A Five-Year Retrospective Audit on Bone Protection Prescribing in Patients With Fragility Fractures in Primary Care.

Background Fragility fractures typically occur in the elderly population due to low-energy trauma in the context of underlying osteoporotic bone disease. These fractures are becoming increasingly more common as the population of the United Kingdom ages, representing a significant public health issue. In the community, a joint care approach is adopted between general practitioners and fracture liaison services for the management of patients with fragility fractures. Despite this, preventive care for these patients remains substandard. This project aimed to conduct an audit of patients with a coded diagnosis of a fragility fracture in our primary care practice to ascertain fracture type and the prescription of bone protective agents. When necessary, the appropriate therapy was commenced per best practice guidelines. Methodology A search of patients with the diagnosis of on our electronic patient database, SystmOne, was conducted for the period of April 2019 to April 2023 inclusive. A retrospective audit of electronic patient records was done to identify patient demographic data, fracture types and dates, osteoporosis prescriptions, vitamin D/calcium supplementation, and bone densitometry scan results (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry). Results A total of 47 patients were identified with a coded diagnosis of a , of whom 36 were females and 11 were males. The average age of the patients was 76.89 years with a range of 50 to 97. In total, 49 fractures were identified. More than two-thirds of the fractures identified were either distal forearm or neck of femur fractures (18 and 15, respectively). Of the 47 patients identified, 33 were on bone protection agents. Further, 26 received both bisphosphonates and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. Seven patients were on bisphosphonate monotherapy, and the remaining two patients were on vitamin D/calcium supplementation alone. Of the 47 patients, 12 had neither form of therapy prescribed. Conclusions Despite the joint effort between fracture liaison services and general practitioners, the secondary prevention of fragility fractures within the community remains inadequate. Fragility fractures are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and re-fracture rates and incur significant costs to the National Health Service. Local practitioners must routinely evaluate their data to identify opportunities to improve patient care. Effective and timely treatment could be key to the prevention of new or second fractures.