Measuring quality in arthritis care: methods for developing the Arthritis Foundation's quality indicator set

Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network's Quality Measure Set to Improve Care of Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the selection, development, and implementation of quality measures (QMs) for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) by the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN), a multihospital learning health network using quality improvement methods and leveraging QMs to drive improved outcomes across a JIA population since 2011.

METHODS

An American College of Rheumatology-endorsed multistakeholder process previously selected initial process QMs. Clinicians in PR-COIN and parents of children with JIA collaboratively selected outcome QMs. A committee of rheumatologists and data analysts developed operational definitions. QMs were programmed and validated using patient data. Measures are populated by registry data, and performance is displayed on automated statistical process control charts. PR-COIN centers use rapid-cycle quality improvement approaches to improve performance metrics. The QMs are revised for usefulness, to reflect best practices, and to support network initiatives.

RESULTS

The initial QM set included 13 process measures concerning standardized measurement of disease activity, collection of patient-reported outcome assessments, and clinical performance measures. Initial outcome measures were clinical inactive disease, low pain score, and optimal physical functioning. The revised QM set has 20 measures and includes additional measures of disease activity, data quality, and a balancing measure.

CONCLUSION

PR-COIN has developed and tested JIA QMs to assess clinical performance and patient outcomes. The implementation of robust QMs is important to improve quality of care. PR-COIN's set of JIA QMs is the first comprehensive set of QMs used at the point-of-care for a large cohort of JIA patients in a variety of pediatric rheumatology practice settings.

What is the value and impact of the adaptation process on quality indicators for local use? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Quality indicators (QIs) are designed for improving quality of care, but the development of QIs is resource intensive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVE

To describe and identify the impact and potential attributes of the adaptation process for the local use of existing QIs.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and grey literature were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Literatures operationalizing or implementing QIs that were developed in a different jurisdiction from the place where the QIs were included.

RESULTS

Of 7704 citations identified, 10 out of 33 articles were included. Our results revealed a lack of definition and conceptualization for an adaptation process in which an existing set of QIs was applied. Four out of ten studies involved a consensus process (e.g., Delphi or RAND process) to determine the suitability of QIs for local use. QIs for chronic conditions in primary and secondary settings were mostly used for adaptation. Of the ones that underwent a consensus process, 56.3 to 85.7% of original QIs were considered valid for local use, and 2 to 21.8% of proposed QIs were newly added. Four attributes should be considered in the adaptation: 1) identifying areas/conditions; 2) a consensus process; 3) proposing adapted QIs; 4) operationalization and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The existing QIs, although serving as a good starting point, were not adequately adapted before for use in a different jurisdiction from their origin. Adaptation of QIs under a systematic approach is critical for informing future research planning for QIs adaptation and potentially establishing a new pathway for healthcare improvement.

Factors Associated With Quality Care Among Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis

IMPORTANCE

Although quality care markers exist for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the predictors of meeting these markers are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors associated with quality care among patients with RA.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study using insurance claims from 2009 to 2017 was conducted, and 6 sequential logistic regression models were built to evaluate quality care markers. Quality care markers were measured at 1 year post-RA diagnosis for each patient. The MarketScan Research Database, which contains commercial and Medicare Advantage administrative claims data from more than 100 million individuals in the US, was used to identify patients aged 18 to 64 years with a diagnosis claim for RA. Patients with conditions presenting similar to RA and missing demographic characteristics were excluded. Data analysis occurred between February 18 and May 5, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Success or failure to meet selected RA quality care markers within 1 year after RA diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence of meeting successive quality care markers for RA.

RESULTS

Among 581 770 patients, 430 843 (74.1%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 48.9 (11.3) years. Most patients (236 285 [40.6%]) resided in the South and had an income less than or equal to $45 200 (490 366 [84.3%]). Of the total study population, 399 862 individuals (68.7%) met at least 1 quality care marker and 181 908 (31.3%) met 0 markers. Most commonly, patients met annual laboratory testing (299 323 [51.5%]) and referral to a rheumatologist (256 765 [44.1%]) markers. The least met marker was receiving hepatitis B screening prior to initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy (18 548 [3.2%]). Women were most likely to meet all quality care markers except receiving DMARDs with hepatitis B screening (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16). Individuals with lower median household income had lower odds of receiving a rheumatologist referral, an annual physical examination, or annual laboratory testing, but greater odds of receiving the other quality care markers. Patients with Medicare and those with comorbidities were generally less likely to meet quality care markers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients with RA, findings indicated downstream associations with rheumatologist referral and receiving DMARDs and varied associations between meeting quality care markers and patient characteristics. These findings suggest that prioritizing early care, especially for vulnerable patients, will ensure that quality care continues.

Quality indicators for knee and hip osteoarthritis care: a systematic review

To provide an overview of quality indicators (QIs) for knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) care and to highlight differences in healthcare settings. A database search was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL and Google Scholar, OpenGrey and Prospective Trial Register, up to March 2020. Studies developing or adapting existing QI(s) for patients with osteoarthritis were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were categorised into healthcare settings. QIs from included studies were categorised into structure, process and outcome of care. Within these categories, QIs were grouped into themes (eg, physical therapy). A narrative synthesis was used to describe differences and similarities between healthcare settings. We included 20 studies with a total of 196 QIs mostly related to the process of care in different healthcare settings. Few studies included patients’ perspectives. Rigorous methods for evidence synthesis to develop QIs were rarely used. Narrative analysis showed differences in QIs between healthcare settings with regard to exercise therapy, weight counselling, referral to laboratory tests and ‘do not do’ QIs. Differences within the same healthcare setting were identified on radiographic assessment. The heterogeneity in QIs emphasise the necessity to carefully select QIs for KHOA depending on the healthcare setting. This review provides an overview of QIs outlined to their healthcare settings to support healthcare providers and policy makers in selecting the contextually appropriate QIs to validly monitor the quality of KHOA care. We strongly recommend to review QIs against the most recent guidelines before implementing them into practice.

Quality Indicators for Evaluating the Health Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Korean Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the quality of health care and considerable efforts are being made to improve it. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that can result in favorable outcomes when appropriate diagnosis and treatment are provided. However, several studies have shown that RA is often managed inappropriately. Therefore, the Korean College of Rheumatology aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate and improve the health care of patients with RA.

METHODS

Preliminary QIs were derived based on the existing guidelines and QIs for RA. The final QIs were determined through two separate consensus meetings of experts. The consensus was achieved through a panel of experts who voted using the modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

Fourteen final QIs were selected among 70 preliminary QIs. These included early referral to and regular follow-up with a rheumatologist, radiographs of the hands and feet, early initiation and maintenance of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, periodic assessment of disease activity, screening for drug safety and comorbidities, including viral hepatitis and tuberculosis before biologic DMARD therapy, periodic laboratory testing, supplementation with folic acid, assessment of the risk for cervical spine instability before general anesthesia, patient education, and specialized nurse.

