Since the publication of the Osteoporosis Canada guidelines in 2002, there has been a paradigm shift in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and fractures.1,2 The focus now is on preventing fragility fractures and their negative consequences, rather than on treating low bone mineral density, which is viewed as only one of several risk factors for fracture. Given that certain clinical factors increase the risk of fracture independent of bone mineral density, it is important to take an integrated approach and to base treatment decisions on the absolute risk of fracture. Current data suggest that many patients with fractures do not undergo appropriate assessment or treatment.3 To address this care gap for high-risk patients, the 2010 guidelines concentrate on the assessment and management of women and men over age 50 who are at high risk of fragility fractures and the integration of new tools for assessing the 10-year risk of fracture into overall management. Burden and care gapsFragility fractures, the consequence of osteoporosis, are responsible for excess mortality, morbidity, chronic pain, admission to institutions and economic costs. [4][5][6] They represent 80% of all fractures in menopausal women over age 50.3 Those with hip or vertebral fractures have substantially increased risk of death after the fracture.5 Postfracture mortality and institutionalization rates are higher for men than for women. 7Despite the high prevalence of fragility fractures in the Canadian population and the knowledge that fractures predict future fractures, 8 fewer than 20% of women 3,9 and 10% of men 10 receive therapies to prevent further fractures. These statistics contrast sharply with the situation for cardiovascular disease, where 75% of patients who have had myocardial infarction receive β-blockers to prevent another event. 11 Scope of the guidelinesThe target population for these guidelines is women and men over age 50, because of the overall burden of illness in that age group. As a consequence, we focused our systematic literature reviews on this population. The application of these guidelines to children and young adults, as well as high-risk groups such as transplant recipients, was considered, but indepth reviews of conditions that increase risk were largely beyond the scope of these guidelines. Development of the guidelinesThe development of these guidelines followed the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) framework. 12 We surveyed primary care physicians, patients, osteoporosis specialists from various disciplines, radiologists, allied health professionals and health policy-makers to identify priorities for these guidelines. We then conducted system-

No abstract

BackgroundIn Canada, rates of hospital admission from opioid overdose are higher for older adults (≥ 65) than younger adults, and opioid use disorder (OUD) is a growing concern. In response, Health Canada commissioned the Canadian Coalition of Seniors’ Mental Health to create guidelines for the prevention, screening, assessment, and treatment of OUD in older adults.MethodsA systematic review of English language literature from 2008–2018 regarding OUD in adults was conducted. Previously published guidelines were evaluated using AGREE II, and key guidelines updated using ADAPTE method, by drawing on current literature. Recommendations were created and assessed using the GRADE method.ResultsThirty-two recommendations were created. Prevention recommendations: it is key to prioritize non-pharmacological and non-opioid strategies to treat acute and chronic noncancer pain. Assessment recommendations: a comprehensive assessment is important to help discern contributions of other medical conditions. Treatment recommendations: buprenorphine is first line for both withdrawal management and maintenance therapy, while methadone, slow-release oral morphine, or naltrexone can be used as alternatives under certain circumstances; non-pharmacological treatments should be offered as an integrated part of care.ConclusionThese guidelines provide practical and timely clinical recommendations on the prevention, assessment, and treatment of OUD in older adults within the Canadian context.

No abstract

BackgroundIn 2014, nursing home administration and government officials were facing increasing public and media scrutiny around the variation of antipsychotic medication (APM) prescribing across Ontario nursing homes. In response, policy makers partnered to test an academic detailing (AD) intervention to address appropriate prescribing of APM in nursing homes in a cluster-randomized trial. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore how and why the AD intervention may have resulted in changes in the nursing home context. The objectives were to understand how the intervention was implemented, explore contextual factors associated with implementation, and examine impact of the intervention on prescribing.MethodsAdministrative data for the primary outcome of the full randomized trial will not be available for a minimum of 1 year. Therefore, this paper reports the findings of a planned, quantitative interim trial analysis assessed mean APM dose and prescribing prevalence at baseline and 3 and 6 months across 40 nursing homes (18 intervention, 22 control). Patient-level administrative data regarding prescribing were analyzed using generalized linear mixed effects regression. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home staff from the intervention group to explore opinions and experiences of the AD intervention. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method, with constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied as pre-defined deductive codes. Open coding was applied when emerging themes did not align with CFIR constructs. Qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated to examine points of divergence to understand how the intervention may work and to identify areas for future opportunities and areas for improvement.ResultsNo significant differences were observed in prescribing outcomes. A total of 22 interviews were conducted, including four academic detailers and 18 nursing home staff. Constructs within the CFIR domains of Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals presented barriers to antipsychotic prescribing. Intervention Source, Evidence Strength and Quality, and Adaptability explained participant engagement in the AD intervention; nursing homes that exhibited a Tension for Change and Leadership Engagement reported positive changes in processes and communication.ConclusionsParticipants described their experiences with the intervention against the backdrop of a range of factors that influence APM prescribing in nursing homes that exist at the system, facility, provider, and resident levels. In this context, the perceived credibility and flexibility of the intervention were critical features that explained engagement with and potential impact of the intervention. Development of a common language across the team to enable communication was reported as a proximal outcome that may eventually have an effect on APM prescribing rates. Process evaluations may be useful during early stages of evaluation to understand how the intervention ...