Solomon DH, Altwies H, Santacroce L, Ellrodt J, Pham T, Stratton J, Landman A, Dalal A, Collins J, Rudin RS. A Mobile Health Application Integrated in the Electronic Health Record for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Controlled Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of Impact on Visit Efficiency.
Arthritis Rheumatol 2024;
76:677-683. [PMID:
38087859 DOI:
10.1002/art.42774]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 12/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/17/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) collection between visits for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could improve visit efficiency, reducing in-person visits for patients with stable symptoms while facilitating access for those with symptoms. We examined whether a mobile health PRO application integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) could reduce visit volume for those with RA.
METHODS
We developed an application for RA that prompted patients every other day to complete brief PRO questionnaires. Results of the application were integrated into the EHR. We tested the application in a controlled interrupted time-series analysis between 2020 and 2023. Rheumatologists received EHR-based messages based on PRO results recommending the patient receive a visit earlier or later than scheduled. The primary outcome was monthly visit volume during the year before versus the year after initiation.
RESULTS
A total of 150 patients with RA consented and used the application. The median age was 62 years, 83% were female, 7% had fewer than 2 years of disease, and 50% were seropositive; 150 controls were well matched. Among those in the application cohort, the estimated monthly median visit volume in the year before use of the application was 31.2 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 28.0-34.3); in controls, this was 30.4 (95% CI 27.3-33.6). In the year using the application, the estimated monthly visit volume was 36.8 (95% CI 33.4-40.3) compared to 38.7 (95% CI 35.2-42.3) in controls. The difference in the differences between the cohorts was not statistically significant (-2.7 visits, 95% CI -9.3 to 4.0). No differences were noted in flare rates or visit delays.
CONCLUSION
In this initial trial of a PRO application intervention to improve visit efficiency, we found no association with reduced visit volume.
Collapse