CONCLUSION

These QIs can be used to assess and improve the quality of health care for patients with RA.

Patient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool

BACKGROUND

There is no physiotherapy-specific quality indicator tool available to evaluate physiotherapy care for people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to develop a patient-reported quality indicator tool (QUIPA) for physiotherapy management of hip and knee OA and to assess its reliability and validity.

METHODS

To develop the QUIPA tool, quality indicators were initially developed based on clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy practice and those of an existing generic OA quality indicator tool. Draft items were then further refined using patient focus groups. Test-retest reliability, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity were then evaluated. Sixty-five people with hip and/or knee OA attended a single physiotherapy consultation and completed the QUIPA tool one, twelve- and thirteen-weeks after. Physiotherapists (n = 9) completed the tool post-consultation. Patient test-retest reliability was assessed between weeks twelve and thirteen. Construct validity was assessed with three predefined hypotheses and criterion validity was based on agreement between physiotherapists and participants at week one.

RESULTS

A draft list of 23 clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy was developed. Following feedback from three patient focus groups, the final QUIPA tool contained 18 items (three subscales) expressed in lay language. The test-retest reliability estimates (Cohen's Kappa) for single items ranged from 0.30-0.83 with observed agreement of 64-94%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Assessment and Management Planning subscale was 0.70 (0.54, 0.81), Core Recommended Treatments subscale was 0.84 (0.75, 0.90), Adjunctive Treatments subscale was 0.70 (0.39, 0.87) and for the total QUIPA score was 0.80 (0.69, 0.88). All predefined hypotheses regarding construct validity were confirmed. However, agreement between physiotherapists and participants for single items showed large measurement error (Cohen's Kappa estimates ranged from - 0.04-0.59) with the ICC (95% CI) for the total score being 0.11 (- 0.14, 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

The QUIPA tool showed acceptable test-retest reliability for subscales and total score but inadequate reliability for individual items. Construct validity was confirmed but criterion validity for individual items, subscales and the total score was inadequate. Further research is needed to refine the QUIPA tool to improve its clinimetric properties before implementation.

Primary health care quality indicators: An umbrella review

Nowadays, evaluating the quality of health services, especially in primary health care (PHC), is increasingly important. In a historical perspective, the Department of Health (United Kingdom) developed and proposed a range of indicators in 1998, and lately several health, social and political organizations have defined and implemented different sets of PHC quality indicators. Some systematic reviews in PHC quality indicators are reported but only in specific contexts and conditions. The aim of this study is to characterize and provide a list of indicators discussed in the literature to support managers and clinicians in decision-making processes, through an umbrella review on PHC quality indicators. The methodology was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Indicators from 33 eligible systematic reviews were categorized according to the dimensions of care, function, type of care, domains and condition contexts. Of a total of 727 indicators or groups of indicators, 74.5% (n = 542) were classified in process category and 89.5% (n = 537) with chronic type of care (n = 428; 58.8%) and effective domain (n = 423; 58.1%) with the most frequent values in categorizations by dimensions. The results of this overview of reviews are valuable and imply the need for future research and practice regarding primary health care quality indicators in the most varied conditions and contexts to generate new discussions about their use, comparison and implementation.

The development of quality indicators for systemic lupus erythematosus using electronic health data: A modified RAND appropriateness method

Objective: Quality indicators (QIs) are tools that standardize evaluations in terms of the minimum acceptable quality of care, presumably contributing for the better management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This study aimed to develop QIs for SLE using electronic health data.Methods: The modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop the QIs. First, a literature review was conducted. Second, the candidate QI items that were available to be evaluated using the electronic health data were extracted. Third, the appropriateness of the items was assessed via rating rounds and panelists' discussions.Results: We found 3621 articles in the initial search. Finally, 34 studies were reviewed, from which 17 potential indicators were extracted as candidate QIs. Twelve indicators were selected as the final QI set through the process of appropriateness. The median appropriateness of these 12 indicators was at least 7.5, and all of them were without disagreement. The QI included assessment of disease activity, treatment of SLE, drug toxicity monitoring, treatment of glucocorticoid complications, and assessment of SLE complications.Conclusion: We formulated 12 QIs for the assessment of patients with SLE based on electronic medical data. Our QI set would be a practical tool as a quality measure.

Toward Standardized Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care Using Electronic Medical Records: Systematic Review

Background

Long-term care for patients with chronic diseases poses a huge challenge in primary care. In particular, there is a deficit regarding monitoring and structured follow-up. Appropriate electronic medical records (EMRs) could help improving this but, so far, there are no evidence-based specifications concerning the indicators that should be monitored at regular intervals.

Objective

The aim was to identify and collect a set of evidence-based indicators that could be used for monitoring chronic conditions at regular intervals in primary care using EMRs.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and the content of clinical guidelines. We included primary studies and guidelines reporting about indicators that allow for the assessment of care and help monitor the status and process of disease for five chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, asthma, arterial hypertension, chronic heart failure, and osteoarthritis.

Results

The use of the term “monitoring” in terms of disease management and long-term care for patients with chronic diseases is not widely used in the literature. Nevertheless, we identified a substantial number of disease-specific indicators that can be used for routine monitoring of chronic diseases in primary care by means of EMRs.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review summarizing the existing scientific evidence on the standardized long-term monitoring of chronic diseases using EMRs. In a second step, our extensive set of indicators will serve as a generic template for evaluating their usability by means of an adapted Delphi procedure. In a third step, the indicators will be summarized into a user-friendly EMR layout.

Care quality for rheumatoid arthritis patients in Quebec

AIM

The aims of this study were to: (a) measure the proportion of CARTaGENE rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients fulfilling pre-specified quality indicators (ie disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD] use, regular follow up, use of folate supplementation, use of vitamin D and calcium, exercise and smoking status); and (b) examine variation in DMARD use with respect to patient age, sex, education and income.

METHODS

A cohort of RA patients was constructed based on the CARTaGENE survey and health administrative database. CARTaGENE is a large, established, population-based study which recruited 19 995 participants from four metropolitan regions in Quebec. Six quality indicators (QI) were assessed; four pertained to RA management and treatment received (use of DMARD therapy, annual medical visits, use of folate supplementation with methotrexate therapy, and use of calcium and vitamin D in steroid-exposed patients) and two pertained to lifestyle factors (physical activity and smoking cessation). QI were reported in terms of proportion of patients fulfilling them. Bayesian logistic regression analyses were preformed to investigate potential variation with DMARD use.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 142 RA patients. The QI that pertain to RA pharmacotherapy and medical management ranged 60-80%. Regarding the QI focusing on lifestyle factors, 55% of patients reported performing moderate physical activity and only 16.6% reported current smoking. Results from the Bayesian logistic regression showed no definite associations between DMARD use and patient characteristics (age, education, income and sex).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a seemingly modest performance of Quebec's health-care system for RA patients, with respect to these QI.

