The Development of the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative for Improving Patient-Reported Outcome Collection and Patient-Centered Communication in Adult Rheumatology

Using the technology acceptance model to assess clinician perceptions and experiences with a rheumatoid arthritis outcomes dashboard: qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Improving shared decision-making using a treat-to-target approach, including the use of clinical outcome measures, is important to providing high quality care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We developed an Electronic Health Record (EHR) integrated, patient-facing sidecar dashboard application that displays RA outcomes, medications, and lab results for use during clinical visits ("RA PRO dashboard"). The purpose of this study was to assess clinician perceptions and experiences using the dashboard in a university rheumatology clinic.

METHODS

We conducted focus group (FG) discussions with clinicians who had access to the dashboard as part of a randomized, stepped-wedge pragmatic trial. FGs explored clinician perceptions towards the usability, acceptability, and usefulness of the dashboard. FG data were analyzed thematically using deductive and inductive techniques; generated themes were categorized into the domains of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).

RESULTS

3 FG discussions were conducted with a total of 13 clinicians. Overall, clinicians were enthusiastic about the dashboard and expressed the usefulness of visualizing RA outcome trajectories in a graphical format for motivating patients, enhancing patient understanding of their RA outcomes, and improving communication about medications. Major themes that emerged from the FG analysis as barriers to using the dashboard included inconsistent collection of RA outcomes leading to sparse data in the dashboard and concerns about explaining RA outcomes, especially to patients with fibromyalgia. Other challenges included time constraints and technical difficulties refreshing the dashboard to display real-time data. Methods for integrating the dashboard into the visit varied: some clinicians used the dashboard at the beginning of the visit as they documented RA outcomes; others used it at the end to justify changes to therapy; and a few shared it only with stable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides valuable insights into clinicians' perceptions and experiences with the RA PRO dashboard. The dashboard showed promise in enhancing patient-clinician communication, shared decision-making, and overall acceptance among clinicians. Addressing challenges related to data collection, education, and tailoring dashboard use to specific patient populations will be crucial for maximizing its potential impact on RA care. Further research and ongoing improvements in dashboard design and implementation are warranted to ensure its successful integration into routine clinical practice.

Placing patient-reported outcomes at the centre of cardiovascular clinical practice: implications for quality of care and management

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important insights into patients' own perspectives about their health and medical condition, and there is evidence that their use can lead to improvements in the quality of care and to better-informed clinical decisions. Their application in cardiovascular populations has grown over the past decades. This statement describes what PROs are, and it provides an inventory of disease-specific and domain-specific PROs that have been developed for cardiovascular populations. International standards and quality indices have been published, which can guide the selection of PROs for clinical practice and in clinical trials and research; patients as well as experts in psychometrics should be involved in choosing which are most appropriate. Collaborations are needed to define criteria for using PROs to guide regulatory decisions, and the utility of PROs for comparing and monitoring the quality of care and for allocating resources should be evaluated. New sources for recording PROs include wearable digital health devices, medical registries, and electronic health record. Advice is given for the optimal use of PROs in shared clinical decision-making in cardiovascular medicine, and concerning future directions for their wider application.

Healthcare disparities in telemedicine for rheumatology care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize the recent literature published in the last 2 years on healthcare disparities observed in the delivery of rheumatology care by telemedicine. We highlight recent research dissecting the underpinnings of healthcare disparities and identify potentially modifiable contributing factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

The COVID-19 pandemic has had major impacts on care delivery and has led to a pronounced increase in telemedicine use in rheumatology practice. Telemedicine services are disproportionately underutilized by racial/ethnic minority groups and among patients with lower socioeconomic status. Disparities in telemedicine access and use among vulnerable populations threatens to exacerbate existing outcome inequalities affecting people with rheumatic disease.

SUMMARY

Telemedicine has the potential to expand rheumatology services by reaching traditionally underserved communities. However, some areas lack the infrastructure and technology to engage in telemedicine. Addressing health equity and the digital divide may help foster more inclusive telemedicine care.

Future challenges in rheumatology – is telemedicine the solution?

The COVID-19 pandemic has become an unprecedented facilitator of rapid telehealth expansion within rheumatology. Due to demographic shifts and workforce shortages in the future, new models of rheumatology care will be expected to emerge, with a growing footprint of telehealth interventions. Telehealth is already being used to monitor patients with rheumatic diseases and initial studies show good results in terms of safety and disease progression. It is being used as a tool for appointment prioritization and triage, and there is good evidence for using telehealth in rehabilitation, patient education and self-management interventions. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) offer a number of long-term benefits and opportunities, and a routine collection of ePROs also facilitates epidemiological research that can inform future healthcare delivery. Telehealth solutions should be developed in close collaboration with all stakeholders, and the option of a telehealth visit must not deprive patients of the possibility to make use of a conventional ‘face-to-face’ visit. Future studies should especially focus on optimal models for rheumatology healthcare delivery to patients living in remote areas who are unable to use or access computer technology, and other patient groups at risk for disparity due to technical inequity and lack of knowledge.

Implementing Treat to Target (TTT) for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) During COVID: Results of a Virtual Learning Collaborative (LC) Program

Objective

A treat‐to‐target (TTT) approach improves outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In prior work, we found that a learning collaborative (LC) program improved implementation of TTT. We conducted a shorter virtual LC to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of this model for quality improvement and to assess TTT during virtual visits.

Methods

We tested a 6‐month virtual LC in ambulatory care. The LC was conducted during the 2020–2021 COVID‐19 pandemic when many patient visits were conducted virtually. All LC meetings used videoconferencing and a website to share data. The LC comprised a 6‐hour kickoff session and 6 monthly webinars. The LC discussed TTT in RA, its rationale, and rapid cycle improvement as a method for implementing TTT. Practices provided de‐identified patient visit data. Monthly webinars reinforced topics and demonstrated data on TTT adherence. This was measured as the percentage of TTT processes completed. We compared TTT adherence between in‐person visits versus virtual visits.

Results

Eighteen sites participated in the LC, representing 45 rheumatology clinicians. Sites inputted data on 1,826 patient visits, 78% of which were conducted in‐person and 22% of which were held in a virtual setting. Adherence with TTT improved from a mean of 51% at baseline to 84% at month 6 (P for trend < 0.001). Each aspect of TTT also improved. Adherence with TTT during virtual visits was lower (65%) than during in‐person visits (79%) (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Implementation of TTT for RA can be improved through a relatively low‐cost virtual LC. This improvement in TTT implementation was observed despite the COVID‐19 pandemic, but we did observe differences in TTT adherence between in‐person visits and virtual visits.