposure and repeated changes in clinical guidance. GPs reported differing opinions about whether osteoporosis screening was the role of primary or secondary care. GPs and nurses had differing views about the limits of the nurse role in communicating risk. The INCLUDE nurses reported confidence (self-efficacy) in undertaking FRAX assessments. Nurses valued the opportunity to learn new skills and believed that they were improving patient care. They described practical barriers using FRAX including the difficulty navigating between different IT systems. Nurses described uncertainty over when to refer to the GP. Fidelity checks of recorded reviews, showed that FRAX was appropriately calculated for 22/24 patients; whilst INCLUDE nurses introduced the reason for calculating fracture risk, explanations of the meaning of risk were limited, and patients’ understanding was not always checked and queries not responded to; patient interview findings confirmed patients had limited understanding of the meaning of FRAX. Life-style advice related to bone health was given in few consultations.
Conclusion
Screening for fracture risk in people with IRCs in a review consultation is acceptable and feasible, although explanations of the meaning of risk assessment could be improved. Integration of a fracture risk assessment tool within GP software would facilitate risk calculation. More work is needed to understand barriers to risk assessment, including clarity over roles and professional boundaries, and develop management pathways to optimise management of fracture risk in people with IRCs.
Disclosures
A.W. Hawarden None. Z. Paskins None. E. Ediriweera Desilva None. D. Herron None. A. Machin None. C. Jinks None. S. Hider None. C. Chew-Graham None.
DXA and clinical challenges of fracture risk assessment in primary care