Increasing contraception use among women receiving teratogenic medications in a rheumatology clinic

Teratogenic medications are often prescribed to women of childbearing age with autoimmune diseases. Literature suggests that appropriate use of contraception among these women is low, potentially resulting in high-risk unintended pregnancies. Preliminary review in our clinic showed suboptimal documentation of women's contraceptive use. We therefore designed a quality improvement initiative to target three process measures: documentation of contraception usage and type, contraception counselling and provider action after counselling. We reviewed charts of rheumatology clinic female patients aged 18-45 over the course of 10 months; for those who were on teratogenic medications (methotrexate, leflunomide, mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide), we looked for evidence of documentation of contraception use. We executed multiple plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles to develop and evaluate interventions, which centred on interprofessional provider education, modification of electronic medical record (EMR) templates, periodic provider reminders, patient screening questionnaires and frequent feedback to providers on performance. Among eligible patients (n=181), the baseline rate of documentation of contraception type was 46%, the rate of counselling was 30% and interventions after counselling occurred in 33% of cases. Averaged intervention data demonstrated increased provider performance in all three domains: documentation of contraception type increased to 64%, counselling to 45% and provider action to 46%. Of the patients with documented contraceptives, 50% used highly effective, 27% used effective and 23% used ineffective contraception methods. During this project, one unintentional pregnancy occurred in a patient on methotrexate not on contraception. Our interventions improved three measures related to contraception counselling and documentation, but there remains a need for ongoing quality improvement efforts in our clinic. This high-risk population requires increased provider engagement to improve contraception compliance, coupled with system-wide EMR changes to increase sustainability.

Quality of care in inflammatory bowel diseases: What is the best way to better outcomes?

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a lifelong, progressive disease that has disabling impacts on patient's lives. Given the complex nature of the diagnosis of IBD and its management there is consequently a large economic burden seen across all health care systems. Quality indicators (QI) have been created to assess the different façades of disease management including structure, process and outcome components. Their development serves to provide a means to target and measure quality of care (QoC). Multiple different QI sets have been published in IBD, but all serve the same purpose of trying to achieve a standard of care that can be attained on a national and international level, since there is still a major variation in clinical practice. There have been many recent innovative developments that aim to improve QoC in IBD including telemedicine, home biomarker assessment and rapid access clinics. These are some of the novel advancements that have been shown to have great potential at improving QoC, while offloading some of the burden that IBD can have vis-a-vis emergency room visits and hospital admissions. The aim of the current review is to summarize and discuss available QI sets and recent developments in IBD care including telemedicine, and to give insight into how the utilization of these tools could benefit the QoC of IBD patients. Additionally, a treating-to-target structure as well as evidence surrounding aggressive management directed at tighter disease control will be presented.

A Systematic Review of Quality Measures for Inflammatory Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and quality appraisal of quality measures for inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 23, 2016, using Medical Subject Headings terms for inflammatory arthritis and quality measures. A "grey literature" search of international arthritis organizations and quality measure libraries was also conducted. Two reviewers independently considered the papers for inclusion, with disagreements resolved by consensus. A modified guideline appraisal tool (AGREE II) was used to appraise the measure development process, which determined final inclusion. Measures were abstracted in duplicate and categorized into themes, measure type, and domains of quality.

RESULTS

Thirteen measurement sets were included from 4 countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands) and 1 European consortium. They included 10 sets on RA and 1 each for PsA, inflammatory arthritis, and JIA. There were 161 unique individual measures (136 process, 20 structure, and 5 outcome). Major themes included assessment, medications, and comorbidities. Measure development methods were varied, including RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology, prioritization exercises, or other modified-Delphi methods. Inclusion of patients occurred in 77% of development groups. Discussion of barriers to measurement was infrequent.

CONCLUSION

Inflammatory arthritis quality measures cover a diversity of themes encompassing process, structure, and outcomes of care across the 6 domains of quality. However, between organizations, measure development is not standardized. Local assessment of measurement feasibility before use outside the original development context is recommended.

A protocol for the development and piloting of quality measures to support the Healthier You: The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme

Background

The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the UK creates an additional, potentially preventable burden on health care and service providers. The Healthier You: NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme aims to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes through the identification of people at risk and the provision of intensive lifestyle change support. The provision of this care can be monitored through quality measurement at both the general practice and specialist service level.

Aim

To develop quality measures through piloting to assess the validity, credibility, acceptability, reliability, and feasibility of any proposed measures.

Design & setting

The non-experimental mixed design piloting study consists of consensus testing and exploratory research with GPs, commissioners, and patients from Herefordshire, England.

Method

A mixed-method approach will be used to develop and validate measures for diabetes prevention care and evaluate their performance over a 6-month pilot period consisting of consensus testing using a modified RAND approach with GPs and commissioners; four focus groups with 8-10 participants discussing experiences of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH), perceived ability to access care and prevent diabetes, and views on potential quality measures; and piloting final measures with at least five general practices for baseline and 6-month data.

Results

The findings will inform the implementation of the diabetes prevention quality measures on a national scale while addressing any issue with validity, credibility, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness.

Conclusion

Healthcare professionals and patients have the opportunity to evaluate the reliability, acceptability, and validity of measures.

Development of the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatoid Arthritis Electronic Clinical Quality Measures

OBJECTIVE

Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) rely on computer algorithms to extract data from electronic health records (EHRs). On behalf of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), we sought to develop and test eCQMs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Drawing from published ACR guidelines, a working group developed candidate RA process measures and subsequently assessed face validity through an interdisciplinary panel of health care stakeholders. A public comment period followed. Measures that passed these levels of review were electronically specified using the quality data model, which provides standard nomenclature for data elements (category, datatype, and value sets) obtained through an EHR. For each eCQM, 3 clinical sites using different EHR systems tested the scientific feasibility and validity of measures. Measures appropriate for accountability were presented for national endorsement.

RESULTS

Expert panel validity ratings were high for all measures (median 8-9 of 9). Health system performance on the eCQMs was 53.6% for RA disease activity assessment, 69.1% for functional status assessment, 93.1% for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, and 72.8% for tuberculosis screening. Kappa statistics, which evaluated whether the eCQM validly captured data obtained from manual EHR chart review, demonstrated moderate to substantial agreement (0.54 for functional status assessment, 0.73 for tuberculosis screening, 0.84 for disease activity, and 0.85 for DMARD use).

CONCLUSION

Four eCQMs for RA have achieved national endorsement and are recommended for use in federal quality reporting programs. Implementation and further refinement of these measures is ongoing in the ACR's registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE).

