What is the difference between Post-Fracture Care (PFC) and Fracture Liaison Service (FLS)?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: March 24, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

From the Guidelines

The primary distinction between Post-Fracture Care (PFC) and Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) is that FLS provides a more comprehensive and systematic approach to secondary fracture prevention, as evidenced by a systematic review and meta-analysis showing FLS to be the most effective organizational structure for risk evaluation and treatment initiation 1.

Key Differences

  • PFC programs typically focus on the immediate care and healing of the fracture, including treatments like casting, physical therapy, and pain management, with some basic osteoporosis screening.
  • FLS, on the other hand, is a coordinated service that systematically identifies all patients with fragility fractures, assesses their fracture risk, and implements comprehensive secondary fracture prevention strategies, including bone health assessment, falls risk evaluation, and initiation of appropriate osteoporosis medications.
  • The FLS model is characterized by a dedicated coordinator, often a well-educated nurse working under the supervision of an orthopaedic surgeon, endocrinologist, or rheumatologist, who oversees all aspects of the process, from identification and investigation to intervention and therapy 1.

Effectiveness of FLS

  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have proven that a nominated coordinator in an FLS significantly improves the implementation of osteoporosis treatment after a fragility fracture, with one cluster RCT showing 45% of patients receiving appropriate management in the intervention group versus 26% in the control group within 6 months after the fracture 1.
  • The systematic approach of FLS has been associated with a significant reduction in secondary fracture rates, highlighting its effectiveness in preventing subsequent fractures compared to less comprehensive PFC programs.

Comprehensive Approach of FLS

  • FLS includes systematic case finding, bone health assessment (including DXA scans), falls risk evaluation, and initiation of appropriate osteoporosis medications such as bisphosphonates, denosumab, or anabolic agents like teriparatide when indicated.
  • Long-term monitoring of treatment adherence and outcomes is also a critical component of FLS, ensuring that patients receive continuous care and support to prevent future fractures.

From the Research

Definition and Purpose

  • Post-Fracture Care (PFC) and Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) are two approaches to managing patients with fragility fractures.
  • The primary goal of both PFC and FLS is to prevent subsequent fractures and improve patient outcomes 2, 3.
  • FLS is a more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach that aims to identify and treat patients with osteoporosis and other underlying conditions that contribute to fragility fractures 4, 5.

Key Components

  • FLS typically involves a coordinated team of healthcare professionals, including orthopedic specialists, primary care physicians, and nurse practitioners 3, 6.
  • The FLS team works together to identify patients at high risk of subsequent fractures, conduct diagnostic tests, and initiate treatment plans 2, 4.
  • PFC, on the other hand, may involve more traditional and fragmented approaches to managing patients with fragility fractures, with less emphasis on multidisciplinary care and coordination 2.

Benefits and Outcomes

  • Studies have shown that FLS programs can significantly improve patient outcomes, including increased rates of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment, reduced mortality and refracture rates, and lower healthcare costs 2, 3, 5.
  • FLS programs have also been shown to improve the quality of care and reduce the gap between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice 2, 4.
  • The effectiveness of PFC is less well-studied, but it is generally considered to be less effective than FLS in preventing subsequent fractures and improving patient outcomes 2, 3.

Models and Implementation

  • There are different models of FLS, ranging from simple identification and referral to more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches 4, 5.
  • The implementation of FLS programs can vary depending on the healthcare setting and available resources, but they often involve the use of cloud-based tools and other technologies to support care coordination and communication 5.
  • PFC may involve more traditional and fragmented approaches to managing patients with fragility fractures, with less emphasis on multidisciplinary care and coordination 2.

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Research

FRACTURE LIAISON SERVICES: MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES TO SECONDARY FRACTURE PREVENTION.

Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, 2017

Research

Fracture liaison service-a multidisciplinary approach to osteoporosis management.

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2024

Research

Implementing a fracture liaison service open model of care utilizing a cloud-based tool.

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2018

Research

The Roles of a Fracture Liaison Service.

Rhode Island medical journal (2013), 2022

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.