4.1 Article

Clinical characteristics of patients under treatment for osteoporosis in a Primary Care Centre. Who do we treat?

Journal

ATENCION PRIMARIA
Volume 42, Issue 11, Pages 559-563

Publisher

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2009.10.022

Keywords

Osteoporosis; Primary Health Care; Risk Factors; Prescription

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical characteristics of patients under treatment for osteoporosis in a Primary Care Centre. Who do we treat? Objectives: To find out the clinical and demographic features of patients in treatment for osteoporosis, look for risk factors for osteoporosis and bone fractures, and assess whether treatment is indicated. Design: Descriptive study of a series of cases. Location: Primary Care Centre, Madrid. Participants: 216 patients on treatment for osteoporosis during 2007. Principal measures: Sociodemographic variables, osteoporosis risk factors, risk of falling, prescription and treatment related information. To evaluate if treatment is indicated we have used principal medical guidelines. Results: Most of our patients were Caucasian women with a mean age of 66.14 years. A total of 39.5% had suffered an osteoporotic fracture and 16.12% had family history of osteoporotic fracture. The majority of our registers,73.15%, do not report information on Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA), and 73.13% do not make any reference to bone mineral density. Risk factors are not recorded in most of the clinical histories. Only 51.85% of the treatments were well indicated, and 44% of them began at a primary health care centre. Conclusions: Nearly 50% of treatments are not well indicated and a high percentage of our clinical histories do not record risk factors correctly. We should improve our clinical histories, as we are responsible for identifying, studying, evaluating, treating and controlling the progress of osteoporosis. (C) 2009 Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available