“Rheum to Improve”: Quality Improvement in Outpatient Rheumatology

The commitment to improve care processes and patient outcomes is a professional mandate for clinicians and is also seen as an operational priority for institutions. Quality improvement now figures in the accreditation of training programs, specialty examinations, and hospital scorecards. Rheumatologists have traditionally focused primarily on quality problems such as guideline adherence; however, improvement goals should also include other aspects of care that are helpful to patients and are professionally rewarding for practitioners. This review makes use of improvement projects in outlining tangible tools rheumatologists can use to resolve quality concerns in their practices.

Quality Indicators for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE) enables evaluation of the entire mucosal surface of the small bowel (SB), which is one of the most important steps for evaluating obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Although the diagnostic yield of SB CE depends on many clinical factors, there are no reports on quality indicators. Thus, the Korean Gut Image Study Group (KGISG) publishes an article titled, “Quality Indicators for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy” under approval from the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Herein, we initially identified process quality indicators, while the structural and outcome indicators are reserved until sufficient clinical data are accumulated. We believe that outcomes of SB CE can be improved by trying to meet our proposed quality indicators.

A new era of quality measurement in rheumatology: electronic clinical quality measures and national registries

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the evolution of quality measurement in rheumatology, highlighting new health-information technology infrastructure and standards that are enabling unprecedented innovation in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Spurred by landmark legislation that ties physician payment to value, the widespread use of electronic health records, and standards such as the Quality Data Model, quality measurement in rheumatology is rapidly evolving. Rather than relying on retrospective assessments of care gathered through administrative claims or manual chart abstraction, new electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) allow automated data capture from electronic health records. At the same time, qualified clinical data registries, like the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry, are enabling large-scale implementation of eCQMs across national electronic health record networks with real-time performance feedback to clinicians. Although successful examples of eCQM development and implementation in rheumatology and other fields exist, there also remain challenges, such as lack of health system data interoperability and problems with measure accuracy.

SUMMARY

Quality measurement and improvement is increasingly an essential component of rheumatology practice. Advances in health information technology are likely to continue to make implementation of eCQMs easier and measurement more clinically meaningful and accurate in coming years.

Quality of Care for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Mind the Knowledge Gap

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a prototypical chronic multiorgan autoimmune disorder that can lead to significant burden of disease and loss of life expectancy. The disease burden is the result of a complex interplay between genetic, biologic, socioeconomic, and health system variables affecting the individual. Recent advances in biological understanding of SLE are yet to translate to transformative therapies, and genetic and socioeconomic variables are not readily amenable to intervention. In contrast, healthcare quality, a variable readily amenable to change, has been inadequately addressed in SLE, despite evidence in other chronic diseases that quality of care is strongly associated with patient outcomes. This article will analyze the available literature on the quality of care relevant to SLE, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest ways to address this in future research.

[Quality of care in inflammatory bowel disease]

Since inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic and relapsing disorder, maintaining high quality of care plays an important role in the management of patients with IBD. To develop process-based quality indicator set to improve quality of care, the indicator should be based directly on evidence and consensus. Initially, ImproveCareNow group demonstrated quality improvement by learning how to apply quality improvement methods to improve the care of pediatric patients with IBD. The American Gastroenterological Association has developed adult IBD physician performance measures set and Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) has developed a set of ten most highly rated process and outcome measures. Recently, The Emerging Practice in IBD Collaborative (EPIC) group generated defining quality indicators for best-practice management of IBD in Canada. Quality of Care through the Patient's Eyes (QUOTE-IBD) was developed as a questionnaire to measure quality of care through the eyes of patients with IBD, and it is widely used in European countries. The current concept of quality of care as well as quality indicator will be discussed in this article.

[Not Available]

Zusammenfassung. Die Qualitätssicherung zu Gunsten der Patienten ist im Alltag nicht mehr wegzudenken. Diese Arbeit beschreibt wichtige Aspekte bezüglich Sicherstellung von Standards zur Qualitätssicherung und Qualitätsverbesserung im diagnostischen und interventionellen rheumatologischen Ultraschall in der Schweiz durch die Arbeitsgruppe QIR («Quality in Rheumatology»). Qualitätsindikatoren in der Rheumatologie und Qualitätsstandards in der Arthrosonografie werden hervorgehoben und vorgestellt.

Evaluation of quality indicators and disease damage in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus patients

The aim of this study was to describe compliance with select quality indicators and assess organ-specific dysfunction in a childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus population by using a validated damage index and to evaluate associations between compliance with quality indicators and disease damage. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus prior to age 18 followed at a single center in the USA from 1999 to 2012 (n = 75). Data regarding quality indicators and outcome variables, including the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index, were collected. The median disease duration was 3.8 years. The proportion of patients or patient-years in which care complied with the proposed quality measures was 94.4% for hydroxychloroquine use, 84.3% for vitamin D recommendation,75.8% for influenza vaccination (patient-years), 67.2% for meningococcal vaccination, 49.0% for ophthalmologic examination (patient-years), 31.7% for pneumococcal vaccination, and 28.6% for bone mineral density evaluation. Disease damage was present in 41.3% of patients at last follow-up, with an average damage index score of 0.81. Disease damage at last follow-up was associated with minority race/ethnicity (p = 0.008), bone mineral density evaluation (p = 0.035), and vitamin D recommendation (p = 0.018). Adherence to quality indicators in a childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus population is varied, and disease damage is prevalent. This study highlights the importance of quality improvement initiatives aimed at optimizing care delivery to reduce disease damage in pediatric lupus patients.

[Cornerstones of quality assurance in medicine in Germany. Important impulse for the situation in treatment of rheumatism]

The recently passed German hospital structure act (Krankenhausstrukturgesetz) stresses the immense importance of quality for the medical care of the population. How can inpatient and outpatient treatment in the field of rheumatology be improved and how can this be assessed? A very important basis for such measurement approaches are quality indicators, i.e. parameters that indicate to what degree a certain level of quality has already been reached or is planned to be reached in the future. The work performed by the German Rheumatism Research Center (DRFZ) and the Association of Rheumatological Acute Clinics (VRA) in Germany has already used certain quality indicators and this topic has been recently described elsewhere. International quality indicators have also been published in recent years, all for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most prevalent inflammatory rheumatic disease and are the central subject of this article. This overview of proposed instruments for quality assessment in rheumatology is intended to initiate a broad discussion on the subject of quality of rheumatological care in Germany.

Development of Quality Indicators to Address Abuse and Neglect in Home-Based Primary Care and Palliative Care

OBJECTIVES

To develop candidate quality indicators (QIs) for the quality standard of "addressing abuse and neglect" in the setting of home-based medical care.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review of both the peer-reviewed and gray literature.

SETTING

Home-based primary and palliative care practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Homebound community-dwelling older adults.

