Quality of Care for Knee Osteoarthritis in Primary Care: A Patient's Perspective

Delivery of a quality improvement program in team-based rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

To investigate how a quality improvement program (BRIDGE), designed to promote coordination and continuity in rehabilitation services, was delivered and perceived by providers in routine practice for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

METHODS

A convergent mixed methods approach was nested within a stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial. The intervention program was developed to bridge gaps between secondary and primary healthcare, comprising the following elements: motivational interviewing; patient-specific goal setting; written rehabilitation-plans; personalized feedback on progress; and tailored follow-up. Data from health professionals who delivered the program were collected and analyzed separately, using two questionnaires and three focus groups. Results were integrated during the overall interpretation and discussion.

RESULTS

The program delivery depended on the providers' skills and competence, as well as on contextual factors in their teams and institutions. Suggested possibilities for improvements included follow-up with sufficient support from next of kin and external services, and the practicing of action and coping plans, standardized outcome measures, and feedback on progress.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaders and clinicians should discuss efforts to ensure confident and qualified rehabilitation delivery at the levels of individual providers, teams, and institutions, and pay equal attention to each component in the process from admission to follow-up.

A scoping review of patient self-report measures of flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA): A report from the OMERACT flares in OA working group

PURPOSE

We aimed to analyze the content validity/domain match and feasibility of self-report instruments that could measure flare in osteoarthritis (OA), by extending our 2017 literature review on the definition of flare in knee and hip OA.

METHOD

We searched PubMed (Medline), Web of Science and PsycInfo (Ebsco Host) databases for original articles reporting research about flare (or synonyms) in humans with knee and hip OA, between 2017 and 2023. Four experts worked independently, checking the records, and assessing content validity and feasibility, writing justification for exclusion.

RESULTS

At literature review phase, 575 papers were filtered. After experts' analysis, 59 studies were included, and 44 instruments associated with flare in OA were identified. Most were studies about pain in knee or hip OA (35 %), cultural adaptation of a measure (33 %) or studies investigating psychometric properties of full (16 %) or short form (4 %) instruments. The assessment of domain match and feasibility revealed that 15 instruments were assigned a label of 'yes' or 'uncertain' as to whether or not there was a good match with the domain concept or whether the instrument was considered feasible to use.

DISCUSSION

Most identified instruments considered different aspects of pain and the associated discomfort in performing daily activities but did not include the central aspects of flare in OA, i.e. the change of state, nor the additional Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) endorsed domains for OA flare namely stiffness, swelling, psychological aspects, impact of symptoms including fatigue and sleep disturbance. Although it is possible that the period specified to conduct this literature review may have led to some recognized instruments being excluded, this review demonstrates the need for the research community to reach consensus on the best way to measure self-reported flares in future clinical trials and observational studies.

Associations between quality of health care and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a rehabilitation cohort study

BACKGROUND

The quality of provided health care may be an important source of variation in rehabilitation outcomes, increasing the interest in associations between quality indicators (QIs) and improved patient outcomes. Therefore, we examined the associations between the quality of rehabilitation processes and subsequent clinical outcomes among patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

In this multicentre prospective cohort study, adults with RMDs undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation at eight participating centres reported the quality of rehabilitation after 2 months and outcomes after 2, 7, and 12 months. We measured perceived quality of rehabilitation by 11 process indicators that cover the domains of initial assessments, patient participation and individual goal-setting, and individual follow-up and coordination across levels of health care. The patients responded "yes" or "no" to each indicator. Scores were calculated as pass rates (PRs) from 0 to 100% (best score). Clinical outcomes were goal attainment (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), physical function (30 s sit-to-stand test), and health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5D-5L). Associations between patient-reported quality of care and each outcome measure at 7 months was analysed by linear mixed models.

RESULTS

A total of 293 patients were enrolled in this study (mean age 52 years, 76% female). Primary diagnoses were inflammatory rheumatic disease (64%), fibromyalgia syndrome (18%), unspecific neck, shoulder, or low back pain (8%), connective tissue disease (6%), and osteoarthritis (4%). The overall median PR for the process indicators was 73% (range 11-100%). The PR was lowest (median 40%) for individual follow-up and coordination across levels of care. The mixed model analyses showed that higher PRs for the process indicators were not associated with improved goal attainment or improved physical function or improved health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of rehabilitation processes was not associated with important clinical outcomes. An implication of this is that measuring only the outcome dimension of quality may result in incomplete evaluation and monitoring of the quality of care, and we suggest using information from both the structure, process, and outcome dimensions to draw inferences about the quality, and plan future quality initiatives in the field of complex rehabilitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03102814 ).

Early-stage symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee - time for action

Osteoarthritis (OA) remains the most challenging arthritic disorder, with a high burden of disease and no available disease-modifying treatments. Symptomatic early-stage OA of the knee (the focus of this Review) urgently needs to be identified and defined, as efficient early-stage case finding and diagnosis in primary care would enable health-care providers to proactively and substantially reduce the burden of disease through proper management including structured education, exercise and weight management (when needed) and addressing lifestyle-related risk factors for disease progression. Efforts to define patient populations with symptomatic early-stage knee OA on the basis of validated classification criteria are ongoing. Such criteria, as well as the identification of molecular and imaging biomarkers of disease risk and/or progression, would enable well-designed clinical studies, facilitate interventional trials, and aid the discovery and validation of cellular and molecular targets for novel therapies. Treatment strategies, relevant outcomes and ethical issues also need to be considered in the context of the cost-effective management of symptomatic early-stage knee OA. To move forwards, a multidisciplinary and sustained international effort involving all major stakeholders is required.