MEASUREMENTS

Articles were identified to inform the development of candidate indicators of the quality by which home-based primary and palliative care practices addressed abuse and neglect. The literature guided the development of patient-level QIs and practice-level quality standards. A technical expert panel (TEP) representing exemplary home-based primary care and palliative care providers then participated in a modified Delphi process to assess the validity and feasibility of each measure and identify candidate QIs suitable for testing in the field.

RESULTS

The literature review yielded 4,371 titles and abstracts that were reviewed; 25 publications met final inclusion criteria and informed development of nine candidate QIs. The TEP rated all but one of the nine candidate indicators as having high validity and feasibility.

CONCLUSION

Translating the complex problem of addressing abuse and neglect into QIs may ultimately serve to improve care delivered to vulnerable home-limited adults who receive home-based medical care.

Assessment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality Process Measures and Associated Costs

The objective was to examine the relationship between health care costs and quality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Administrative claims were used to calculate 8 process measures for the treatment of RA. Associated health care costs were calculated for members who achieved or did not achieve each of the measures. Medical, pharmacy, and laboratory claims for RA patients (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification 714.x) were extracted from the Optum Clinformatics Datamart database for 2011. Individuals were predominately female and in their mid-fifties. Measure achievement ranged from 55.9% to 80.8%. The mean cost of care for members meeting the measure was $18,644; members who did not meet the measures had a mean cost of $14,973. Primary cost drivers were pharmacy and office expenses, accounting for 42.4% and 26.3% of total costs, respectively. Regression analyses revealed statistically significant associations between biologic usage, which was more prevalent in groups attaining measures, and total expenditure across all measures (Ps < 0.001). Pharmacy costs were similar between both groups. Individuals meeting the measures had a higher proportion of costs accounted for by office visits; those not meeting the measures had a higher proportion of costs from inpatient and outpatient visits. These findings suggest that increased quality may lead to lower inpatient and outpatient hospital costs. Yet, the overall cost of RA care is likely to remain high because of intensive pharmacotherapy regimens.

Improving care delivery and outcomes in pediatric rheumatic diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article highlights efforts in pediatric rheumatology related to optimizing the care provided to patients with pediatric rheumatic diseases and describes various approaches to improve health outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies report low rates of remission, frequent occurrence of comorbidities, disease damage, and decreased health-related quality of life in pediatric rheumatic diseases. The Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network is a quality improvement learning network that has demonstrated improvement in the process of care measures through use of a centralized patient registry, and interventions, including previsit planning, population management, shared decision making, and patient/parent engagement. A pediatric rheumatology patient-powered research network was established to enable patient and caregiver participation in setting research priorities and to facilitate data sharing to answer research questions. Quality measure development and benchmarking are proceeding in multiple pediatric rheumatic diseases.

SUMMARY

The review summarizes the current efforts to improve care delivery and outcomes in pediatric rheumatic diseases through a learning health system approach that harnesses knowledge from the clinical encounter to serve quality improvement, research, and discovery. Incorporating standard approaches to medication treatment plans may reduce variation in care, including using the patient voice to design research studies to bring focus on more patient relevant outcomes.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/COR/A28.

Assessment of American College of Rheumatology-Endorsed Quality Indicators in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Quality Improvement Initiative

BACKGROUND

The American College of Rheumatology endorses 7 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) quality indicators (QIs), which we used to access quality of care at our institution.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of care provided to RA patients at our outpatient rheumatology practice based on adherence to 7 QIs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective paper chart review and included 356 RA patients to determine adherence to each QI. A χ test analyzed trends in the assessment of disease activity and functional status.

RESULTS

There was excellent adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy (99.4%) and managing worsening disease (100%). Assessment of disease activity and functional status increased over the study period (72.8% to 94.2% and 70.8% to 93.4%, respectively). Despite this, none of our patients had disease prognosis classified and documented. Tuberculosis screening was done in 87.9%. Only a small percentage (1.4%) of patients met criteria for a glucocorticoid management plan, thus limiting our assessment of this QI.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and management is likely due to targeting clinical remission. Assessment of disease activity and functional status not only rose each year, but also is higher compared with similar studies. This may be due to an increased awareness of QIs and the utility of objective measures of disease activity. Deficient documentation of prognosis may be due to a lack of awareness of its importance. Suboptimal tuberculosis screening may be an artifact of poor documentation. We propose interventions to improve adherence.

Healthcare Quality Indicators for Physiotherapy Management in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Delphi Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to develop healthcare quality indicators (HCQIs) for the physiotherapy (PT) management of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (HKOA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Two multidisciplinary expert panels, including patients, were instituted. A draft HCQI set was derived from recommendations included in two existing Dutch PT guidelines for HKOA and RA. The panels suggested additional topics, after which a Delphi procedure was performed. All propositions were scored for their potential to represent good-quality PT care (score range 0-9). Based on predefined rules, the Delphi panel HCQIs were discussed and selected. Lastly, every indicator was rephrased, resulting in its output consisting of a numerator and denominator, to facilitate comparisons within and among practices.

RESULTS

After two Delphi rounds, two final sets of 17 HCQI - one for HKOA and one for RA - were composed, both containing 16 process indicators (regarding initial assessment, treatment and evaluation) and one outcome indicator.

CONCLUSIONS

Two sets of HCQIs for PT management in HKOA and RA were developed for measuring the quality of PT care in daily clinical practice. Each indicator was formulated in a measurable way. Future research should focus on the feasibility of both indicator sets for daily clinical practice.

Population Variations in Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment and Outcomes, Northern California, 1998-2009

OBJECTIVE

To assess variations in rheumatoid arthritis treatment and outcomes at the community level from 1998 through 2009.

METHODS

The study used computerized data from 16 Kaiser Permanente Northern California Medical Centers. Mixed modeling was used to assess patterns across time and clinic. The analysis accounted for patient demographics, clustering of patients within Medical Centers, and repeated measures of patients over time. The metric used to measure drug use, months of use per patient per year, included both users and nonusers in the denominator, to account for both prevalence and duration of use.

RESULTS

Assessment was performed of 28,601 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with all levels of severity. From 1998 through 2009, methotrexate use doubled in the typical patient to include 23% of the time they were observed; sulfasalazine and hydrochloroquine use declined. By 2008 through 2009, leflunomide and antitumor necrosis factor agents were used by the typical patient 4% and 9% of the time, respectively. Between 1998 and 2009, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use increased in the typical patient from 38% to 63% of the time, and oral prednisone use declined from 23% to 15% of the time, whereas opioid use initially rose but then fell to 23% of the time. No variations over time were observed for the rate of hospitalized pneumonia or opportunistic infection. Variation across clinics, measured by the difference in drug use between clinics at the 75th and 25th percentiles, was lowest for opioids (25% vs 20% of the time) and greatest for infliximab (< 1% to 3%).

CONCLUSION

Increased use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and declines in prednisone are encouraging. Opioid use may need intervention.

Quality in rheumatoid arthritis care

While most rheumatology practices are characterized by strong commitment to quality of care and continuous improvement to limit disability and optimize quality of life for patients and their families, the actual step toward improvement is often difficult. This is because there are still barriers to be addressed and facilitators to be captured before a satisfying and cost-effective practice management is installed. Therefore, this review aims to assist practicing rheumatologists with quality improvement of their daily practice, focusing on care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. First we define quality of care as "the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge". Often quality is determined by the interplay between structure, processes, and outcomes of care, which is also reflected in the corresponding indicators to measure quality of care. Next, a brief overview is given of the current treatment strategies used in RA, focusing on the tight control strategy, since this strategy forms the basis of international treatment guidelines. Adherence to tight control strategies leads, also in daily practice, to better outcomes in patients with regard to disease control, functional status, and work productivity. Despite evidence in favor of tight control strategies, adherence in daily practice is often challenging. Therefore, the next part of the review focuses on possible barriers and facilitators of adherence, and potential interventions to improve quality of care. Many different barriers and facilitators are known and targeting these can be effective in changing care, but these effects are rather small to moderate. With regard to RA, few studies have tried to improve care, such as a study aiming to increase the number of disease activity measures done by a combination of education and feedback. Two out of the three studies showed markedly positive effects of their interventions, suggesting that change is possible. Finally, a simple step-by-step plan is described, which could be used by rheumatologists in daily practice wanting to improve their RA patient care.

Development of Cardiovascular Quality Indicators for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from an International Expert Panel Using a Novel Online Process

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a high risk of premature cardiovascular disease (CVD). We developed CVD quality indicators (QI) for screening and use in rheumatology clinics.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of the literature on CVD risk reduction in RA and the general population. Based on the best practices identified from this review, a draft set of 12 candidate QI were presented to a Canadian panel of rheumatologists and cardiologists (n = 6) from 3 academic centers to achieve consensus on the QI specifications. The resulting 11 QI were then evaluated by an online modified-Delphi panel of multidisciplinary health professionals and patients (n = 43) to determine their relevance, validity, and feasibility in 3 rounds of online voting and threaded discussion using a modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology.

RESULTS

Response rates for the online panel were 86%. All 11 QI were rated as highly relevant, valid, and feasible (median rating ≥ 7 on a 1-9 scale), with no significant disagreement. The final QI set addresses the following themes: communication to primary care about increased CV risk in RA; CV risk assessment; defining smoking status and providing cessation counseling; screening and addressing hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes; exercise recommendations; body mass index screening and lifestyle counseling; minimizing corticosteroid use; and communicating to patients at high risk of CVD about the risks/benefits of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

CONCLUSION

Eleven QI for CVD care in patients with RA have been developed and are rated as highly relevant, valid, and feasible by an international multidisciplinary panel.

Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify valid and feasible quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic reference databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO), quality indicator repositories, subject experts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible articles referred to adults with OA, focused on development or implementation of quality indicators, and relevant to UK primary care. An English language restriction was used. The date range for the search was January 2000 to August 2013. The majority of OA management guidance has been published within this time frame.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies were quality assessed using previous quality indicator methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Articles were assessed through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter; indicators were mapped to management guidance for OA in adults. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes.

RESULTS

10,853 articles were identified from the search; 32 were included in the review. Fifteen indicators were considered valid and feasible for implementation in primary care; these related to assessment non-pharmacological and pharmacological management. Another 10 indicators were considered less feasible, in various aspects of assessment and management. A small number of recommendations had no published corresponding quality indicator, such as use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No negative ('do not do') indicators were identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

There are well-developed, feasible indicators of quality of care for OA which could be implemented in primary care. Their use would assist the audit and quality improvement for this common and frequently disabling condition.

Quality of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis at family medicine clinics: lessons from Mexico

OBJECTIVE

(i) To develop quality-of-care indicators suitable for evaluation of care for knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) at the primary care level using data from the electronic health records (EHRs) and (ii) to evaluate the quality of care that patients with KHOA receive at family medicine clinics (FMCs).

DESIGN

(i) Development of indicators following the RAND-UCLA method. (ii) A cross-sectional analysis of quality-of-care provided for patients with osteoarthritis.

SETTING

Four FMCs in Mexico City.

PARTICIPANTS

Knee and hip osteoarthritis patients, older than 19 years.

SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION

2009 EHR data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of care was evaluated using six indicators developed in the first stage of this study.

RESULTS

The quality of care evaluation identified that 26.1% of patients were advised in regard to physical exercise, and weight loss was encouraged in 19.7%. Only 5% of patients received acetaminophen as an initial oral analgesic; 54% of patients at risk for gastrointestinal complications received gastroprotective medicines. On average, the percentage of recommended care received was lower for patients who attended only one visit with family physician (17.6%) and higher for those with >3 visits (41.9%).

CONCLUSION

The quality of osteoarthritis care at FMCs in Mexico is suboptimal relative to the standards of care and requires continuous evaluation and implementation of improvement strategies.

Application and feasibility of systemic lupus erythematosus reproductive health care quality indicators at a public urban rheumatology clinic

OBJECTIVES

Quality indicators (QIs) are evidence-based processes of care designed to represent the current standard of care. Reproductive health QIs for the care of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have recently been developed, and examine areas such as pregnancy screening for autoantibodies, treatment of pregnancy-associated antiphospholipid syndrome, and contraceptive counseling. This study was designed to investigate our performance on these QIs and to explore potential gaps in care and demographic predictors of adherence to the QIs in a safety-net hospital.

METHODS

We performed a record review of patients with a diagnosis of SLE at Denver Health Medical Center (DH) through an electronic query of existing medical records and via chart review. Data were limited to female patients between the ages of 18 and 50 who were seen between July 2006 and August 2011.

RESULTS

A total of 137 female patients between the ages of 18 and 50 were identified by ICD-9 code and confirmed by chart review to have SLE. Of these, 122 patients met the updated 1997 American College of Rheumatology SLE criteria and had intact reproductive systems. Only 15 pregnancies were documented during this five-year period, and adherence to autoantibody screening was 100 percent. We did not have any patients who were pregnant and met criteria for pregnancy-associated antiphospholipid syndrome. Sixty-five patients (53%) received potentially teratogenic medications, and 30 (46%) had documented discussions about these medications' potential risk upon their initiation. Predictors of whether patients received appropriate counseling included younger age (OR 0.92, CI 0.87-0.98) and those who did not describe English as their primary language (OR 0.24, CI 0.07-0.87) in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to detect an important gap in care regarding teratogenic medication education to SLE patients of childbearing potential in our public health academic clinic, as only one in two eligible patients had documented appropriate counseling at the initiation of a teratogenic medication.

Do rheumatologists know best? An outcomes study of inconsistent users of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVE

Current recommendations advocate treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in all patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We analyzed short-term disease outcome in patients according to the consistency of DMARD use in a clinical rheumatology cohort.

METHODS

Patients in an RA registry (n = 617) were studied for DMARD use at semi-annual study time points during the first 18 months of follow-up and were divided into 4 groups according to the number of study time points with any DMARD use [0-1 study time points (n = 31), 2 study time points (n = 24), 3 study time points (n = 77), and 4 study time points (n = 485)]. The primary outcome analyses were performed at 24 months and included Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28-CRP), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) change, Short Form Health Survey-12 physical and mental summary scores (SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS), EuroQol 5-Dimensional health index (EQ-5D), and radiographic progression. Unadjusted, adjusted, and analyses stratified for seropositivity and disease activity were performed. A secondary analysis investigated 36-month outcomes.

RESULTS

No significant 24-month outcome differences could be found between the DMARD use categories. For seropositive patients, there was evidence of a linear trend for SF-12 PCS (p = 0.02) and EQ-5D (p = 0.01) with worse outcomes for inconsistent DMARD users. At 36 months, there was a linear trend for higher DAS28-CRP scores for inconsistent users (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found poor correlation between inconsistent DMARD use and short-term disease outcome. However, outcome in the longer term could be negatively influenced by inconsistent DMARD use, as well as short-term outcome in seropositive patients.

Cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary strategy to manage osteoarthritis of the knee: economic evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial study

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a pharmacist-initiated multidisciplinary strategy provides value for money compared to usual care in participants with previously undiagnosed knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Pharmacies were randomly allocated to provide either 1) usual care and a pamphlet or 2) intervention care, which consisted of education, pain medication management by a pharmacist, physiotherapy-guided exercise, and communication with the primary care physician. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined for patients assigned to each treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined.

RESULTS

From the Ministry of Health perspective, the average patient in the intervention group generated slightly higher costs compared with usual care. Similar findings were obtained when using the societal perspective. The intervention resulted in ICERs of $232 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -1,530, 2,154) per QALY gained from the Ministry of Health perspective and $14,395 (95% CI 7,826, 23,132) per QALY gained from the societal perspective, compared with usual care.

CONCLUSION

A pharmacist-initiated, multidisciplinary program was good value for money from both the societal and Ministry of Health perspectives.

Development of quality indicators for an integrated approach of knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of disability worldwide. Knee OA care is often suboptimal. A first necessary step in quality improvement is to gain a clear insight into usual care. We developed a set of evidence-based quality indicators for multidisciplinary high-quality knee OA care.

METHODS

A Rand-modified Delphi method was used to develop quality indicators for knee OA diagnosis, therapy, and followup. Recommendations were extracted from international guidelines as well as existing sets of quality indicators and scored by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Based on median score, prioritization, and agreement, recommendations were labeled as having a high, uncertain, or low potential to measure quality of care and were discussed in a consensus meeting for inclusion or exclusion. Two final validation rounds yielded a core set of recommendations, which were translated into quality indicators.

RESULTS

From a total of 86 recommendations and existing indicators, a core set of 29 recommendations was derived that allowed us to define high-quality knee OA care. From this core set, 22 recommendations were considered to be measurable in clinical practice and were transformed into a final set of 21 quality indicators regarding diagnosis, lifestyle/education/devices, therapy, and followup.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides a robust set of 21 quality indicators for high-quality knee OA care, measurable in clinical practice. These process indicators may be used to measure usual care and evaluate quality improvement interventions across the entire spectrum of disciplines involved in knee OA care.

Patterns of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use in rheumatoid arthritis patients after 2002: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To report and synthesize patterns of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use reported in observational studies of patients with established and early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after publication of the American College of Rheumatology guidelines promoting universal DMARD use.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for full-length articles in English published between January 1, 2002 and October 1, 2012 that examined DMARD use. The data abstracted from articles included the patient characteristics, country of study, time period studied, patient source, and treating physician type. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

We reviewed 1,287 abstracts; 98 full-length articles were selected for additional review and 27 studies describing 28 cohorts of patients were included. Twelve studies described data from cohorts of patients with established RA, and DMARD use in this group of studies ranged from 73-100%. Five studies described data from patients sourced through administrative data and demonstrated consistently lower DMARD use, ranging from 30-63%. Three studies conducted population-based surveys to define cases of RA where DMARD use ranged from 47-73%. Eight studies investigated patients with early RA. DMARD use among patients followed by rheumatologists ranged from 77-98%, whereas DMARD use reported for patients seen by a mix of physicians was significantly lower (39-63%).

CONCLUSION

DMARD use in studies from RA cohorts or registries (in which patients were followed by rheumatologists) ranged from 73-100%, compared with 30-73% in studies from administrative data or population-based surveys (in which patients were not necessarily receiving rheumatology subspecialty care).

Assessing process of care in rheumatoid arthritis at McGill University hospitals

OBJECTIVE

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), quality indicators (QIs) are tools used to measure process of care. This study aimed to assess performance of selected QIs from the 2004 Arthritis Foundation's QI Set at 2 major sites of a university network of teaching hospitals.

METHODS

The charts and electronic hospital records of 76 RA patients were audited to determine adherence to QIs. Logistic multivariate regression analyses were performed to investigate potential determinants of nonadherence and propose measures to facilitate better QI compliance, as a potential strategy towards RA care improvement.

RESULTS

We identified consistent observance of QIs mandating prescription of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy for all patients, drug adjustment with disease activity, prednisone tapering, and bisphosphonate therapy if indicated for patients on glucocorticoids. However, there was either lack of documentation or true inconsistent adherence to QIs dealing with radiograph performance, functional capacity assessment, and screening for hepatitis and tuberculosis before commencement of methotrexate and biologic agents, respectively. For the specific QIs analyzed, we did not find any definite independent associations with the studied variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that while there is frequent evidence for adherence to certain RA quality care standards at our centers, there is less compliance to others. Strategies to optimize the performance or documentation of those found most lacking, namely, functional capacity and screening for specific drug contraindications, could improve patient care. Radiographic disease monitoring, while lacking, may represent a move toward other more sensitive methods of RA progression detection, such as joint ultrasound. The inclusion of patient- and physician-derived information could help elucidate the reasons underlying nonadherence.

Quality indicators for inflammatory bowel disease: development of process and outcome measures

INTRODUCTION

Variation in adherence to management guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suggests variable quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) can be developed to measure the structure, processes, and outcomes of health care delivery. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop a set of process and outcome QIs to define quality of care for IBD.

METHODS

Guidelines and position papers for IBD published from 2006 to 2011 were reviewed for potential QIs, which were rated by a multidisciplinary panel. Potential process and outcome QIs were discussed at 3 moderated in-person meetings, with pre-meeting and post-meeting confidential electronic voting. Panelists rated the validity and feasibility of QIs on a 1 through 9 scale; disagreement was assessed using a validated index. QIs rated above 8 were selected for the final set.

RESULTS

More than 500 potential process QIs were extracted from guidelines. Following ratings and discussion by the first panel, 35 process QIs were selected for literature review. After the second panel, 10 process QIs were included in the final set. Candidate outcome QIs were then derived from physician, nurse, and patient input and ratings, in addition to outcomes associated with candidate process QIs. None of the top QIs exhibited disagreement.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of QIs for IBD was developed with expert interpretation of the literature and multidisciplinary input. Outcome QIs focused largely on remission and quality of life, whereas process QIs were aimed at therapeutic optimization and patient safety. Evaluation of these QIs in clinical practice is needed to assess the correlation of performance on process QIs with performance on outcome QIs.

Pharmacist-initiated intervention trial in osteoarthritis: a multidisciplinary intervention for knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a commonly undiagnosed condition and care is often not provided. Pharmacists are uniquely placed for launching a multidisciplinary intervention for knee OA.

METHODS

We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with pharmacies providing either intervention care or usual care (14 and 18 pharmacies, respectively). The intervention included a validated knee OA screening questionnaire, education, pain medication management, physiotherapy-guided exercise, and communication with the primary care physician. Usual care consisted of an educational pamphlet. The primary outcome was the pass rate on the Arthritis Foundation's quality indicators for OA. Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS), the Paper Adaptive Test-5D (PAT-5D), and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine patients were assigned to the control (n = 66) and intervention (n = 73) groups. There were no differences between the groups in baseline measures. The overall quality indicator pass rate was significantly higher in the intervention arm compared to the control arm (difference of 45.2%; 95% confidence interval 34.5, 55.9). Significant improvements were observed for the intervention care group as compared to the usual care group in the WOMAC global, pain, and function scores at 3 and 6 months (all P < 0.01); the PAT-5D daily activity scores at 3 and 6 months (both P < 0.05); the PAT-5D pain scores at 6 months (P = 0.05); the HUI3 single-attribute pain scores at 3 and 6 months (all P < 0.05); and the LEFS scores at 6 months (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists can launch a multidisciplinary intervention to identify knee OA cases, improve the utilization of treatments, and improve function, pain, and quality of life.

Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality indicators (QIs) are used in many healthcare settings to measure, compare, and improve quality of care. For the efficient development of high-quality QIs, rigorous, approved, and evidence-based development methods are needed. Clinical practice guidelines are a suitable source to derive QIs from, but no gold standard for guideline-based QI development exists. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development.

METHODS

We systematically searched medical literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and grey literature. Two researchers selected publications reporting methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. In order to describe and compare methodological approaches used in these publications, we extracted detailed information on common steps of guideline-based QI development (topic selection, guideline selection, extraction of recommendations, QI selection, practice test, and implementation) to predesigned extraction tables.

RESULTS

From 8,697 hits in the database search and several grey literature documents, we selected 48 relevant references. The studies were of heterogeneous type and quality. We found no randomized controlled trial or other studies comparing the ability of different methodological approaches to guideline-based development to generate high-quality QIs. The relevant publications featured a wide variety of methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development, especially regarding guideline selection and extraction of recommendations. Only a few studies reported patient involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to determine which elements of the methodological approaches identified, described, and compared in this review are best suited to constitute a gold standard for guideline-based QI development. For this research, we provide a comprehensive groundwork.

Studies pertaining to the ACOVE quality criteria: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To identify and uniformly describe studies employing the Assessing Care Of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) quality indicators within a comprehensive thematic model that reflects how the indicators were used.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL was conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies meeting our criteria published prior to January 2010. Data extraction Included studies were analyzed and described by two independent researchers.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 41 articles met our selection criteria. Studies were classified into the themes 'Application of indicators' (32 studies) and '

ANALYSIS

and development of indicators' (13 studies). 'Application' studies included assessing quality of care, influencing behavior of health professionals and examining the association of quality of care with other factors. 'Analysis and development' included studies developing new indicator sets, and those adapting and validating the original quality indicators to new settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The indicators were used in a wide range of applications with two main foci: the assessment of quality of care for elderly patients, and investigating the feasibility of similar indicators and their adaptation to new settings. Very few of the studies published to date have addressed the goal of care improvement. We foresee an important role for application of indicators that proactively help health-care professionals to deliver the right care at the right time, for example by resorting to decision support systems.

Measuring process of arthritis care: a proposed set of quality measures for the process of care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The ability to assess quality of care is a necessary component of continuous quality improvement. The assessment typically is accomplished by determination of compliance with a defined set of quality measures (QMs). The objective of this effort was to establish a set of QMs for the assessment of the process of care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

A 12-member working group composed of representatives from the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Board of Pediatrics, and Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals was assembled to guide the project. Delphi questionnaires were sent to 237 health professionals involved in the care of children with JIA. A total of 471 items in 23 domains were identified. The working group met via 4 live e-meetings during which results from the Delphi questionnaires were distilled to a reduced draft set. Each working group member selected a proposed QM to investigate and present evidence from the literature as to its attributes and appropriateness for inclusion into the set. Nominal group technique was used to come to consensus on a proposed set of QMs.

RESULTS

The proposed set contains 12 QMs within 4 health care domains. Each QM consists of a statement of 1) the assessment to be completed, 2) when the first assessment should be completed and a suggested frequency of assessment during followup, 3) recommendations of appropriate tools or methods of assessment, and 4) initial performance goals.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the proposed QM set will improve the process of care, facilitate continuous quality improvement, and eventuate in improved health outcomes of children with JIA.

Development of quality indicators to evaluate the monitoring of SLE patients in routine clinical practice

The assessment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients in routine clinical practice is mainly based on the experience of the treating physician. This carries the risk of unwanted variability. Variability may have an impact on the quality of care offered to SLE patients, thereby affecting outcomes. Recommendations represent systematically developed statements to help practitioners in reducing variability. However, major difficulties arise in the application of recommendations into clinical practice. In this respect, the use of quality indicators may raise the awareness among rheumatologists regarding potential deficiencies in services and improve the quality of health care. The aim of this study was to develop a set of quality indicators (QI) for SLE by translating into QIs the recently developed EULAR Recommendations for monitoring SLE patients in routine clinical practice and observational studies. Eleven QIs have been developed referring to the use of validated activity and damage indices in routine clinical practice, general evaluation of drug toxicity, evaluation of comorbidities, eye evaluation, laboratory assessment, evaluation of the presence of chronic viral infections, documentation of vaccination and of antibody testing at baseline. A disease specific set of quality assessment tools should help physicians deliver high quality of care across populations. Routine updates will be needed.